PDA

View Full Version : More 4.4 info



Kurald Galain
2010-08-09, 04:59 AM
Here's some updates on the new things in 4.4,

Dwarves used to get a bonus to con and wis; they can now pick con/str as an alternative. Likewise, halflings used to be dex/cha, and can now also pick dex/con. Similar changes apply to every race reprinted in 4.4, except humans.
Humans can, instead a third at-will, take an encounter power that retroactively adds +4 to an attack or saving throw. This strikes me as a huge improvement, and of course several of the 4.4 builds don't have at-will attacks anyway.

Implements are simplified: if you're proficient with an implement, you can use it with all implement powers. No more limits like "you can use this implement with powers from that class only". This is easier on players, but it affects certain weird combos with weapons used as an implement, such as the bola-caster.

Several powers will be updated / errata'd, and will be reprinted in their new form in the 4.4 books. It is unclear how many powers are affected; but examples from the most recent errata include e.g. Magic Missile, Tumble, and Bless. Notably, several wizard encounter powers will get a miss effect. Of course, the classes also get new powers.

Feats will be grouped by category, although this has no in-game effect. More importantly, 4.4 feats no longer have "paragon tier" or "epic tier" as a prerequisite, meaning they're all available at level one. They can still scale with tiers, the way Weapon Focus does. Incidentally, the melee training feat now only adds half its ability modifier to damage.

And the Red Box is intended for first-time players, and contains a simplified and more limited version of character generation via a solo adventure. The PHB in the Red Box consists mostly of this solo adventure.

Nu
2010-08-09, 05:15 AM
Implements are simplified: if you're proficient with an implement, you can use it with all implement powers. No more limits like "you can use this implement with powers from that class only". This is easier on players, but it affects certain weird combos with weapons used as an implement, such as the bola-caster.

Oh thank goodness, I always thought implements were rather haphazard in their current state.

I really like the dwarf change (because I like playing dwarves for flavor reasons), but I'm concerned about the power level. STR/CON and Second Wind as a minor are going to be very hard to pass up for many classes that favor STR/CON, and dwarves were already very strong choices for those.

Too bad about Melee Training though.

Orzel
2010-08-09, 05:22 AM
Well these changes aren't bad. Like the dwarf one.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-09, 06:05 AM
I'm concerned about the power level. STR/CON and Second Wind as a minor are going to be very hard to pass up for many classes that favor STR/CON
True, but I find that having a +1 on your secondary stat is not nearly as big a deal as the forums make it out to be. Sure, it's nice to have +str and +dex on a brutal rogue; but of you only get +dex, the net effect is doing one point less damage on sneak attack, which is hardly the end of the world.


Too bad about Melee Training though.
Yes, but I rather like this: it reduces it from a feat tax (for certain builds) to a competitive choice.

Nu
2010-08-09, 06:38 AM
True, but I find that having a +1 on your secondary stat is not nearly as big a deal as the forums make it out to be. Sure, it's nice to have +str and +dex on a brutal rogue; but of you only get +dex, the net effect is doing one point less damage on sneak attack, which is hardly the end of the world.

That is true, but for dwarves, this is giving them a +2 to a primary stat for many classes they were already very good at. I think it's less about the +1 to riders and more about getting the +2 Strength on top of the rather strong racial feat support, and Second Wind as a minor action. At a glance, I would definitely not have much reason to even consider playing a human over a dwarf for a Fighter or Warden.

...Well, okay, that could be a bit of an exaggeration. A bonus feat/at-will isn't bad... still, I always felt like the one thing that made me reconsider playing a dwarf in those cases was the lack of boost to a primary stat, and now that's gone.

Coidzor
2010-08-09, 07:14 AM
So... what is this? A rules update that's simultaneous with a change in the printing schema?

Or something more along the lines of a launch?

BobVosh
2010-08-09, 07:21 AM
Feats will be grouped by category, although this has no in-game effect. More importantly, 4.4 feats no longer have "paragon tier" or "epic tier" as a prerequisite, meaning they're all available at level one. They can still scale with tiers, the way Weapon Focus does. Incidentally, the melee training feat now only adds half its ability modifier to damage.

I like these changes and the humans one seems powerful, but then again I don't really play second ed.


So... what is this? A rules update that's simultaneous with a change in the printing schema?

Or something more along the lines of a launch?

Well, there is 4ed AD&D, and this one is basically 4ed D&D. Just removing the "advance" bit. Its basically a simpler version, not required for any 4ed game. Has a few neat options, but that is it.

Ignoring Kuralds little tongue in cheek, its actually called 4ed essentials, I believe.

