4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons [Archive] - Roleplaying game resources community

Morgul Maggot

16th August 2007, 09:46 PM

Well, I just read the WotC press release for 4th edition - we are looking at May next year.

Grrr... Now, they are combining this with a lot of new content too - D&D Insider, an online tabletop environment for people that want to play with friends from all over and more... It looks cool - but c'mon - I have at least $1000 in 3.5 loot..... at least that. That is not to mention the hundreds of dollars I have spent to streamline my gamine for the system.

I just have some questions and I will probably get my answers as the day wears through;

What is going to happen to the OGL?

My answer: They will have slipping sales as people go to other sources. Instead of playing their d20 game with the core books and supplementing with 3rd party OGL stuff, many people will move to 3rd party core books and supplement with 3rd party stuff.

How much support for online gaming?

My answer: WotC is going to focus on the online tabletop game with a frenzy. They will be supplementing with everything they can. I believe we will not be seeing any OGL support for 4th edition and Hasbro/WotC are going to keep it in house. Once they capture an online audience and cover it with Gleemax and their own marketing they will take even more of the market share.
[/b]

I was hesitant to switch from 2nd Edition for the same reasons... mostly since I'd sunk ALOT of money in materials. I hadn't made the same plunge with 3.0 or 3.5, because I feel like it'd be the same as having multiple versions of the same movie... LOTR in Beta, VHS, DVD and HD-DVD... pretty pointless, really. No matter what the flaws are in any given gaming system, it's up to the individual GM's to decide what they like to use and how best to implement it. Flaws can be worked out usually with house rules.

Now, to contradict myself a little, I did enjoy playing 3.5 D&D with the few groups I've managed to round up and would love to sit around the table again, dice in hand :) However, I don't plan on buying into 4th Edition simply because I don't want to end up with more books on my shelves that'll see little use or will end up being replaced by 4.5 in about a year.....

Skurvy

16th August 2007, 11:29 PM

Well, apart from being a little pissed that they only gave 6 years to 3rd edition, I will wait and see what they come up with for the 4th edition before I even think about it. Most likely we will end up using both systems, much like the switchover from 2nd edition.

I guess this means the end of support for d20 Modern now ... I was wondering why it had been almost a year since they had published any material for it.

Skurvy

Woz

17th August 2007, 04:52 AM

Ahh, crap! This was the year I was going to try and start up an RPG club at my school. I was planning on using 3.5 D&D and the SRD exclusively. Now, I guess I could just go ahead with my plans, but I was going to collect dues and buy books for the group with the money. Do I wait to buy stuff until 4.0 is published or do I scarf up all the "old" 3.5 stuff and run with that? Does it even matter?

All the new stuff sounds cool (like it's supposed to) but I hate having to shell out more money to learn the "revisions" to a game in which I feel that I still have so much to learn as it stands. And I don't believe in "subscribing" to some service to play a game. The online stuff sounds really nice (if it is as they say) but I am not paying some ongoing fee to access that stuff. If I wanted to do that, I be playing WoW right now!

MidnightReign

17th August 2007, 05:14 AM

:rant: / :good:

I'm happy they're finally starting to realize the potential of the digital tabletop, and look to be putting some resources into that end of things. For a long time, I've felt that the existing 3rd party options were either really crap or too expensive. (Seriously, one of the online tabletops was $20 per player, making your average campaign cost $100-140 to run online!)

HOWEVER...

I'll be damned if I'm going to run out and spend another $400+ on books for a new edition, when I like the current system just fine. Thanks to the OGL, I'll be able to find 3.5 compatible supplements from third party publishers for years to come, so I see no reason to "upgrade".

I think this was done purely for monetary gain, rather than some pressing need, and in the end I'll resist it until the day when every gamer I play with refuses to play 3.5 or some other d20 variant.

k-raov

17th August 2007, 07:31 AM

Double post, here and at T3:

Here's the splash page. It has a couple videos that give a lot of info.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welco...ntions/gencon07 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07)
[/b]

Woz, somewhere I read that, according to Bill Slavecik (I don't care how its spelled), you should wait until 4th ed to start your campaigns. Ummm...

And yes, Wizards does recommend you begin new campaigns with Fourth Edition. “It’s not going to be as huge a jump,” as from Second Edition to Third Edition, said Slavicsek, “but there’s enough changing in the core system of how we are doing classes and races and characters that we’re not even gonna attempt it—we’re just telling you it’s better to start over.”[/b]

MR, WotC has been pulling a lot of licenses recently. As far as I can tell, it's gonna be "Use this only" kind of thing. Whether that means that you can still use OGL for 3rd party printings or not, since it technically is property of WotC, befuddles me.

Who knows. Everyone's been predicting that they're going to release 4e at some point. I think it just came a lot sooner than everyone was expecting. I mean, WotC is a corporation. As a corporation, they are going to do whatever it is that gives them the most money. That's their purpose as a business. I predict that 4e will do fantastically, given that ENWorld and even WotC's sites are BOTH down due to the massive amounts of traffic today. If that's any suggestion as to how many people are interested, jeez. I mean, D&D is the top-selling RPG. Period. It's a juggernaut, and even if a handful of people get all pissy and don't buy their products, I'm sure that it won't even make the tiniest little ding of a dent in their sales.

I will be checking the books out once they hit stores. I will be researching very thoroughly as much as I can before I make the purchase. That's just good sense.

wEs

MindForge

17th August 2007, 10:43 AM

For one... the online content is going to be awesome. I will subscribe. DONE! Oh, WotC... where do I give my first born... make that second born... my first one is a berserker you don't want him.

I have heard that the classes are not going to be fighter, cleric, etc... they are going to be more refined. So I am betting on either a new "close to classless" system or a wide variety of roles instead... who knows - they might only make a few classes but I see a more "power based" system instead where you construct your character....

k-raov

17th August 2007, 05:19 PM

If you can access the WotC site, apparently they're taking subscriptions to D&DI. Not only is it free until 2008, but they're selecting playtesters from there as well.

wEs

MindForge

17th August 2007, 07:14 PM

Hopefully as a master level RPGA GM I will get some news from them on playtesting.

The Sentinel

18th August 2007, 03:59 AM

My 2 cents, here it goes. I repect the buisness aspect of launching a new product to further sales, however I will not judge it till I get it in my hands or see more meat about it.

Nuff Said (At least for the moment.)

Delta

18th August 2007, 02:35 PM

On the subject of new classes... from what I gather out of several educated/less-than-educated speculations, they might either go back to just a few core classes (Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Dwarf, end of list.) or, in accordance with the shit ton of usermade variant classes, switch to a more or less classless system.

I'm expecting the latter, though I can see people getting pissy about DnD with some kind of WoW-style talent trees to specialise in.
I e make a fighter that specialises in rage, barbarian!
Make a cleric that specialises in nature, druid! Cleric that specialises in combat and holyness, paladin! You could combine those specialisations and be a paladruid or druidin!
Much more customisation, but probably just 2 or 3 viable 'builds' per class. Plus, munchkin heaven.

None of that's official of course, but it's a possibility. I don't know. I'll wait and see though I don't know if I can be bothered to spend all that money AGAIN.

MindForge

18th August 2007, 11:18 PM

There is already some insight on a fighter class. So they will be using classes for sure, psion is a core class too.

The Fighter will choose a specialization when they start - it might be blade, hammer, or axe. I think they are pretty generic like all one handed blades. Then they can choose an associated special attack - like a spear attack bypassing AC that can be used once per round. You will still be able to use other weapons and when you hit a higher level I bet you can choose another power for the same weapon or get a power for a different weapon. So, a fighter will probably be able to become a ranged master by choosing bow as their primary weapon. In this characters will have a Sword Fighter and Axe Fighter, etc...

Mages will have access to spell like abilities - like warlock invocations and have some spells each round. I hope that all wizards will be forced into specialist roles - that is how I have always seen wizards. Like a force specialized wizard could fire a weak magic missile all the time.

Clerics should be specialized - right now I think they need toned down. I think they should choose a primary domain and then a secondary domain. Their primary domain would determine their spontaneous casting spell. That would put more feel of religion in the character.

Monks should have to choose a style when they create their character... I hope that they are doing serious revamps like this to the characters all around. It doesn't limit the character but pushes them into a more defined role. This makes it easier for them to role-play a character. If I was a player and made a monk, it is much different than making a Monk of Monkey Style. Once I choose monkey style I begin to develop some connections to my character as a player - connections that make it easier to role-play. There should probably be no less than 2 dozen styles presented in the book plus a format to create your own.

I could go on and on about this stuff and I really like what I have read about the fighter so far.

colonialbob

19th August 2007, 12:21 AM

I do like the sound of that... where did you read it?

MindForge

19th August 2007, 02:16 AM

From what I have read at ENWorld, WotC, and Gleemax.

There will be less classes than provided in the first PHB for 3.5. So I bet we are looking at fewer classes.

The Bard (probably still in)
The Barbarian (gone, probably) It can be reproduced with the fighter
The Cleric (YES)
The Druid (my bet is the druid is still around)
The Fighter (YES!)
The Monk (Probaby in)
The Psion (YES!)
The Paladin (YES!)
The Rogue (YES!) I can't see them removing the rogue
The Sorcerer (YES)
The Wizard (YES)

There will be less than 11 player classes in the PHB - I don't know what that really means. I would guess the 9 above - the barbarian will probably get the axe and be created through feat selection.

I know the fighter weapon capabilities will be in the game - they will be spells for fighters - akin to ToB

Now, some of that in the above post is speculation. The classes will have defined roles more than classes - you might have a fighter whose defined role is ranged attacks - that is their niche. You might have a cleric that is a tank - their role... I don't know how they are going to actually translate this but I do know they are reducing the overall number of classes and instead making them larger mechanically. A fighter will no longer occupy two pages in the PHB - there will be indepth customizing and easy in-game translation of those abilities. So they say.

k-raov

19th August 2007, 04:23 AM

I think the Barbarian could be done with a fighter path, but I also feel the same way about the Druid and Clerics. I don't like Monk, except in oriental games, since the Western and Eastern monks are quite different. I heard Sorceror and Wizard were getting upgraded a lot to diversify them a bit more.