Coidzor
2010-08-09, 07:24 AM
Well, there is 4ed AD&D, and this one is basically 4ed D&D. Just removing the "advance" bit. Its basically a simpler version, not required for any 4ed game. Has a few neat options, but that is it.

Ignoring Kuralds little tongue in cheek, its actually called 4ed essentials, I believe.

... ... ... Ok, other than the whole multiple books thing, which is circumvented by them wanting you to buy the bloody character builder anyway, what was advanced about 4e that they were capable of dumbing it downsimplifying it? :smallconfused:

It already seemed rather bare-bones.

Nu
2010-08-09, 07:30 AM
... ... ... Ok, other than the whole multiple books thing, which is circumvented by them wanting you to buy the bloody character builder anyway, what was advanced about 4e that they were capable of dumbing it downsimplifying it? :smallconfused:

It already seemed rather bare-bones.

Well, for one thing, they removed daily attack powers from martial classes and gave them all at-will powers aimed at boosting basic attacks.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-09, 07:33 AM
... ... ... Ok, other than the whole multiple books thing, which is circumvented by them wanting you to buy the bloody character builder anyway, what was advanced about 4e that they were capable of dumbing it downsimplifying it? :smallconfused:
Primarily (1) an array of options that is bewildering to certain beginning players, and (2) people complaining that martial classes have maneuvers they can only use once per five minutes, or once per day. And, well, marketing of course.

Every class in 4E is easier to play than a 3E druid. But then, every class in 4E is harder to play than a 3E fighter.

Erom
2010-08-09, 07:38 AM
Love the feat changes.

Love the implement changes.

Love that they're breaking the "every class gets X at-will, X encounter, X daily" paradigm. I know the psionic classes were already bending those rules, but it's nice to see some more variation.

Not really excited about the power errata but I spoke to one of the DnD guys at a con who was VERY excited about being able to squeeze so much errata into a single book set, so I guess I will be cautiously optimistic about it.

Don't much care for the new racial bonus set up but I was already living with it since it's not exactly new.

All in all, a bunch of changes I wish had been in 4e in the first place. I feel like after Essentials 4e will be a much more complete game system, but they burned the "early adopters" a little bit getting there.

Glad I spent my money on once-every-6-months character builder updates rather than buying all the books, though. Hope they don't close that loophole!

Eliort
2010-08-09, 09:40 AM
So by the 4.4 update, does that mean that my bard can use his songblade to cast his multiclass implement powers? If so, hooray! That was how I thought it worked at first until the character generator told me otherwise! :smallbiggrin:

This also makes the superior implement training feat MUCH more handy to have!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-09, 09:45 AM
Hmm... the more I hear of these changes, the more interesting it sounds.

Unfortunately, the more interesting 4.4 becomes, the less likely 4.0 is to be continued.

Reverent-One
2010-08-09, 10:10 AM
So they've weakened Melee Training, unsurprising given the new builds. I wonder what they're going to do about all the other items and feats that boost basic attacks. Given that the Basic Attack focused builds don't have daily powers, it could just be they'll leave most of the other basic attack boosters untouched, so a thief rogue does more damage and has a higher attack when it comes to an at-will or encounter timetable, but other rogue builds will make up for this with Daily powers.


Hmm... the more I hear of these changes, the more interesting it sounds.

Unfortunately, the more interesting 4.4 becomes, the less likely 4.0 is to be continued.

OH, what is it about the Essentials stuff released thus far that says "I'm 4.4, not 4.0" to you?

valadil
2010-08-09, 10:14 AM
So by the 4.4 update, does that mean that my bard can use his songblade to cast his multiclass implement powers? If so, hooray! That was how I thought it worked at first until the character generator told me otherwise! :smallbiggrin:

This also makes the superior implement training feat MUCH more handy to have!

As far as I'm aware, D&D Essentials isn't an update or errata. It's a separate game for people who want a gentler intro to D&D than jumping straight to 4e. You're more than welcome to try and convince your GM to incorporate some of the Essentials changes, but I don't think they'll be considered core.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-09, 10:15 AM
As far as I'm aware, D&D Essentials isn't an update or errata. It's a separate game for people who want a gentler intro to D&D than jumping straight to 4e. You're more than welcome to try and convince your GM to incorporate some of the Essentials changes, but I don't think they'll be considered core.

Core is being errata'ed to incorporate those changes made in 4.4. This has started in the previous set of errata, and is to prevent two different versions of a feat, power, race, or item existing with the same name.