As far as I've heard, they're using a lot of SAGA, in conjunction with ToB:BoNS, to set up 4e. In fact, I've heard some people in interviews go so far as to say SAGA was a "test release" of 4e rules.

wEs

MindForge

19th August 2007, 11:06 PM

I have heard the same thing about SAGA - I might actually pick it up. Supposedly, it is akin to what 4th edition is going to be.

Barrok

26th August 2007, 08:49 PM

I think the thing I can't get over is that I have spent so much money on 3.5 edition stuff to suddenly go up to 4th edition next year.. it would have to be worth it and a sufficient change in the system to warrent buying the books. I guess I have always been somewhat worried about Wizards having D&D as I have seen how from edition to edition of M:tG they changed the ruleset and made certain cards illegal or restricted that you had to (if playing in a tournament) go get more of the new set.... This unfortunately seems to be the case with D&D.

(sometimes I really do not like big business!!)

Smilin_Bandit

27th August 2007, 02:06 AM

You and me both Barrok. Like I said earlier on, it's almost gotten to where its cheaper to go back to women and booze. They could have made a crap ton of cash just by selling the online version of it and adapting it to the 3.5 rules, but they use it as a gimmick to sucker old players into buying this new edition which is going to cost out the bum.

It actually chaps my nethers quite a bit. What makes it worse for me is I've actually been working and studying to become proficient enough a writer to go to work for these yahoos. So as you can see, I'm torn. Do I continue in the direction I've been going in my studies for the past however many years I've been in college, and go to work for these guys, helping them to rip folks off; or stick to my guns when it comes to these guys ripping off consumers and quit buyin their stuff and find a different line of work? Very frustrating. Very very frustrating.

k-raov

27th August 2007, 02:59 AM

Fortunately for me, I sold all of my 3.5 books sometime last year.

And SB, you don't HAVE to work for WotC. There's a lot of smaller-press companies that do rather well. Hell, you could always go solo on the indie market, and if you get enough people interested, might make a splash.

wEs

Knight of Roses

27th August 2007, 05:12 AM

Well, to defend WotC, since someone has to:

1) They are a business and they want to make money.

2) We do not have enough information to fairly judge 4th ed yet, so, let us wait and see.

3) It has been seven years since 3rd edition released, not a bad stretch of time between editions really. WW's WoD system has gone through as many editions in a much shorter time. Is it bad for games to change and evolve?

4) You do not have to stop playing 3rd Ed, if you are happy with what you have, keep playing it. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy 4th ed. Just as no one forced you to buy what you have now.

Sunfist

27th August 2007, 06:32 PM

Lapis Lazuli

29th August 2007, 12:32 AM

:huh: Wow KoR,that was the most rational thing I have heard since coming here...you sure your not lost?

Smilin_Bandit

29th August 2007, 12:38 AM

Rational my bum! My gold purse wants retribution! Dirty thievin blighters. They know I can't resist buying their junk. It's like crack for me, I tell you! CRACK! I foresee divorce in my near future because of this 4th ed. CHEESE N RICE! Will it never end?!?

Lapis Lazuli

30th August 2007, 12:55 AM

Ignorance is bliss, cherish it!
*We could hypnotize you into believing you never heard of this...4rth Ed!I have been watching this derrin Brown master of mind control,and I believe I just may be able to pull this off!

Flee! Flee from the zombie hamsters!
*Because if you knew where these hamsters had been...

My gold purse wants retribution! Dirty thievin blighters. They know I can't resist buying their junk. It's like crack for me, I tell you! CRACK!
*So bandito of dirty laundries!How does it feel when someone smiles as they bandito from you!Oh yes,they are smiling!

MindForge

30th August 2007, 11:06 AM

I for one am jumping on board with enthusiastic glee (heh heh). I really like where I think the system is headed as far as mechanics go. I have always been a power gamer DM though. I like to explain combat and really get into it, sure the other parts are cool. But nothing... nothing is cooler than a player dropping a 20 in combat when they absolutely need it. Well, killing a player with the same 20 is fun sometimes too.

I just really like what I am reading so far. Remember, the guys working on D&D want to put out a great game - this isn't about money to a lot of them. Several of them could easily start their own indy game company and make more. They are there because they love Dungeons and Dragons.

Yes, I am putting aside 10 bucks a month right now for the PHB, MM, and DMG for May, June and July. I will be able to afford each one as they hit, plus any goodies that come out with it and my first months of Insider. I just want to put the money aside now just to have the fun of taking the 10 bucks as a ritual and putting it in my dice bag.... and snickering like a clone of Raistlin and Tasslehoff if they were combined into the same person.

Smilin_Bandit

31st August 2007, 05:06 AM

*sniffle* It seems I am alone in my distress. *mopes* Dirty blighters, stealin my hard stolen chink. It's just not right I tell ya.

~Smilin_Bandit~ :top:

Lapis Lazuli

31st August 2007, 05:54 PM

B) There,there Bandito,look at the bright side.It's that much more stuff for the minds of the tower to analyze and playwith.Its the kind of thing that keeps Barrok and his madmen from overrunning the world with chaos and destruction...well that and Barrok lost his car keys long ago,so he almost never leaves home now because he is too embarressed to ask Lithuse for a ride,and you know what happens if you let Muse drive.Skurvy only wants to hang on the windows with his suction cup hand/knee pads [like so many garfields who are skurvy wanna-bees].Col. Bob drives a car from a 30's detective movies,and always makes Barrok ride on the outside [especially in forests].I fly, and well ...to be honest Bandito,noone wants to ride double on your horse with you because you can't keep your hands out of anyones pockets or purses.

Barrok

1st September 2007, 06:44 AM

Giving it a lot of thought if 4th edition still can somehow draw on the various books of 3.x then I think it may be a good thing. Its just going to be a bit of a pain altering some stats (I have d20isized some old rolemaster stuff, so it shouldn't be overly difficult). I guess the major worry is that I told my wife 4th edition will be coming out and she just gave me a look of "4th edition eh... ". Hopefully this is not divorce material!! ;)

Lapis Lazuli

2nd September 2007, 01:09 AM

:bagjob: Anonomous tip;
...4rth Ed not divorce material [stop]
...moving Lithuse into your home,now thats divorce material [stop]

lithuse

4th September 2007, 07:26 AM

:bagjob: Anonomous tip;
...4rth Ed not divorce material [stop]
...moving Lithuse into your home,now thats divorce material [stop]
[/b]
You say that now....

Eh, your probably right, but only because the ladies never forget a....unique face like mine, or arms or legs, or tenticles, beeks, horns, antlers, psudopods, slimy appendiges, etc.

Come to think about it, most divorces end in my runninng away. Oh well, I'll just have to move in with LL :happy_dance:

mexal

4th September 2007, 02:22 PM

Unfortunately it looks as if they will be sticking with very mechanical systems... wonder if there will be any mention of more rules-lights styles of play such as in True20?

The drawback with overly-mechanistic systems is the compatibility issues (as well as a tendency to slow down role-play while you roll shed-loads of dice), if you stick to a minimalist approach it is much easier to convert other material to use with the system.

But I abstract everything anyway. Get to the core of the game mechanic and run it with a minimalist approach to the rules, concentrate on the role-playing. Guess 4e will get the same treatment at my table :-)

Sunfist

5th September 2007, 03:43 PM

Unfortunately it looks as if they will be sticking with very mechanical systems... wonder if there will be any mention of more rules-lights styles of play such as in True20?[/b]
Just curious, what makes you say that? Everything I've read has seemed to indicate the opposite.

mexal

5th September 2007, 04:53 PM

Haven't heard that much, to be honest... it just seems to be their tendency (coupled with the urge to sell more miniatures for those who skirmish rather than role-play their combats!).

Sunfist

6th September 2007, 08:01 PM

Again, I don't remotely mean this to sound confrontational, but you are basing this on their "tendency"? I'm just saying that at Gen Con, it really seemed like they were saying that they were going to be moving away from a very rules intensive system to something more open and flowing.

mexal

6th September 2007, 11:54 PM

Ahhh, grasshopper - not having been at Gen Con US you likely have the advantage of me.

After 30 years of role-playing, I do look at the tendencies and styles of different companies & designers, as well as whatever they say... which is often carefully choreographed in the run-up to the release of a new system (or major redesign of a new system, as in this case). I'd be delighted if they moved to a less mechanical approach, but in the end it doesn't matter - I abstract and run my games the way I want anyway! The ruleset is only a guideline, read and then left on the shelf... or at most only opened during character generation.

If you have hard information, I'm listening. Not in the slightest bit interested in confrontation.

Vivamort

7th September 2007, 12:21 AM

You catch most of what was said at GenCon through the video presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM

Sunfist

7th September 2007, 06:04 PM

If you have hard information, I'm listening. Not in the slightest bit interested in confrontation.
[/b]
Well, arguably we all just have to wait and see. In a way, I'd prefer them to make 4th Edition even more rules intensive because it might help out sales of a few other favorite products of mine that aren't. ;)

le_dartagnan

9th March 2008, 05:05 PM

<div class='quotemain'>
Well, I just read the WotC press release for 4th edition - we are looking at May next year.

Grrr... Now, they are combining this with a lot of new content too - D&D Insider, an online tabletop environment for people that want to play with friends from all over and more... It looks cool - but c'mon - I have at least $1000 in 3.5 loot..... at least that. That is not to mention the hundreds of dollars I have spent to streamline my gamine for the system.

I just have some questions and I will probably get my answers as the day wears through;

What is going to happen to the OGL?

My answer: They will have slipping sales as people go to other sources. Instead of playing their d20 game with the core books and supplementing with 3rd party OGL stuff, many people will move to 3rd party core books and supplement with 3rd party stuff.

How much support for online gaming?

My answer: WotC is going to focus on the online tabletop game with a frenzy. They will be supplementing with everything they can. I believe we will not be seeing any OGL support for 4th edition and Hasbro/WotC are going to keep it in house. Once they capture an online audience and cover it with Gleemax and their own marketing they will take even more of the market share.
[/b]

I was hesitant to switch from 2nd Edition for the same reasons... mostly since I'd sunk ALOT of money in materials. I hadn't made the same plunge with 3.0 or 3.5, because I feel like it'd be the same as having multiple versions of the same movie... LOTR in Beta, VHS, DVD and HD-DVD... pretty pointless, really. No matter what the flaws are in any given gaming system, it's up to the individual GM's to decide what they like to use and how best to implement it. Flaws can be worked out usually with house rules.