Reverent-One
2010-08-09, 10:16 AM
As far as I'm aware, D&D Essentials isn't an update or errata. It's a separate game for people who want a gentler intro to D&D than jumping straight to 4e. You're more than welcome to try and convince your GM to incorporate some of the Essentials changes, but I don't think they'll be considered core.

Yes, the Essentials line is an simpler approach to 4e. No, it's not a seperate game. Essentials is meant to be fully compatible with non-Essentials books.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-09, 10:24 AM
OH, what is it about the Essentials stuff released thus far that says "I'm 4.4, not 4.0" to you?
(1) A lot of the changes are not being incorporated into Errata, even though they make fine sense. The Implement one, for example.

(2) 4.4 is starting to look like it's built on different design philosophies than 4.0; philosophies sufficiently different to warrant it being a "new system." And if 4.4 is a new system, then 4.0 is likely to go the way of 3.0 when 3.5 came out.

Of course, these are just hunches - I obviously have no inside information.

Reverent-One
2010-08-09, 10:37 AM
(1) A lot of the changes are not being incorporated into Errata, even though they make fine sense. The Implement one, for example.

The question is, are they not being incorporated into the 4e Updates at all, or have they simply not been incorporated yet? Using the example of the Implement Change, if they don't stick that into the errata for pre-Essentials books, what happens if an Invoker multi-classes Cleric and takes powers from the Essentials books for Clerics (since if I remember correctly Invokers don't use Holy Symbols)? Or a Warpriest Cleric multiclasses anything not in the Essentials line? You'll have conflicting rules, which isn't going to work.


(2) 4.4 is starting to look like it's built on different design philosophies than 4.0; philosophies sufficiently different to warrant it being a "new system." And if 4.4 is a new system, then 4.0 is likely to go the way of 3.0 when 3.5 came out

Fair enough. I'm sure I've made it clear that I myself don't see much of any fundemental changes in design philosophies thus far, but of course the way I see things is not the way everyone sees things. I think for this we'll just have to wait for the Essentials books, and more importantly, the books AFTER the Essentials books for anything concrete.

Artanis
2010-08-09, 12:41 PM
I think for this we'll just have to wait for the Essentials books, and more importantly, the books AFTER the Essentials books for anything concrete.

You aren't alone :smallwink:

Mando Knight
2010-08-09, 01:08 PM
Unfortunately, the more interesting 4.4 becomes, the less likely 4.0 is to be continued.

Remember that 4.4 is just Kurald's tongue-in-cheek method of referring to the Essentials changes. Wizards is still claiming that it's the same edition all the way to the presses.

Hzurr
2010-08-09, 01:30 PM
I've read a few reports of people playing essentials classes along side regular 4E classes, and apparently it went pretty smoothly. No big power difference; no real difference in building adventures/encounters, or whatever.

For now, I'll stay optimistic, and take WotC at their word that Essentials are just a new way of building classes, and everything is still legal/legit.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-09, 01:35 PM
Remember that 4.4 is just Kurald's tongue-in-cheek method of referring to the Essentials changes. Wizards is still claiming that it's the same edition all the way to the presses.
Certainly, but IIRC Wizards was speaking much the same way on the road to releasing 3.5 too.

Let's just say I trust WotC's press releases about as far as I can throw their corporate headquarters :smalltongue:

Marnath
2010-08-09, 04:44 PM
Wait, so they're dumbing it down more? It wasn't video-gamey enough? :smallconfused:

Hzurr
2010-08-09, 05:24 PM
{Scrubbed}

The idea is that now that there are 3 PHBs, 2 books of nothing but items, and however many power X books; things are a bit overwhelming to new players. (Having just introduced the game to a newbie, I agree with this statement), so it's just new ways of building classes to make in a bit more streamlined to bring new people in.

Coidzor
2010-08-09, 05:29 PM
{Scrubbed}

Well, maybe. I found the Living Forgotten Realms enjoyable, but, well, pretty much like a cooperative game of Final Fantasy Tactics.

Now, I enjoy Final Fantasy Tactics, but, it really does remind me of it something fierce.

I even imagine the little glowing overlays that shoot out from the characters over the squares before they use a power. :smalleek:

I know, I know, those tactics games are based on table top games even more so. In fact, it's kinda funny to see the flowing of thought from them back into tabletop games.

Nu
2010-08-09, 06:20 PM
Well, maybe. I found the Living Forgotten Realms enjoyable, but, well, pretty much like a cooperative game of Final Fantasy Tactics.

Now, I enjoy Final Fantasy Tactics, but, it really does remind me of it something fierce.

I even imagine the little glowing overlays that shoot out from the characters over the squares before they use a power. :smalleek:

I know, I know, those tactics games are based on table top games even more so. In fact, it's kinda funny to see the flowing of thought from them back into tabletop games.