Now, to contradict myself a little, I did enjoy playing 3.5 D&D with the few groups I've managed to round up and would love to sit around the table again, dice in hand :) However, I don't plan on buying into 4th Edition simply because I don't want to end up with more books on my shelves that'll see little use or will end up being replaced by 4.5 in about a year.....
[/b][/quote]

Whatever system you use doesn't matter, it's all how you feel like using it. As long as you have fun.

MindForge

9th March 2008, 07:44 PM

I completely agree. Right now, I am really into Mutants and Masterminds.

I have always been a firm believer that a game won't make a better gaming group. The gaming is all about the group sitting at the table and whether we are playing a drinking game with shots of Cabo Wabo or delving into The Tomb of [Insert Scary Name] or playing a board game. All that matters is the group and the social action. I am lucky to have an awesome group of 6-7 friends that are all great people that I have known for a long time.

And... they all like Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 - well, I have one purist that thinks Rolemaster is the greatest game ever made even though he has only played it less than a dozen times... it was the crit charts probably.

Sorry.. getting off topic.

I am still eagerly awaiting the release of 4th and I really want to get my hands on the new OGL. I already have a lot of a campaign world constructed. Probably around 100-120 hours of work into the setting already... at least. We are all looking forward to the release of the game and everyone is thinking about their new character.

I just wish I could put my NPC's together... and the gnoll better be in the Monster Manual... :) I need it first thing for the game.

MindForge

12th May 2008, 05:32 AM

Ok. The gnoll is in the Monster Manual for 4e and from the sounds of it they have really overhauled the theme and idea of the monsters. Gnolls will now have pack bonuses when attacking in number and hobgoblins will fight akin to roman legionnaires.

They have really overhauled the creatures. Dragons are a big overhaul too. There are 'elite' creatures that are similar to the mmo type elites where it could take on a group of their level.

I already have the gift set of all three books ordered. It only runs like $70 on Amazon for all three... good deal.

MindForge

12th May 2008, 07:45 AM

I think 4e is starting to look cooler and cooler. Some things are drastically changing but I think - from what I have heard - it is nt going to be drastically different.

There are class talent trees, you don't just automatically get something. It is much more broad. You also get feats more frequently and the feats are not as strict on requirements opening more options for characters.

CR has been removed and now monsters are kind of back the way they were in 2nd edition where they were a certain level and they give a specific amount of XP. So if you want to create a fifth level challenging encounter you take a 5000xp budget. This will create some really cool variables in encounters because if it is one creature it will be mean and higher than the characters based off the total xp that creature gives.

Wizards don't have familiars.

There is so much more.

Now that 4th edition is less than a month away, what do you think about the whole thing?

CountFalchiezVander

12th May 2008, 03:26 PM

Mindforge, could you be a dear and post the link to the information pertaining to the gnoll and the loss of wizard familiars. Thank you kindly. And I do enjoy the new Xp format you were discussing in the above post, makes the DM's job more interesting in my eyes when it comes to creature encounters.

MindForge

12th May 2008, 06:21 PM

It is in the recent mailbag podcasts of Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls. I listen to all that stuff, it is really informative.

All the races have had rebuilds, a few have been dropped and a few have been added. The idea of there being a goblin, kobold, and orc as very similar races is gone. They thought, what happens when you fight these things, what do they do. So, now instead of just having a few hp difference and a better Dex they have been revamped completely to fit a theme of the character itself.

Now, ettin will have two actions but their actions can interfere with one another. Gnolls act like really smart hyena - even though might be one of the smartest mammals with an intelligence akin to elephants according to a recent National Geographic I read (well 2 year old mag).

They want familiars to be more engaging or not used at all. They will probably be added as a feat of some sort.

I really like the removal of cleric domains. Now they have several feats that show the amount of devotion a cleric has to a diety.

The five foot step has changed to 'shift' and there are some abilities that affect it I guess.

Gone is the ability to achieve 16+ crits. Right now the best crit you can get is 19+ They have focused more on what you can do to add potency to the crit. Crits are no longer verified, and crits don't double damage they maximize dice. I guess there are a few ways to increase the crit but they did not go into it. Weapons do not have their own crit ranges anymore, they have accuracy bonuses to hit.

The link for the podcast;

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4arch/pod

Start at 16 for actual 4e stuff. The mailbag sessions (I think 19-20) are really good.

Barrok

15th May 2008, 02:49 AM

It actually sounds like quite an overhaul fo the game - I really expected just another lame revision of the rules.

Is there any credence about a limited multiclassing - where you could maybe have two distinct classes but not any other levels a third +?

MindForge

15th May 2008, 06:13 AM

Yeah. Multi-classing is changing, prestige classes are kind of getting a change and are becoming paragon classes and then epic progressions so your character has to basically choose your class, then in your teens you choose a new paragon class, then as you get into the epics you choose your epic progression.

I have read that the idea of a prestige class is gone, you are going to be able to tweak your classes to do what you want with feats that come much sooner - my guess is one every two levels. Along with that, you choose talents from your class that make you different. You are going to really be able to change yourself using talents and feats. They are making a lot of customization available that will basically remove the idea of prestige classes, at least that is my understanding. Feat trees are gone I guess, except in some really cool instances. If you have seen Iron Kingdoms, they might borrow a little flavor from it for feats.

Barrok

15th May 2008, 06:28 AM

Have you any clue if any feats will be class dependant or any where you have to have some manner of prerequisites?

MindForge

15th May 2008, 06:31 AM

Barrok

15th May 2008, 06:45 AM

That does make sense making them more nurture based than nature based in their acquisition (wow WoTC actually joining in on the psychological debate of nature vs. nurture!!) I guess that with this redefining of feats the choice of them will actually give more flavour to the character creation story if they have chosen certain racial flavour feats which are not representative of their own race.

Scorch

22nd May 2008, 06:36 PM

Hmm I've looked over 4th Ed quickly, but I am especially annoyed with armor proficiencies being stolen from WoW. Cmon people have some originality!

MindForge

22nd May 2008, 06:48 PM

Hmm I've looked over 4th Ed quickly, but I am especially annoyed with armor proficiencies being stolen from WoW. Cmon people have some originality!

Umm... WoW stole them from D&D. Look backwards at other editions. Even 3.5 had armor profs. Do not think that WoW did one thing original. They stole their look from Warhammer. They just stole all the best stuff from everything - and put it together just right. The tale of Thrall growing up with humans and all that was even stolen from older stories. The best stories always are.

Scorch

22nd May 2008, 07:06 PM

:O Although I'm slightly shocked, you have my greatest thanks! I have a few annoying friends that are WoW crazy, so now I can have the peace of mind that D&D is the greatest fantasy RPG of all time in my opinion.

I heavily play WC3 FT, and I have to say that the Thrall campaign has got to be one of the best I've seen. In the WC series anyway...

Sunfist

22nd May 2008, 08:34 PM

I don't think so. They said their would be racial flavor feats, but you could use the a elven racial feat for a human that was raised with elves to give that more flavor.

It has been said that no feat is going to be class restricted or race restricted - they might be a racial feat but they are not restricted to the race - they represent the race, which is different.
Wha wha wha?

Humans are going to be walking around with Dragonborn breath weapons?

God, I thought I hated Dragonborn as much as I could possibly hate them already.

MindForge

23rd May 2008, 12:53 AM

The breath weapon would probably be a racial, not a feat.

Sunfist

23rd May 2008, 03:07 PM

MindForge

25th May 2008, 12:24 AM

Right, but you said "they are not restricted to the race" and "you could use a elven racial feat for a human" which both tend to imply you could use a Dragonborn racial feat for a human, which is the worst thing I've ever heard in my life.

Right, but a breath weapon is not a feat. It is a racial ability. You could never pick it as a feat. You might be able to pick 'shape breath' as a feat if you were a human that somehow got a breath weapon.

The breath weapon would come to them in their race. Like a human has skill point advantages, a dwarf has darkvision and stonecutting. These things are racial abilities, not feats.

Gorthaur the Cruel

29th May 2008, 10:00 AM

First of all... the OGL will be unaffected. You can make your own custom stuff, just don't copy-paste things.

There is a 4e leak. I have all three books. My immediate thoughts.

PHB... and there's a lot.

Skills are gone. This is good. Skills sucked, and were never really useful. There are 'trained' and 'untrained' skills, which are just level checks, basically... but they don't use a crappy mechanic to determine them. It is more or less excellent. They still have different kind of knowledges, which is okay I guess but bothers me if I want to have a brainy character.
Retraining in the PHB- hell yes. Hell. Yes. I cannot tell you how many times I've played something, and watched a new sourcebook come out with the perfect prestige class or feat. hell, its happened to me -twice- with frenzied berserker. twice. Retraining means I can switch my feats out more or less every level. awesome.
Tiers- meh, it already existed in 3.5. tier 1 (heroic) was "I get killed by bad dice rolls", tier 2 was levels 6-13, because spellcasters were useful and not god, and tier 3 was "the wizard wins no matter what, ha ha on you meleers."

Classes.

Oh my god. Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Warlord (meh), Warlock (Hell yes), Wizard, Rogue, Ranger.

Every class reads like it did in Tome of Battle. This is a good thing- its no longer just "standard attack, standard attack, oh trip". Everyone has something useful. They streamlined roles, in an MMORPG style way, but it makes sense.

Fighters and paladins are defenders. They keep the squishy guys from being hurt... this was always their intended purpose, but they never really had the ability to 'tank' per se. They simply just had to be in the battle, kind of -there-.
Clerics and Warlords are Leaders. This is a fancy word, it means 'healer'. But see, they don't heal... everyone has a number of 'healing surges' they can use in battle, and thats cool... but having a cleric or a warlord makes them better, gives you more of them, or lets you do them more often. Thats pretty awesome. Warlord in particular has some battlefield options that are awesome, and it reads like the Marshall, only not crappy.
Warlocks, Rangers, and Rogues are strikers. In MMORPG terms, these guys are DPS. In particular, they can 'mark' targets, and deal additional damage to them. This is more or less awesome, and helps a -lot- when fighting things. They all do so uniquely- rangers have favored enemy, except that favored enemy is "YOU" as they point at you. Warlocks put a WARLOCK CURSE on the foe, which is a bit WoWish but WoW stole it from D&D anyway... either way, it rocks... and Rogues are all SNEAK ATTACK IN YOUR FACE.
Wizards are controllers, they mess with the battlefield and have aoe. whatever.

...

Anyway, class by class... my 'feelings' since I only skimmed.

Fighter- oh man. Awesome. You can use a two handed weapon instead of a shield, and it affects how well you defend. There's actually a reason to use a shield now, so woot. Animated shields are gone.
Cleric- oddly enough, damage based and has a lot of weird buff spells. It seems odd and I will have to reread it.
Paladin- The one I was interested in. The way they mark targets is awesome- if the target doesn't hit the paladin instead of other targets, the paladin deals a crapload of Radiant damage (think Positive Energy damage, really) to them just for trying. They also get attacks with awesome abilities, like "TO THE NINE HELLS WITH YOU". It is cool.
Warlord (meh). That is all.
Warlock- I like them. They gained powers through infernal pacts, but it could easily be flavor-altered. The three they have are Fey (which means inborn. It is lame), Star (you have seen Azathoth and Cthulhu, and you know nYARLATHOTEP OMG), and Infernal (demons, dude). This is cool beans. Each has a distinct flavor... and different awesome abilities.
Others- bleh, didn't read too much of them, did not interest me.

...

Anyhoo, lets see. Notable- multiclassing is done through feats, and is no longer the be-all-end-all of everyone. I think the tier system is a bit simplistic but also cool, oddly enough.

Magic items are... finally... done right. Yes, they seem confusing at first to 3e fans... however, they are also awesome, scale with level, and don't have the problem of "Who really spends 60k GP for a helm of underwater breathing? Come on now".

There is a -lot- of multi-ability dependencies. No longer is the wizard able to just have 18 int and win because of it. instead he has to juggle stats. The warlock, a cha caster (and replacement for the damnable sorceror) also requires Int, Wis, and Con, depending on his pacts and abilities chosen.

Damage seems scaled down, HP seems scaled up, but combat is -more- streamlined. Longer combat in terms of time fought, but less actual time spent -in- combat. This is good for games.

Races... I hate the flavor, love the mechanics. Races don't have penalties anymore- so nothing stops you from being a Dwarf warlock... they usually have +2 to two stats and some flavor abilities. The winner here is human, but not by as much as they used to. Tieflings are eh. Whatever.

Alignments... there are now five. Thankfully (if you hate it), since alignment based spells don't exist anymore, it doesn't matter if you follow it.

Lawful Good
Good (This is chaotic good and neutral good lined into one)
Unaligned (this was neutral)
Evil (lawful evil and neutral evil together here)
Chaotic Evil (demons)

This is good for anyone who debated alignment, really. See, Law and Chaos are subjective to people- if I obey a code of conduct, I'm lawful, even if that code is arbitrary and insane. You have to set a definition, and this time, Wizards did. For the most part, Law is upholding the universe, and Chaos is in league with entropy and destroying it. Law is also about civilization and such, and following its rules (which are generally good, or just plain Evil).

Regarding houserulings... dude? They made it win. They made it awesome. It is easy as pie to come up with something level appropriate... on the fly. This both distresses me and makes me happy. See, I was good at designing prestige classes and good at the general rule of thumb for class balance. I also knew how to design a feat to be useful and so on. Nowadays, its going to be so easy that I won't be loved for it.

This distresses me, but also makes me happy, as said.

...

FEATZ. Oh man. Feats are the new skills- situationally useful and awesome, or flavorbased and universally okay. Because of retraining, taking a new feat doesn't suck even if its like Endurance. And unlike before, there are no clear loser feats. Even toughness- sure, its only +5 HP... but in two levels, chuck it. ANyway, the damage and power of a build is no longer related to the feats you took, but your class, innate abilities, and the powers you selected. There are some feats I expect to be cookie cutter- the sneak attack one boosts sneak to 1d8 instead of 1d6- but honestly, thats okay. Yippee!

---

FINAL THOUGHTS: I will no longer touch 3.0 or 3.5. Compared to 4.0, they aren't really worth it.

4.0 got rid of a -lot- of sacred cows floating around D&D for no real reason... they hit sensitive ones, like wizards automagically winning everything (no forcecage makes wizards sad).

...oh, regarding the other two books? The monster manual wins, and the DMG is the same DMG you've read before. Ignore the setting based stuff, and the DMG is more or less a "Why 4.0 doesn't really suck, and btw, here's a way to come up with a decent houserule, or new ability. And also rules on how to adjucate things and a lot of social engineering and ways to please all kinds of players". If you happen to have a sociology book and a psychology book on hand that you enjoy, you could -probably- skip the DMG. IF you don't, or you enjoy it, go for it.

brekkers

29th May 2008, 11:57 AM

I just skimmed Gorthy's post, but as he likes it...I know I'll hate it...why you say? Gorth is a mechanics man to the bone, and I'm not! :)

Thanks Gorth!

- Brek

Niko_Kaze

29th May 2008, 03:56 PM

Just becuase the mechanics may or may not be bad doesn't mean that the role playing is gone. :rolleyes: Brekkers I don't mean to be rude but if you can't role play in a system maybe the dice are in the way.

Gorthaur the Cruel

29th May 2008, 05:29 PM

The reason I like the system, honestly, -is- purely mechanical. The core setting sucks big time, in ways I don't have words for.

However, I use homebrews. Additionally, I reflavor everything- I'd rather have a magic item that is "This item gives +2 to reflex defenses". Thats it. Not a six page backstory for the item... because I can do that accidentally.

For instance, Warlocks. Warlocks will be filling the role that sorcerors used to occupy, in my homebrew... which is to say, inborn magic users. -not- demon pact users... although its entirely possible there will be a few of those, too.

*shrug*

brekkers

29th May 2008, 06:11 PM

The real question, Niko, is whether or not I wanna buy books with lots of crunch and very little fluff.

Also, I looked at the books today, and man, they are packed with mechanics, not a lot of ideas in there, except "rule" ideas, of course ;)

- Brek

MindForge

29th May 2008, 06:35 PM

Yeah, I guess a book distributer released the books to several people a little early... oops, lawsuit. Wizards will win that one automatically. I used to manage a video game store and if one store sold one game early they could be liable for a huge amount of money.... per game sold. It is probably the same for books. Here is hoping that I get my preorder early.

Cool. I will just wait for my books though, I could probably dig around and find the books, I just don't want to and besides, I have a marketing/media kit I have to design, an identity rebuild for a company and I have to go through my portfolio.

I am happy about the simplified skill system. I just want to get my teeth into the monster manual. Do they have an indepth monster creation system detailed in the Monster Manual (formulas and such)?

Niko_Kaze

29th May 2008, 06:52 PM

I don't disagree, and believe the lack of fluff is done on purpose. I think the idea is they provide the system, but don't tell you what to do, so you can decide all of your campaign specific details. This way people don't think the fluff is immutable. Alot of people think, "I want to play a fighter" and so take the fighter class, however that's not what a fighter is. A fighter is a person that uses weapons and tactics proficiently to defeat his opponents. I and many others have built "fighters" that never had a single level in the actual fighter class, same with monk and rogues. It all comes down to the character's history, self-image, and interaction techniques. In fact the whole idea of a "class" is metagame in nature. It's a concept out of game that tells others what features and behavior might be typical for this character. If you ask a NPC guard in game who they are and what they do for a living it would be odd if they said, "I'm a human 2nd level expert, 1st level fighter." However they might say, "Well I was a Smith until I got drafted into the city watch after the last goblin raid, I've been in the watch for a little bit now but I want to go back to Smithing." it would be alot more in character.

I think the main reason combat gets so many more rules than any other function of an RPG is that combat is the hardest part to apply real world knowledge for most people. Most people understand social interaction (even if they aren't good at it), and can follow the idea of studying to increase aptitude in a skill, or to learn new things (feats, magic, programming, etc.) but have little real idea what it takes to use a melee weapon properly and defend with armor and shield in real life nevermind against a fantasy creature like a dragon, beholder, or lich.

I imagine that besides the yearly PHB, DMG, and MM, there will be regular setting books that come just like there was in 2nd edition. The main three books will provide rules, and the campaign books will hold the treasured fluff for different settings (maybe Dark Sun will come back *crosses fingers*).

Besides all this I will probably not get into 4th edition for a while. Normally the mechanical guys get in first just to see what the new system can do. Role play focused players come later after more fluff and detail has been established and the new ideas attract them (Ironically this is part of the reason early fluff is usually so odd, inconsistant and nonsensical. The people that are writting it are those at first need some fluff to use the new system invent it on the fly and then the role players come through and tiddy it up.). I find that Powergamers, Munchkins, and the like tend to come last becuase they either aren't through breaking the old system, or they finally realise that everyone else has moved on and now need to break the new. This could just be a synopsis of what I've seen but from that prespective (the only one I have) stands pretty well.

Sunfist

29th May 2008, 08:28 PM

Especially for core rulebooks, I prefer them to be about 90%+ crunch/rules, quite frankly. I also don't mind if about 90% of the rules in the game revolve around combat and skills. I like to leave most of the other stuff, like roleplaying, up to actual roleplaying.

Niko_Kaze

29th May 2008, 08:38 PM

Yeah that's why I had "social" stats and skills they either turn it into a roll-a-thon or never get used after someone dumps into them.

Gorthaur the Cruel

30th May 2008, 05:50 AM

GORTHS TREATISE ON SOCIAL STATISTICS AND RULES FOR SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

This is my fundamental flaw with social stats and such.