I WISH there was a FFT-ish video game that worked with the 4E rules. Problem is that I simply think there are too many conditionals and out-of-turn events for a video game.

Lans
2010-08-09, 06:58 PM
I WISH there was a FFT-ish video game that worked with the 4E rules. Problem is that I simply think there are too many conditionals and out-of-turn events for a video game.
Not really, just have a system that has a second pause after every action in which time you have a chance to pause and use immediate reactions.

Nu
2010-08-09, 07:07 PM
Not really, just have a system that has a second pause after every action in which time you have a chance to pause and use immediate reactions.

That would be incredibly annoying, though. For both player and programmer. At least how I'm envisioning it.

Nu
2010-08-09, 09:30 PM
As someone who hadn't really followed the development of 4e after it's initial launch, can somone explain to me what 4.4 is? I see above, there is 4e D&D and 4e AD&D?

If I'm understanding correctly, 4.4 is to 4 as Castles & Crusades is to 3.X D&D?

...and is this something that was really needed, or basically a "sub edition" akin to 3.5...debatably to fix known issues and/or a naked money grab?

(Bit of history - I'm a dedicated 3.5 player. My group was 1e AD&D and then 2e AD&D. After a several year break, we re-formed and launched into 3.5 - our hiatus meant we missed 3.0 altogether. A few of us tried a game or two of 4e after it was first launched, but it just didn't "ring our bell".)

Obstinately it's just some additional material for 4E. The actual name of the product is "D&D Essentials." 4.4 nicknaming comes from the apparent "drastic" (depending on who you ask) shift in design philosophy.

Reverent-One
2010-08-09, 09:35 PM
As someone who hadn't really followed the development of 4e after it's initial launch, can somone explain to me what 4.4 is? I see above, there is 4e D&D and 4e AD&D?

If I'm understanding correctly, 4.4 is to 4 as Castles & Crusades is to 3.X D&D?

...and is this something that was really needed, or basically a "sub edition" akin to 3.5...debatably to fix known issues and/or a naked money grab?


Simply put, 4.4, more correctly known as D&D Essentials, is meant to be an easy starting point for someone getting into 4e.

EDIT: ninja'd. I am not surprised.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-09, 09:47 PM
I'm clicking, but it won't let me look inside. :smallfrown:

Gralamin
2010-08-09, 10:45 PM
Yeah sorry, that's just an image, no link (only image I could find, and it has the "click inside" bit built onto it). Go to the Amazon website if you want to use their online browsing feature for the product.

We aren't really sure where it is. Luckily, or unluckily, depending what you think of 4e, It looks like at least one book (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/280880000) after Essentials is not part of it.

Shatteredtower
2010-08-09, 11:30 PM
We aren't really sure where it is. Luckily, or unluckily, depending what you think of 4e, It looks like at least one book (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/280880000) after Essentials is not part of it.

It's listed as a trade paperback. Will that become more common again?

Gralamin
2010-08-10, 12:02 AM
It's listed as a trade paperback. Will that become more common again?

All of the Essentials are also trade paperbacks. They might just be cutting their printing costs.

Mystic Muse
2010-08-10, 01:32 AM
Here's some updates on the new things in 4.4,

Dwarves used to get a bonus to con and wis; they can now pick con/str as an alternative. Likewise, halflings used to be dex/cha, and can now also pick dex/con. Similar changes apply to every race reprinted in 4.4, except humans.
Humans can, instead a third at-will, take an encounter power that retroactively adds +4 to an attack or saving throw. This strikes me as a huge improvement, and of course several of the 4.4 builds don't have at-will attacks anyway.

Implements are simplified: if you're proficient with an implement, you can use it with all implement powers. No more limits like "you can use this implement with powers from that class only". This is easier on players, but it affects certain weird combos with weapons used as an implement, such as the bola-caster.

Several powers will be updated / errata'd, and will be reprinted in their new form in the 4.4 books. It is unclear how many powers are affected; but examples from the most recent errata include e.g. Magic Missile, Tumble, and Bless. Notably, several wizard encounter powers will get a miss effect. Of course, the classes also get new powers.

Feats will be grouped by category, although this has no in-game effect. More importantly, 4.4 feats no longer have "paragon tier" or "epic tier" as a prerequisite, meaning they're all available at level one. They can still scale with tiers, the way Weapon Focus does. Incidentally, the melee training feat now only adds half its ability modifier to damage.

And the Red Box is intended for first-time players, and contains a simplified and more limited version of character generation via a solo adventure. The PHB in the Red Box consists mostly of this solo adventure.

So, these are all essentially errata for 4th edition? Or are some of these things more like ACFs than errata?

Kurald Galain
2010-08-10, 03:47 AM
As someone who hadn't really followed the development of 4e after it's initial launch, can somone explain to me what 4.4 is? I see above, there is 4e D&D and 4e AD&D?
It is, basically, three things.
(1) a new starting point for novice players, featuring classes that are easier to build and easier to play
(2) a reprint of the basic rules that incorporates all errata so far (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9090134&postcount=90)
(3) a change in WOTC's design philosophy, and an opportunity to update earlier material to their changed design philosophy

To an existing player, this is simply an extra bunch of options that can be added to your character or ignored, and a convenient way to get most of the errata in one place. To a new player, this is the starting point, so it is likely that there will be 4.4 groups who are not familiar with 4.0 material. Importantly, WOTC is promising us that 4.4 will always be available in stores, and is making no such promise about 4.0.

And yes, the news WOTC posts about this is very similar to the way they posted news about 3.5 years ago.


Obstinately it's just some additional material for 4E. The actual name of the product is "D&D Essentials." 4.4 nicknaming comes from the apparent "drastic" (depending on who you ask) shift in design philosophy.
No, 4.4 is simply shorter to type. If it were called "D&D Fundamentals" I would have called it 4F, but the abbreviation 4E is already taken.
And yes, there have been several shifts in design philosophy ever since the first set of errata and the PHB2. Every such shift is considered drastic by a vocal minority, and no big deal to everyone else. This is the internet, after all.


So, these are all essentially errata for 4th edition? Or are some of these things more like ACFs than errata?
Both, actually. The four classes get an ACF and the races get an "ARF". A number of powers and feats are going to be reprinted in updated form, and these updates are going to be in the errata for 4.0 as well, examples including Burning Hands and Lightning Reflexes. After all, it would be confusing to have two feats with the same name but a different effect.


Not really, just have a system that has a second pause after every action in which time you have a chance to pause and use immediate reactions.
That turns it into a reflex game, though, which may be annoying to the player. Also, 4E interrupts can change a previous action retroactively. I'd say that a computer game version has to cut down on the out-of-turn philosophy a lot. I would still like to see one, of course; I have good memories of e.g. Planescape Torment.

Mystic Muse
2010-08-10, 03:49 AM
Both, actually. The four classes get an ACF and the races get an "ARF". A number of powers and feats are going to be reprinted in updated form, and these updates are going to be in the errata for 4.0 as well, examples including Burning Hands and Lightning Reflexes. After all, it would be confusing to have two feats with the same name but a different effect.


I'll enjoy telling my group that every feat will soon be/is able to be taken at any level now.:smallamused:

I might need it too. I think I've died six times this campaign.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-10, 04:35 AM
Oh look, another news flash, albeit a minor one.

They're getting rid of the rule that if you have three magic items with a daily power, you can use only one of them per day, plus one per tier or milestone. If that sentence is hard to parse, well, that's because it's a confusing rule.

WOTC seems really intent on cleaning up some needlessly complicated rules kludgesthe simplification of the implement rules is another example. I think this is a good development.

Also, elves can now be dex/int instead of dex/wis if they want, basically giving them eladrin stats. Since the new human retroactive-plus-four is essentially Elven Accuracy but better, I'm wondering if elves will get an ARF (alternative racial feature) too.

Nu
2010-08-10, 04:38 AM
No, 4.4 is simply shorter to type. If it were called "D&D Fundamentals" I would have called it 4F, but the abbreviation 4E is already taken.

My apologies, then.

I personally am looking forward to Essentials, as I don't feel like anything is being imposed on my games that I don't want. And I'm interested to see how the class and race rewrites work out.


I'll enjoy telling my group that every feat will soon be/is able to be taken at any level now.:smallamused:

I'm not sure if ALL feats are going to end up that way. Just that the new feats they design will not be divided up by tier. And some older feats will probably be redesigned.

Reverent-One
2010-08-10, 07:37 AM
Importantly, WOTC is promising us that 4.4 will always be available in stores, and is making no such promise about 4.0.

Why is this important? They're not making any such promise about any of the books after the Essentials line either, so what's the big deal?

Doug Lampert
2010-08-10, 12:14 PM
Why is this important? They're not making any such promise about any of the books after the Essentials line either, so what's the big deal?

The core rules to a system with as much support as 4th edition should always be available.

If they're pledging that essentials will always be available, and not making an equivalent claim about any other books then that can easily be interpereted as saying that these ARE the new core rules rather than just an add on.