I am, in real life, not terribly charismatic. Oh, in some ways I am- I employ nuances of logic constantly, I have a cadre of friends who I am more or less a jackass to (and vice versa. its a bit of tit for tat), and I'm liked by a lot of people- but I lack other fundamental charismatic skills, like for instance, not being intimidated by gorgeous eyes, or being able to tell my evil corporate overlords what I think of them without being insulting, or even say anything positive to anyone without undercutting it with an insult because I refuse to open up.

Thats fine. in an online game, I have no problems with that, and if I'm playing a charismatic character, its okay to be awesome and use those nuances and whip ass in social situations.

However, the inverse is not true- I am not able to shoot bolts of fire from my hands, nor do I understand the engineering behind armor. So, why is it that the gruff blacksmith who I occasionally work with, who makes functional armor, cannot translate his skill into in-game power while I can? Is he just not allowed to play charismatic characters? No, he can use the other option- diplomacy.

But assuming Diplomacy is "rephrasing a players question so it sounds less assholish", then he had to spend points for something I can do automatically. Its the power of spin. Ergo, it is unbalanced.

Furthermore, it means all roleplaying with him is going to come down to dice rolls, since he wanted to be charismatic. Since its reliant on dice, it isn't true roleplaying- he's simulating roleplaying, and that takes -me- out of the game.

This is an even larger problem in WoD, but in D&D, its ignorable simply by taking out charisma based checks for social uses, and removing social skills....and simply roleplaying it out. Or alternatively, if I want to play a charismatic character but I myself have a line of drool going down my chin due to the fact that I ate a peach and wiped my mouth with my sleeve, you can say "Alright, let me translate that into 'not a jackass'.... okay. This is the appropriate way to phrase that. Is that more acceptable?"

and if it -must- come down to dice rolls, for the love of god, just have it be a level check. I don't want another 3e, where I can have a +121 to diplomacy at 9th level, which means as a full round action I can turn hostile enemies helpful. With a helm of telepathy, that means I just beat the game, since -nothing- can fight me unless it does so in the first round of combat.

(its even more ludicrous with bluff, actually)

Niko_Kaze

30th May 2008, 08:00 AM

You know I can't find it now but I thought I had seen somewhere in something offical for 3.5 that in order to use diplomacy both sides have to agree to it. If I have a player that is... less than social I try to get the gist of their idea for the situation. If they have a valid tactical plan or course of action to present but not the personal (ooc) skill to present it I have them explain the idea to me then roll the appropriate skill, assuming that the character has the idea, and the skill to explain it better. Generally diplomacy requires give and take, if my PC's don't offer anything up to make the creature friendly and it's hostile to start with and they are rushing the action to make it non-hostile (Which amounts to a DC of 60) while their friends are being hostile then the check just isn't going to work.

Gorthaur the Cruel

30th May 2008, 08:20 AM

ANOTHER FUN POINT

I do not know tactics. In RTS strategy games, particularly Warcraft III and Starcraft, I gravitate towards people who do not require a whole lot of micromanagement- see Zerg, see Undead. I just throw hordes of abominations/zerglings/ghouls/mutalisks/hydralisks/crypt fiends at my foes until they perish under a huge giant horde. A player with any tactics at all can beat me.

However, if I was asked to come up with a strategic plan for defending a castle, I want to be able to say "I roll Knowledge: Military" or "I roll a tactics check." to determine how awesome my troop lineup is. I play characters who are usually battlefield veterans, and therefore some strategy would be awesome for them to have.

In the same fashion, it technically discourages roleplaying. So I just say "This is my basic tactical idea, but I can't micromanage it. So instead, here's how I want to do it. Can you translate it into "not suck" for me, since I'm dumb at this?"

Regarding the diplomacy thing, its the biggest reason why one should never just use the RULES AS WRITTEN and instead should use RULES AS INTENDED. Ideally its there for my exact reasoning- there's no reason I can't play a diplomatic character even if I am a gibbering idiot who hates people, like Venger Satanis was (Omg, tossing out OLD SCHOOL NAMES, OH MAN). However, according to the rules as written, my awesome diplomacy check of +90 or so at level 10 (warlock1/Human paragon (A FEW)/rogue 5/Exemplar4, with items for diplomacy and more or less okay feat choices) can do so as a standard action. I don't have to figure out what I'm offering them.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm

Its brutal. its cold. But on a 2, I turn you from a hostile monster, gibbering to eat my flesh, into a helpful person who just wants to be friends. He will not take risks to hurt me, but to help me.

Even better, its -nonmagical- in origin. No dispelling it, sir! No antimagic field can ruin my mechanics power. Its brutal, its cold, and it is effective... if you don't let players abuse Diplomacy. If you have them use it as intended, its only useful outside of combat anyway- 10 full rounds to do it? Whut? also a -20 penalty to do it quickly, and that maybe makes them not willing to take risks... so they'll run at low HP?- and generally PC's won't stack the everloving hell out of it.

...

anyway. 4e is awesome and I suggest everyone give it a look once it comes out. Even though I more or less stole the books due to the leak, I see it as a preview... seeing as I had my books pre-ordered, and haven't cancelled them at all. I want them. I want them all.

There is one flaw- monster combat might be more or less annoying at first when I'm too lazy/busy to come up with a bunch of monsters and put them together. I suspect I will buy adventure modules and copy the Encounters out of them, and use them out of context. And quite possibly, with wildly different flavoring (gnolls will have the same stats, but will actually be humans with scimitars from a desert nation)

Niko_Kaze

30th May 2008, 08:36 AM

Yeah I've seen those but there is a DM answer to the diplomancer. Mindless creatures. Constructs (only obeys commands, from really old already gone masters that can't be raised), mindless undead (Braaaiiiiinssss), and vermin can't be diplo'd as they don't have minds. I don't disagree with you Gorth, we are making similar points just with different words.

MindForge

30th May 2008, 08:09 PM

One of my friends printed out the books and dropped them into a 3-ring binder already. I'll have mine soon. I got the gift set and an extra PHB, preordered for quite some time actually. I picked them up for $68 I think... maybe it was $88. Not including the extra PHB of course.

I have been looking at the book my friend printed out (who also has the books preordered) and the game looks really, really cool. The classes look like they have more flavor than they have ever had. No longer is fighter just a fighter. I really like the whole bit personally.

TiFFman

30th May 2008, 08:10 PM

I picked up the gift set (core rulebooks) for like 60 off amazon. And with them ill get them that day :P

Hesketh

30th May 2008, 09:46 PM

E4 sounds good i might look into it got the web site were i can.

MindForge

30th May 2008, 10:54 PM

I love the dice rolling for recharges on monsters. That is cool. My friend has them all printed and we are pouring over them like arcane spellbooks. I personally want to feel those slick pages in my hardbacks though.

I went and picked up the Shadowfell book the other day, I don't think I will be running it but it is interesting to look at. I am going to head back over to my friends here in a bit before work and look at the DMG binder he has. I haven't even looked at it. I love the MM though. Great books. I don't feel ripped off - well I won't once I get my books.

xaotik1

30th May 2008, 11:02 PM

I've already begun running a revamped 3E module in 4E. The conversion is a bit difficult, and there are a number of things missing, notably the animate dead spell, but so far so good. I am using the pdfs to generate my characters, but as the others have also noted, since I pre-ordered the books anyway, I don't see why I can't have a digital backup.

Hopefully I can get the rest of the players up to date and get the ball rolling within the next day or so.

I'm pretty excited about the changes they have made. I'm still a bit wary of the casters, but all in all it seems pretty balanced. The only thing I really don't like is the lack of description in the MM. You get a pic, some stats, and a couple of sentences. . .that's it. They do give you a couple of nice things, like common groupings, but it lacks the fleshing out that the previous editions included.

MindForge

31st May 2008, 01:02 AM

Yeah. It is almost as if it was made for people who already know what the creatures are. I also believe that we all pretty much know what these things are anyway because of how widespread fantasy is know compared to 20 years ago.

They really did shed their skin with this 4th edition and got rid of some old conventions. Almost everyone that I have seen get their hands on it like it. I mean even Gorth liked it and he hates everything. Even though I really like the Warlord and he didn't really like it. I think it is a cool class. It might even replace the cleric as my favorite class. I have loved the cleric since 2nd edition. In first edition, I preferred the wizard.

The gnolls are cool now. I would not want to get in a tangle with a solid group of them bad boys.

The only thing I have a problem with is the lack of a generic no role template to base classes from. It is almost as if the skirmisher gnoll is a different race from the soldier gnoll.

xaotik1

31st May 2008, 01:08 AM

I had noticed something similar with the 8ish different forms of goblin. They seemed to lack a common thread, though I like how they made them in general. Making the cutters a 1 hit kill was a stroke of genius. Just pile a heap on the table and let the players wade through em if they can. The different forms come together in some of the larger encounters though, and I can easily see goblins being much more interesting an adversary than ever before.

MindForge

31st May 2008, 07:50 AM

Oh yeah the goblins are cooler than hell... take this level three group. 10 Frikken enemies for a level 3 encounter.

2 goblin sharpshooters (level 2 artillery)
4 goblin warriors (level 1 skirmisher)
4 goblin cutters (level 1 minion)

The cutters can shift when they are missed by melee in combat... to make room for more gobbies. A shift is the new term for a 5-foot step.

Goblin warriors fight at range, but they can attack while moving and deal more damage if they move and fire. The can also shift if mussed like the cutters can.

The goblin sharpshooters can fire from a hiding position and they remain hiding if they miss. They also deal heightened ranged damage.

I mean this alone creates a whole bunch of tactical situations in a game. I think the key is to keep the combat moving in this game and it is designed to do that. These 10 gobs will drop in a couple round from a 4 person party.

Also, a level 1 goblin has 29 hp.

xaotik1

31st May 2008, 06:05 PM

Not all of em. . .the cutter has only 1 hp. The tactic on these guys is awesome though, especially once you start throwing in some of the lurkers and controllers. Their abilities mesh together pretty well.

BTW, a 500xp 1st level encounter could have as many as 20 cutters in it if they are alone. . .heh. . .thats more like the goblin tactics I'm used to. . .they die a mass death, but swarm you in numbers too large to handle. I think I'm going to have to go over how they run stacking in this edition. . .could be interesting :)

<snip>

Admin Note: Please don't post non-OGL stuff on the forum, could get us in trouble

MindForge

2nd June 2008, 06:04 PM

You might want to refrain from posting stuff out of the book, because technically the game license is not available yet.

Yeah goblins feel awesome. I played an encounter with them yesterday. I actually ran 3 gobby encounters. They feel great in game, and yes there was a lot of shifting. and swarming and they were dying all over the place and kept on coming. I created a 3 room encounter at the character level. It was actually two encounters piled into one. It should have only been one encounter but the characters triggered another one about halfway through. It was a lot of fun though. They had all these goblins and I made a gnoll slave brute that the goblins unleashed. He was mutated though and I added the ogre abilities with the flail he had. So he felt like a badass bruiser. The map was full of goblins and the gnoll would knock goblins out of his way to get to players (this gave the players an extra round to prepare for him to start hitting the group). At one point the players started to get separated and they started to panic a little as flanking started to really tear into them. One player almost died but the cleric pulled them through in the end allowing several healing surges at opportune times.

I am happy the way it went. The rogue is really cool and feels roguish. The fighter really makes a wall. The fighter allowed almost no one in the first half of the encounter to get near the caster, actually no one made it past until they started coming in from two directions because the players started two encounters at once. The cleric had to really use their powers to the best of their ability. The group was a fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue. The rogue almost died but probably dealt the most damage overall.

MindForge

2nd June 2008, 06:19 PM

What I like more than anything is how they have done away with the strict conventions. You just have to get kinda close and its ok. I like that. No more rigid laws preventing cool stuff (if you want to go by the book). Ogre has a cool power and you want to use it with a goblin brute, do it.

Niko_Kaze

2nd June 2008, 07:52 PM

Hmmm, I thought was always covered by the 0th rule "DM Fiat". But I must say from what I've heard 4e sounds like it's going to launch much better than 3.0 or 3.5 did.

MindForge

2nd June 2008, 08:08 PM

Templates are back and they are a way to adjust a creature from a normal role to an elite role, or from an elite to a solo role. You can take a goblin and slap a template on him and he becomes elite (but stays the same level). Slap another template on him and he has just become a solo creature. This is great to create a goblin that is well above the norm. Drop an elite goblin soldier into the mix with a template on him and watch the party struggle to take down just one goblin. A savage berserking goblin is something to be feared. Every round (immediate action) a savage berserker get a free hit on someone that hits him. He also regenerates. So, in one quick change you created a bunch of encounter differences and flavor that can easily be altered in each battle. You could take a orc shaman, an orc warrior with the bodyguard template and a bunch of orcs, and even more minions. This would be great, but it would really be the bodyguard that shined to the surprise of the players they would have an easier time with 2 warriors guarding the mage or even three. The bodyguard gets free attacks against people that ignore him and go for the person he is protecting. So yeah, in essence, templates are way cooler than they used to be and accounted for easily. You add one - the creature becomes elite - you add two it becomes a solo creature. Three goblin warriors with two templates a piece would probably clean up a party of adventurers with ease.

I am going to be messing with templates quite a bit, I have always liked them.

Niko_Kaze

2nd June 2008, 08:23 PM

Ok so the template doesn't change their CR but does it change their power level? So 4 base = 2 elite = 1 solo or something like that?

You know what doing answer that getting a bit afield I think, and I can read up on it when and if I get the books.

Gorthaur the Cruel

2nd June 2008, 08:55 PM

Depends on the template. For instance, lich definately does bump up the rating. On the other hand, they have 'class' templates which simulate class levels for NPC's. I am so down with this idea that I am more or less going to replace my girlfriend with my D&D books.

Its okay, she'd understand.

MindForge

2nd June 2008, 09:51 PM

I already have my template block readied in Indesign so now I can just type stuff up :)

There is no more CR. It is going back to the 2nd edition style of just having a monsters level and that is what they are worth. Then you can have elite and solo of the same level. So a level 12 minion is going to die easily but still challenge a level 12 group in a way that they come in packs (kinda like pulling a pack of cigarettes out around some gutter punks by a coffee shop) - they are gone quick. But then you will have the standard level 12 role types. These should be on an even keel with the characters and match them one for one (or so I have seen). Then there are the elite creatures which are the strength of 2-3 (I think the book says 2) normal creatures of their level. These are still in the same bonus range but have more HP and are more versatile, these are usually leaders of a group. Then there are the solo monsters. These can take a group on alone. Beholders, dragons, the purple worm, shadow hulk, dracolich, blackfire dracolich, primordial hydra and more fill these ranks. Example: a tarrasque is a level 30 elite solo brute. It doesn't need to have minions or any other creatures it can take on a party all by himself and has powers and actions that make it a mean and nasty opponent.

Back to the templates. Gorth, by adding a class template you move a creature into elite. So a goblin with the fighter template becomes elite and then it is ranked by the level of the template at that point. So you no longer create the monster with a class and jump through the hoops. Drop the template, add the abilities as it says and you are done. I saw this and I was like hell yeah, no more creating entire characters for an orc wizard - I just drop the wizard class template the orc becomes an elite and I give the appropriate levels that the orc is now.

So, a level 8 Orc Cheiftain with a fighter template on him gains 128 hp ([8 + 8 from Con] x 8 for creature level) for a new total of 688 (344 x 2 because he became a solo creature). He also becomes a solo monster because he was already elite. This creature can be brought down by a level 8 group. Now, you have a big boss and it took moments to create something really fun. You would still have to go select his fighter powers and spend a little more time. The numbers game has been reduced though. This is so much easier.

Is this the same way you take the templates? This is just from reading what I have read so far in the DMG and stuff.

MindForge

2nd June 2008, 09:56 PM

The hit points seem way too high. I wonder how that adjustment comes in. It gives a bonus to HP and I just want to know if the adjustment is right. I mean a level 11 solo dragon has less HP. The 344 makes more sense. So I would have to stick with that based on what I have seen.

brekkers

6th June 2008, 09:06 PM

I have a few positive things to say about 4e...surprised?

1) Its awfully pretty! Amazing artists, and very cool illustrations, adding lots of flavor to the game!

2) Doesn't seem that different from 3.5, more like a 3,99e...

3) They do focus on more than just the power aspect, but not much! :)

4) Also, they have now integrated the retraining rules as part of the PHB, which is pretty cool, because those rules...rocks! (makes the game a lot more fun to play)

However...

Alignment breakdown...? Not very original, they could have created something far better than this.

- Brek

MindForge

6th June 2008, 09:27 PM

The entire character is completely different and the game plays a lot different in combat. The tactical and power changes are immense.

Before in Dungeons and Dragons you basically moved and attacked. A rogue might have a sneak attack or your weapon might be flaming but in essence you just moved and attacked. Now, it has all changed.

I played a rogue in a quick skirmish with a friend on an open grid just to get a better hold of some of the new mechanics. Especially the new action break down... there is no five foot step anymore a five foot step is your move action. Once engaged it is a little more difficult to step away from the fight.

Ok here is the rogue I played at first level. I went with the brutal scoundrel so I would be rolling off of strength instead of charisma. One of my abilities I can use as a standard action lets me attack with normal damage, if that target attacks me back I get to make an immediate reaction and strike him back again. Also, I have an attack that lets me move two squares, it is a dash attack. It is actually very useful, especially if I want to perform other actions before I make that move. I also have a daily attack that gives me a combat advantage after nailing a target for enhanced damage. I also have an encounter attack that lets me add both my dex and my str bonus to damage on a strike. Great for raising that bottom line in damage. Enemies can do all this kind of stuff too.. and best of all it is easy and intuitive.

Now, this is on top of the old stuff. The new feeling in combat is intense. Add on that now I have all sorts of stuff I can use Acrobatics and Bluff for in combat. The game is much different than even the change from 1st edition to 3rd. From the way monsters are created and handled to the way characters are built.

brekkers

6th June 2008, 09:43 PM

Come on dude...I know you love 4e, but "Before in Dungeons and Dragons you basically moved and attacked", I have never played the game that way, my characters have always had plenty of powers, plenty of magic items, and basically, plenty of options. Also, whats wrong in just making a basic attack, why does everything has to be...different and powerful.

From testing the system, the fighter realised quickly, that he would never come to make a simple attack...there is always an at-will pwer that is more beneficial to him.

I truly dont like the way they talk about "builds" and "suggested feats" and whatnot. Where's the freedom to make a character just the way you want to?

Also, why does the races have no weaknesses? And why is the hit points fixed? I'll tell you why...because, god forbid, ones character should be weak and die!

I just dont get their design philosophy...it feels like a few kids fighting over who has the biggest and coolest toy...is that what the game should feel like?

- Brek

MindForge

6th June 2008, 10:20 PM

Well, mechanically in previous editions there were not rules in place to do some of the maneuvers that are now in place and constant. Some moves are still relatively simple attacks, like a lunging strike and believe it or not it does feel a little more real in combat. Do people ever really use a normal attack? I mean, don't you try and go for vitals

Sure, in previous editions they had options, sneak attack was available to rogues. A fighter could swing his sword and crit, or maybe get a buff from another player. At the table, with other players is really where this game shines. It is truly a really fun experience. Players start working together like I have never seen them do, in game and mechanically. Like the warlord and the rogue will be working in tandem together circling 8-12 opponents with the wizard and the fighter on the other side, doing similar but all working as a single unit in combat because of the way the mechanics now work. A rogue might dash in and strike at the elite goblin and then the warlord would spend his turn to strike at the goblin and allow the rogue to shift again so he is behind his shield, and now the goblin is marked.

This game is not about realism. Hit points can still be rolled for instead of the number taken. Ability scores can still be rolled. It is all still there.

The multiclassing bothered me a little until I really noticed that I would never want to multiclass because I would miss out on all this cool stuff and the other stuff is a step backward because I would have to replace my already cool at-will, encounter and daily abilities if I wanted to get some from a different class. When you see what happens when players face down 6 minions, 3 goblins and goblin elite as one encounter at their level you might shift a little onto the 4th edition side. I have not been able to play more than a few encounters set up to have fun and learn the rules but man I want more, my wife who actually likes the more rp end of the game really really likes it. Every single person, and I mean everyone that has participated in these little encounters we played with - even my friend Joe who is a 3.5 elitist - has been swayed over to 4th edition and he is going to roll a warlord. His words exactly "Dude, it kinda feels like your fighting."