And new core rulebooks makes a decent breakpoint for claiming a new edition.

If they claimed that all following books would also always be available, then that would be evidence of a change in publishing philosophy. That they are doing so ONLY for essentials is fairly good (but not decisive) evidence of a new core-ruleset, and a new-core-ruleset is a reasonable place to put a new edition number.

Kylarra
2010-08-10, 12:28 PM
I get more intrigued by this each time Kurald posts new info. Too bad my D&D group is virtually stagnant at the moment.

shadowmage
2010-08-10, 12:33 PM
The core rules to a system with as much support as 4th edition should always be available.

If they're pledging that essentials will always be available, and not making an equivalent claim about any other books then that can easily be interpereted as saying that these ARE the new core rules rather than just an add on.

And new core rulebooks makes a decent breakpoint for claiming a new edition.

They are saying the essentials lines are always going to be available is because they have had problems with store not stocking PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1. They are not going to change the name of them so they are always stocked they choose to go with a new starter set that they tell stores. The essentials line is something you should always stock to make it easier on them. I think, I could and most likely am wrong, in that not all the rules will be in the essentials books. I think it is only the most basic of rules to play.




If they claimed that all following books would also always be available, then that would be evidence of a change in publishing philosophy. That they are doing so ONLY for essentials is fairly good (but not decisive) evidence of a new core-rule-set, and a new-core-rule-set is a reasonable place to put a new edition number.

They have said they are not going to re-print PHB 1, DMG 1, and MM 1 right now as they have plenty in the warehouse. They said when it comes time they will reprint them, maybe with errata. Again it is my understanding it is just to make it easy for store to know what to keep on the shelves.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-10, 12:42 PM
The essentials line is something you should always stock to make it easier on them. I think, I could and most likely am wrong, in that not all the rules will be in the essentials books. I think it is only the most basic of rules to play.
All the rules will be in the Rules Compendium, which is an "essential" product and is intended to always be available. It contains the complete core rules, according to WOTC. It's planned to be released by the end of September, and the next set of errata is expected on October 1st. WOTC has promised to start releasing fewer errata as of next year.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions from that.

Reverent-One
2010-08-10, 01:08 PM
The core rules to a system with as much support as 4th edition should always be available.

If they're pledging that essentials will always be available, and not making an equivalent claim about any other books then that can easily be interpereted as saying that these ARE the new core rules rather than just an add on.

And new core rulebooks makes a decent breakpoint for claiming a new edition.

If they claimed that all following books would also always be available, then that would be evidence of a change in publishing philosophy. That they are doing so ONLY for essentials is fairly good (but not decisive) evidence of a new core-ruleset, and a new-core-ruleset is a reasonable place to put a new edition number.

Except the Essentials isn't a new core-ruleset, it's the same core-ruleset + the errata. And if you consider the changes in the errata a new core-ruleset, then you should have started numbering a long time ago.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-12, 09:45 AM
Just a few tidbits,

Fighter and rogue do still get encounter utility powers. Several of these require that you have a certain skill trained, e.g. athletics.

Some wizards can of hit two targets with a magic missile; speculation is that being an invoker specialist does this. Amusingly, the shield spell now blocks magic missiles, as well as all other force damage.

All wizard encounter or daily powers do something on a miss. Wizards get some illusion powers right out of the box (e.g. the Spectral Image power from dragon magazine) as well as a L1 daily that turns an enemy into a frog, although this ends if the enemy is damaged. They retain their cantrips except for the nebulously-defined prestidigitaton.

Clerics use constitution as a secondary stat, and get several at-will attacks that give a bonus to an ally regardless of whether you hit. Clerics get a relatively large amount of new powers, that appear to be somewhat better than their PHB powers. I haven't seen any reference to rituals, and they are not on the list of class features for wizard or cleric, so it is a possibility that they have been removed in 4.4.

Oh yeah, and Eladrin are int/dex or int/cha.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 09:47 AM
Some wizards can of hit two targets with a magic missile; speculation is that being an invoker specialist does this. Amusingly, the shield spell now blocks magic missiles, as well as all other force damage.
Ah, just like old times.


They retain their cantrips except for the nebulously-defined prestidigitaton.
Aw, I love Prestidigitation!

OK, so I didn't use it all that often, but being able to reflavor things at will? Solid gold! :smallbiggrin:

Kaiser Omnik
2010-08-12, 11:40 AM
Some wizards can of hit two targets with a magic missile; speculation is that being an invoker specialist does this. Amusingly, the shield spell now blocks magic missiles, as well as all other force damage.

Ok, I like the earlier editions of D&D as much as the next guy, but making changes such as this a few years after 4th edition has been out to please nostalgic players (and designers) is just lame. They shouldn't make errata simply because they decided they like this old school feel better!

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-08-12, 12:04 PM
Another tidbit on DDE.

According to the Critical Hits podcast, which I didn't actually listen the whole way through (I started listening to the session, made it a good way through, and then went off to work on other stuff), the slayer fighter is being defined as a pure striker. Beefier hitpoints than other strikers, and less "all at once" damage, but more consistent damage, apparently. And no mark.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-12, 03:13 PM
Another tidbit on DDE.
DDE stands for D&D Encounters, a series of short one-or-two-hour sessions that combine to a larger story, and that are intended to be easier accessible than RPGA. The third season is upcoming.

Anyway, yes, the slayer is a striker, using the same "extra damage" mechanic as the 4.0 sorcerer has.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 03:17 PM
DDE stands for D&D Encounters, a series of short one-or-two-hour sessions that combine to a larger story, and that are intended to be easier accessible than RPGA. The third season is upcoming.

Anyway, yes, the slayer is a striker, using the same "extra damage" mechanic as the 4.0 sorcerer has.
Damnation!

I really thought I had a good short-form there too :smallfrown:

Oh well, back to 4.4. :smalltongue:

Erom
2010-08-12, 03:20 PM
All the rules will be in the Rules Compendium, which is an "essential" product and is intended to always be available. It contains the complete core rules, according to WOTC. It's planned to be released by the end of September, and the next set of errata is expected on October 1st. WOTC has promised to start releasing fewer errata as of next year.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions from that.

I have talked to a few Con-going WOTC employees, and the designer-y ones I spoke too were all INSANELY excited about the Rules Compendium. One guy called it "The most import DnD book I've ever contributed too". I think everyone is really looking forward to one big, sweeping chance for comprehensive errata. The same (hyperbolic) guy called it "The least breakable DnD ruleset ever made."

Obviously take that with a grain of salt, but I have to admit I'm pretty excited about it.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-12, 03:41 PM
The same (hyperbolic) guy called it "The least breakable DnD ruleset ever made."
Interesting. I know some people who will consider that a challenge :smallbiggrin:

Remember that thread on how a level-15 character could one-shot Orcus? The one that was posted the week before the official release of 4.0? D'oh! (ok, so it was errata'ed two weeks later, but still. People are already doing some quite ludicrous things with the new Magic Missile, and that was before it got a dual-shot option...)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 03:55 PM
Interesting. I know some people who will consider that a challenge :smallbiggrin:

Remember that thread on how a level-15 character could one-shot Orcus? The one that was posted the week before the official release of 4.0? D'oh! (ok, so it was errata'ed two weeks later, but still. People are already doing some quite ludicrous things with the new Magic Missile, and that was before it got a dual-shot option...)
I think the guy has a good claim there.

I mean, it's hard to consider TSR D&D a "rules set" what with all of the fudging that was required (and you could still break the game with Dart Specialization). 3.0 & 3.5 are famously broken out of the box - the Diplomacy rules, for example. 4E was also broken out of the box, but it has some advantages (aside from rapid & ruthless patching):
(1) The rules are written legalistically, so there is less room for RAW vs. RAI arguments.
3.0 and 3.5 had the problem of writing some rules sections in legalistic language (i.e. "resting" means X) while leaving other sections vaguely definied (e.g. how does "sleep" interact with the rules for "resting?"). You could have a good-faith argument over how the rules are supposed to be read. In 4E, every game term is explictly defined and the terms are used consistently throughout.

(2) The rules provide guidance whenever they call for DM arbitration
DMG 42 gives the DM extremely good guidelines for how to resolve unusual in-game situations. Even if the DM decides to make a RAI call, he can look at DMG 42 to assign appropriate values to his decision - helpful for "anti-ossmium" style creativity.
Modern gamers seem intent on hacking every system they get. That's fine, but it makes it harder for game developers to design games. IMHO, this is a good thing, since it provides the marketplace with better designed products than what passed as an RPG beforehand but it's not how everyone likes to game.

Still, as long as WotC keeps its ears to the ground and continues its aggressive patching strategy, 4E promises to continue to be the soundest complex RPG system around.

skywalker
2010-08-12, 03:56 PM
OK, so a little like the basic game box that came out for 3.5 then? Or am I still off the mark?

That's what WotC says. There are others that say the sky is falling on 4.0, and the new game will be completely different (again). The truth is probably somewhere in between.