We, as DM's have always explained what the characters are doing in combat. Example: You slash across his chest and rings from the chainmail fly, you see a bit of blood. But now, it feels that way mechanically and in story. The power of the game does feel increased, but with it they increased the bottom line hit points.

My opinion. Sure, 3.5 is a great game. It is solid. 4th Edition is a new breed, and just what 3rd was to 2nd. 4th is easily to 3rd. The game shines on the battlegrid. Any game can be roleplayed, hell you could roleplay heroquest if you want, or with GIJoes. The changes here are not about roleplaying that is exactly the same way it has been in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. It is still a roleplaying game. The combat is what has really changed, in every way for the better. Sit down and play it with some friends once. Just once and you will see what I mean.

I wanted 4th from the beginning. I like change. But as it got close I was a bit hesitant and then I started reading the character classes in the PHB and was like holy crap, the fighter section is like 15 pages long. I can finally wear a shield and have it there for a reason other than a +2 to AC. Now I get to do cool stuff with it from my powers like strike people and push them with the shield in the same action.

Sorry, going off now. As you can see, I really like 4th edition. I like 3.5 too - but, after the leak the reservations for books skyrocketed. The borders by my house is sold out of first shipment, I already have a PHB ordered there because I have to wait till the 10th to get mine (delivery from amazon). The game store here closed or I would have gone through them for everything.

MindForge

6th June 2008, 10:23 PM

Sorry, I know I am a 4th fanboy and I hope none of that sounded like flaming... I'm not at all, so don't take any of this the wrong way.

brekkers

6th June 2008, 10:35 PM

If the groups wish to work together, they will and should, there are plenty of ways to work together in 3,5e, but perhaps your group doesn't want to work together, perhaps theres other interests at work...who knows.

This is a boardgame...

Come on, roles? Why should we define our characters as being controller, leader, striker or defender? They would never...NEVER, define themselves that way, different circumstances call for different roles. I am not even sure how I am supposed to use this info, or in fact, why? If I want to make a wizard who's greatest wish (because he watched his sister die) is to defend his companions, then that would make him a defender, it might not be rational or the best thing for the group, but it would make for a pretty damn good story (and scene in a fight)!

Also, I miss the bard, my favorite class of all! :)

There are certainly good things, like the ability score increase (waay increased), and its nice to see a few new PC races, like the tiefling and eladrin (I am not overly impressed by the dragonborn, looks far too alien to me, and sort of cartoonish), and I am glad to see the gnome and monk gone.

- Brek

MindForge

6th June 2008, 10:56 PM

Boardgame? Ok. Dungeons and Dragons began as a boardgame. At its very core, it is a board game. Sure, you can play without minis but you end up showing on a piece of paper where people are standing. The original game was created to use minis. The second edition of the game had all the rules for different sizes and gridded, hexed or measurements. The third edition of the game made it a little easier to go from the miniature angle that had always existed in the game.

Dungeons and Dragons, was created to be a tactical game using characters with cool skills to maneuver through castles and dungeons.

Without the combat this game really isn't a game at all, it is a cooperative story. There are games out there better suited for non-tactical story based game play that don't use d20's and tactics and disemboweling.

You don't have to build a character to play as a team at all. Sure, that person would probably die in this game if they stood outside the group and charged the enemy on his own - wouldn't he anyway. To me this game is about fun on and off the grid.

It is a roleplaying game, that grew from a tactical game. Now, you play a role. Mages that want to defend their friends are still controllers. It comes down to their abilities that land them in the role - not the way the player wants to take them. Hell, a mage can think he is a brute from the player persepective. The controller tag is like putting a number to Wisdom. Would a character ever think he has a 12 wisdom.... in that same manner, would a character ever think he is level 5? Of course not, it has always been present that way. It is a term that we can understand from a mechanical perspective. I can look at the wizard and say controller. It does not matter what powers he has because in the end the wizard that buffs his friends is still a controller - because of the way his powers work. He is controlling even if he is a defender. A defender has lots of hp and abilities that drive him that way. The wizard has always been a controller since day 1 and still is in 4th.

The bard was horrible. Play a ranger with a lute if you want a bard, give him the feats to use rituals and you are set... there's your bard and it really is a bard in flavor. Just go urban instead of wilderness.

RafeIxeian

6th June 2008, 10:56 PM

As for the point about races no longer having penalties...is there really a point? The idea with penalties was '+1-1=0'. This way races don't change the power level from how it would be if you completely removed them from the system. Now the philosophy is EVERYONE gets plus one, and then it's just as fair, but no one feels like they're giving something up.

For health, if you really want to roll it, go ahead, but if players continually get ones they complain. Having health static solves this issue. To be honest, I usually told everyone to just pretend all health rolls are maxed during 3.5. It makes things more regular. Yes, it also makes it slightly less likely that characters would die - if you were throwing 3.5 monsters at them, but you're using 4e, which are a lot more challenging based on what I've seen. That balances it, I think.

And "suggested feats" are "suggested" for a reason. You don't have to follow that scheme. I will admit though that you do lose a bit of freedom over character control, though. You've got a lot of options, but trying to design a character comes down to choosing from a list. There's no more multiclassing, or ways to REALLY customize. I understand why they did it, though. In the old system, it was very easy to make a build that was basically unbalanced. I had in one campaign, a cleric at level 12 take down the most powerful dragon I could make single-handed. And this was with me fudging rolls constantly in favor of the dragon. By designing the system with less customizability, they've made it far easier to prevent broken builds. If you want a custom character, what you should do is design a full class for it.

Just because the fighter no longer needs to make simple attacks, that's not a bad thing. It's actually far more realistic. I used to do a bit of fencing, and the old system where you say "I attack goblin X" always bugged me. You attack him how? It's too vague, and there never seemed to be any risk in making an attack - no need to worry about counters, or being left open. Now that's been dealt with it's a lot nicer. If you really wanted to, you could build a character that was strongest when it came to counterattacks, and getting combat advantage at the same time. Now when you attack you have to think more than "will it hit? will it kill?" You actually have to worry about how the opponent will react to the attack, the hit, or the miss, or getting bloodied.

Their design philosopy seems to have been "make it simple and safe." I don't think you'll find any broken builds, or things you'll have to keep checking over and over. Creating characters is simple. Combat is simple. DMing is also made simpler (though not as simple as playing). Everything is made simple, but still fun, and deep. As Mindforge said, play around with it and you'll be converted.

RafeIxeian

6th June 2008, 11:10 PM

They had roles in 3.5 too, they just were never mentioned in the PHB. They're something players came up with for building teams - you'd have a tank, a medic, heavy artillery, and sniper (often a rogue would be considered a sniper even if he was doing CQC). Different people had different names for them, but the roles were basically the same no matter who you talked to, and no one would say the fighter was a medic, or that the cleric was a tank. Wizards finally acknowledged the official concepts with different names in the PHBII (which I've only skimmed). Now they've just stated it officially in each class description, so people fairly new will know what the class generally 'means' without having to read everything else. In the PHB it doesn't really matter, but when they start releasing supplements, you'll be able to get a lot of information from that one word.

MindForge

6th June 2008, 11:25 PM

Umm... I played a tank cleric in 3.5 :)

RafeIxeian

6th June 2008, 11:26 PM

Right, bad example. Tank wizard/sorceror? Probably not.

brekkers

6th June 2008, 11:28 PM

The point with races having penalties...they have weaknesses, every character should have weaknesses, makes the game a lot more fun, really.

Sure, you can always say, if you really want to...drop that, drop this, change that, change this, but dont forget, they are making this the new standard, and to me, its all about making the game more stupid. Sure, there's still choices, but they are all choices about power.

There was a time, and it wasn't that long ago, when we didn't use the grid and we didn't use miniatures, and actually, it worked, better than now, at least the way I see it (the game was more fun, more intuitive and things happened that couldn't happen to day, I mean, the DM had his freedom to describe/do whatever he wanted), but with these rules, you cant leave out the grid or the minis, you need them, its a boardgame, and should be played with a board. Yeah, maybe I am just too old-fashioned, but you know what...when we play, we play in total darkness most of them time, and yeah, its all about storytelling, who cares about Combat Advantage, or leaping strike when the story flows.

I am not saying that the game shouldn't have combat, but it should take up..say, 10-15% of the game, the rest should be storytelling. I like a good fight, but not all the time...

About the Monster Manual...lots of cool monsters, left out plenty of stupid monsters (good decision, at least we agree on what a cool monster is :) ), however, damn, I know they want more monsters per fight, but damn they are underpowered and weak...sure, lots of hp (not sure this is a good thing), but not fun to play.

- Brek

MindForge

6th June 2008, 11:55 PM

The monsters are far from weak. The minions are built to be weak. One hit drops them. But, at 1st level an even group of kobolds were a challenge and it was fun, sure the characters used second wind and most monsters can't - but the game is designed to have more than 4 encounters without someone saying.. dude, I gotta stop and get my spells back. It is designed to have a heroic fantastic feel to it from the starting gate.

By the way, combat makes up about 50% of my games and I have used minis since second edition and I even have all those crappy pewter figurines that were released for 1st edition. I have always used miniatures to show where characters were in relation to each other while we played. I don't mind the grid really.

Skurvy

7th June 2008, 12:38 AM

I have to say ... I have the feeling this system will be hard to run on Play-by-Post on a forum. So much seems to be based around the grid system during combat that I think in a PbP game much of the value of the new system might be lost or at least very hard to visualise.

I know they are making it much more suitable for real-life and virtual tabletop, but that might render it impracticle for the sort of game we run here.

Skurvy

MindForge

7th June 2008, 12:54 AM

My god. Don't get me started on the virtual tabletop. I think that is going to be pretty cool. It takes a 2.4 ghz pentium to run. I meet all the specs easily but I am worried that a lot of people won't that want to play.

By the way, the Dungeon and Dragon mags are up at the WotC site now.

xaotik1

7th June 2008, 02:24 AM

Just buy Fantasy Grounds or use Screen Monkey Lite if you don't want to pay. Both are virtual tabletops, both have built in dice rollers, chat boards etc. FG is definitely the better choice, and a new 4E ruleset is in the making as we speak. The sheet has really progressed over the last week, and I think it is almost ready for use. Screen Monkey is systemless, and you can play almost anything, thing is, with no rule set there is no reference material or anything. Currently FG comes with the d20 srd 3.5 D&D, and you can pick up the modern and future version of the srd for free.

I mention these because both of them are extremely processor friendly. Neither uses up all that much memory, and even with my old computer (1.26 ghz) I was able to run FG, yahoo messenger, my antivirus, teamspeak, and have a minimum of 3 pdfs open at all times without any glitching at all. SM is even easier, the players connect to a webpage that the host publishes. The DM carries the whole burden of maps, etc, but even then it is such a simple layout that anyone can use it.

There's a site online as well that lets you host your games for free on a web browser. http://www.rpgtonight.com/index.htm No program to download, nothing to buy, just a service to us gamers. The site isn't completed, and the system is still a work in progress, but it is fully functional as it is. . .it's just short some of the bells and whistles.

MindForge

7th June 2008, 05:33 AM

I have heard that the electronic version of the license for games is not allowed. They might not be able to utilize any sort of integration into the new system.

xaotik1

7th June 2008, 06:52 AM

Once I have bought the books, how I play is none of anyones business. If I choose to type my sheet onto a page, it's the same as writing it in a notebook. Dice are dice, regardless of whether they are online or not. Hell, I already have the pdf versions of 4E so it's not like I need to add any of that into the programs. At worst, I'll have to do what little math there is in my head and type them into my sheet manually. BFD, I'll have to do that on a regular tabletop anyway. I'm not worried about having massively integrated tabletops. . .just functional ones. That's why I included the site and Screen Monkey. Neither of them have any built in system or sheet, they are literally just online tabletops. Share your pics/maps, drop down a few tokens, and roll whatever dice you need to for whatever system you are playing at the moment. Keep your sheet on a piece of paper, or in a notebook (like I do) to simplify even more. No need to type everything in anywhere.

My town is a small blot on a map, and there are a total of about 4 people in it that even know what D&D actually is, none the less play it. I require online tabletops to play as it is, 4E will require it even more so because of it's highly tactical layout. If they think that I will fork over 15 bucks a month to play a pen and paper game, they are sadly mistaken. There are plenty of people out there who will play on the programs I have mentioned whether it is legal or not. I'll be one of them. . .provided I end up enjoying the 4th edition. There are lots of things I like about it, but it has some very definite drawbacks at the moment as well. They have a bit of fixing to d before I declare 3.5 totally outdated.

MindForge

7th June 2008, 07:55 AM

ahh.. but does it have voice, music integration for suspense, the sound of dice, self-created and customizable miniatures.

Niko_Kaze

7th June 2008, 08:56 AM

But it that neccessary to play? He needs a tabletop... something to put information on, not a lot of bling (to be coloqueal). Personally I'm kind of in the same boat. If I have the system (any system) I may use some tools to make life easier, but in the end it's all about getting the information passed to the players or DM, not weither or not they can hear the dice roll. If I need to be able to actually talk with them there are plenty of free VOP to be used including teamspeak that work just fine. Two programs instead of one? Ok it maybe a little more complicated that way but both have applications outside of the one game and don't cost. I understand that the offical stuff has a lot of pazazz, it should for the amount charged... but that doesn't make it manditory for playing the game anymore than company sold character sheets are. A notebook has more uses, can hold more information, and costs less than the character sheets do.

Basically it comes down the old question: "Do you like your wizard specialised or as a generalist?"

MindForge

7th June 2008, 09:29 AM

I frikken love bling! Dude, my books should have Mr. T's necklaces all over them - that is the kind of bling I wanna rock.

After reading the first dungeon stuff - I think I am going to pay the fee - just while I work where I can print and bind it all.

I also like the online tools and the online books and the... sorry, some stuff is optional and I like all the options in my basket.

xaotik1

7th June 2008, 02:57 PM

Nothing wrong with options. Hell. if I could, I'd play live games on a holographic table that actually shows the action as it happens. Unfortunately, I am not made of money, and that is really beyond my price range. I have to stick to the basics.

As pointed out, there are numerous chat programs that let you speak with each other, and the programs I told you of have no limits on what kind or number of tokens you use (other than common sense), custom designed or otherwise. Frankly, I expect to run any 4E games on that site I linked. http://www.rpgtonight.com/index.htm

RafeIxeian

7th June 2008, 03:54 PM

there's also the fact that even if you pay, it only applies to D&D - if you want to run anything else, then you would need different tools. I for one would prefer one set of tools that can with a tiny bit of work handle anything over several sets (one for each system). I'm also a bit worried on how much it assumes - house rules?

MindForge

7th June 2008, 04:20 PM

Yeah, I guess you will be able to change anything and it will have scripts you can make to apply the house rules if it is mechanical.

Gorthaur the Cruel

8th June 2008, 10:18 AM

For once in my life I agree with Brek. It had to happen.

The alignment system it proposes, while eliminating arguments of alignment (sort of!), bothers me with its simplicity.

however.

since mechanics are no longer tied to alignment (no Holy smite, really), you can literally just ignore the whole goddamned thing and you're okay. I will be using old alignment rules simply because I'm more used to the old rubric. woot.

Everything else seems like gravy.

I do not now own a computer that can run D&D's online character bullshit. I likely will not until 5e, because I'm poor (I paid for my D&D books with my soul, a kitten I found, and my kidneys). It is the result of lazy coders, and I imagine very shortly it will be -reworked- to run from a decent goddamned computer.

If a game requires more than four times the system specs of world of warcraft, I will probably never play it. Jesus, I have yet to play all the way through Portal, the most fun game ever invented, because it requires -just a little more- than my laptop can handle.

Niko_Kaze

8th June 2008, 05:42 PM

*sidenote*

Off subject a little bit:

Something I don't like that's been happening in RPG's and IRL a lot it seems is moral ambivelance. No one seems to be ready to say what is good or what is evil. Many people in the local gaming guild like to twist good so that it's doing evil, which doesn't really work. A neutral character may twist evil or good to try and serve the other concept but a good character will not. They will take the path that will not bother their scruples and will help as many as possible, even if that path is to simply gather as many good or innocent people as possible and leave a bad situation.

I did that once. A DM tried to put my character in a postion where all my choices would apparently serve evil. So I said, "Alright I gather all the good or innocent people and offer to lead them someplace else to start a new life. I don't force them to leave but I will leave regardless in 2 days." And he just looked at me "You're not going to X?" "No that would be wrong." "You're not going to Y?" "No that would serve evil." "You're not going to Z?" "No, I'm going to help the people by leaving this behind and protecting them on the way to a new land." "...oh."

He didn't understand why I didn't just do the expident thing.

One thing I really liked in 3.5 was the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. These where a decent look at the philosophies behind good and evil and how to use them in an RPG. I would recommend the front sections in both books as general reading no matter the RPG you play.

brekkers

8th June 2008, 06:24 PM

Hey, just because 4e is coming, and just because you think about switching system, doesn't mean that you have to throw out and ignore all those great sources of information out there :) like, say, all your d20 books!

I dont have those two books, (Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness), but if the fluff is good, just use it for whatever game system you'd like, good ideas are always good ideas.

I've read a bit more (in the 4e books), and as I find more things to laugh and shake my head about, I also find things I like. However, I'm very glad I am not experiencing rpg for the very first time, through 4e, because if so, I would certainly approach the game from a very different angle. The focus is on action (yeah, I know, I've stated this before), and not on storytelling, and also, they seem to think that the DM's only role is to direct this action... see the section in the DMG concerning "Modes in the Game", sure the game go through certain modes (or phases), but do we really need to separate them, especially as they intertwine ever so often?

The "Passing the time" mode, made me laugh real hard, and write a big What?? in the book, because, come on, for me at least, the game comes alive in the "passing the time" mode, where the PCs explore (sorry another mode) themselves, their surroundings and life in general, during the "passing the time" mode, the unexpected happens, rumors are heard, items are bought and friendships are made... very important aspects of the game! Also, the DMG actually (another thing that made me laugh) tells the DM that he shouldn't be part of the "passing the time" mode, he could just go get snacks?? Hmm, I cant help but wonder who is running the country when the king is down getting the snacks?

And to round things off with a question to all the 4e experts... no more multiple attacks for the high-level character? Everybody just got the one, standard attack?

- Brek

MindForge

8th June 2008, 07:59 PM

Nope there are multiple attacks, even more so with the faster classes like the rogue.

Also, for the first time ever. My wife and her friend were able to throw out characters and even understood the game more - her friend has never played and my wife has little mechanical experience but played in one campaign to 17th level. She was able to show her friend everything and her friend understands. My wife said the game feels more organic (that was what she said). It felt like she was making someone that was more real this time around and it made it easier to make. Her friend didn't have trouble at all.

I have also seen one other new player make a character for the game and play one encounter. He made a warlock and he said understanding the dice shapes and sides was far more difficult than playing a game. I also ran a diplomatic skill challenge 6/3. I also included +2/-2 bonuses in the checks for good roleplaying or bad for that matter. Skill challenges have really made it streamlined to have to get characters to talk their way past a checkpoint. I have always given bonuses for good roleplaying and that will never change. For that matter, I also give action points for making everyone laugh or drop their jaws in roleplaying. The roleplaying has never changed since the game transformed into a roleplaying game. That is something that is in the hands of the DM and the players not the mechanics. The mechanics are there to create a game experience or else it would be roleplaying and not a roleplaying game.

I have one player in our extended group (actually like three gaming groups) that is still hesitant and he says he is worried that it is an MMO on the kitchen table. He says there are things that he loves about the game. He is actually one of the only ones that have not played in a few encounters just to get the feel of the game. He wonders why there are not normal attacks. Then I showed him that there are - all characters have some powers - one of these powers is basic attack. And it is just a 1[W] attack. We are going to play around this week sometime.

I am upset about one thing... The D&D Insider software. It was supposed to go live on release. They dropped that ball. I was really looking forward to it.