No, 4.4 is simply shorter to type. If it were called "D&D Fundamentals" I would have called it 4F, but the abbreviation 4E is already taken.
And yes, there have been several shifts in design philosophy ever since the first set of errata and the PHB2. Every such shift is considered drastic by a vocal minority, and no big deal to everyone else. This is the internet, after all.

I think overall it consists of a decently drastic shift over the past couple of years. Certainly the WotC attitude has changed a bit. It's gone from "This is new, and you're going to like it!" to "You wanted the old stuff, so now we're giving it back to you, and you're going to like it!"


Why is this important? They're not making any such promise about any of the books after the Essentials line either, so what's the big deal?

Because of this:


The core rules to a system with as much support as 4th edition should always be available.

If they're pledging that essentials will always be available, and not making an equivalent claim about any other books then that can easily be interpereted as saying that these ARE the new core rules rather than just an add on.


They are saying the essentials lines are always going to be available is because they have had problems with store not stocking PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1. They are not going to change the name of them so they are always stocked they choose to go with a new starter set that they tell stores. The essentials line is something you should always stock to make it easier on them. I think, I could and most likely am wrong, in that not all the rules will be in the essentials books.

I've never been to a store that didn't stock the core set. I've been to game stores and not been able to find FRCG. I've been to book stores (Borders) and not been able to find power books, or whatnot. But I've never been able to consistently not find the core set at any store that sells D&D. I don't believe that this is true.


OK, so I didn't use it all that often, but being able to reflavor things at will? Solid gold! :smallbiggrin:

Make it a DC5 (or 10, whatever you think) Arcana check. Problem solved.


Ok, I like the earlier editions of D&D as much as the next guy, but making changes such as this a few years after 4th edition has been out to please nostalgic players (and designers) is just lame. They shouldn't make errata simply because they decided they like this old school feel better!

They're doing it to reach out to the people they alienated with 4e in the first place. Which I understand, they've probably achieved complete market saturation (or close to) with 4th, all the iconic classes are out there, and so now they need to go a different way.

I don't mind it, except that 2 years ago they sold it as "D&D is changing forever and you'd better keep up! You're gonna like this new thing we did, as soon as you try it enough!" And I said no, and I said no, and I said no. And then I said yes, and I learned all the feats, I learned how to analyze and build things well, and then two months later, they announced they're changing everything again.

Boo, hiss.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 04:00 PM
Make it a DC5 (or 10, whatever you think) Arcana check. Problem solved.
Wait, where does it say that? :smallconfused:

If you're just making a DMG 42 argument, I'd like to note that it is not at all clear that Arcana is designed to allow you to produce magical effects. Yes, you can Detect Magic while trained in it, but that is but a single application which looks nothing like Prestidigitation. Furthermore, there's not guidance as to how powerful such "minor" effects can be - most such effects must be taken as a Skill Power rather than just by using a skill.

Personally, I'd prefer to see rules for using Arcana to create minor magical effects in 4.4 rather than relying on a DM to handwave it in.

Reverent-One
2010-08-12, 04:00 PM
Because of this:

Except you forget this:


Except the Essentials isn't a new core-ruleset, it's the same core-ruleset + the errata. And if you consider the changes in the errata a new core-ruleset, then you should have started numbering a long time ago.


They're doing it to reach out to the people they alienated with 4e in the first place. Which I understand, they've probably achieved complete market saturation (or close to) with 4th, all the iconic classes are out there, and so now they need to go a different way.

I don't mind it, except that 2 years ago they sold it as "D&D is changing forever and you'd better keep up! You're gonna like this new thing we did, as soon as you try it enough!" And I said no, and I said no, and I said no. And then I said yes, and I learned all the feats, I learned how to analyze and build things well, and then two months later, they announced they're changing everything again.

Boo, hiss.

Except they're not changing everything, nor going a different way.

EDIT:


Personally, I'd prefer to see rules for using Arcana to create minor magical effects in 4.4 rather than relying on a DM to handwave it in.

Or you could, you know, use a Wizard build from the PHB I or AP.

EDITx2:

That's what WotC says. There are others that say the sky is falling on 4.0, and the new game will be completely different (again). The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Also, good use of the gray fallacy there.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-12, 04:15 PM
In 4E, every game term is explictly defined and the terms are used consistently throughout.
...almost :smallbiggrin:

I've seen lengthy debates on when rolling for damage is considered a "damage roll", or on whether "forced movement" is considered a form of movement, or on what, if anything, the difference is between "entering", "moving into" and some similar synonyms. I think 4E could benefit from looking at the MTG ruleset, and really using the same term every time.

That said, I consider those arguments I just mentioned to be more than a little silly, and I do agree with you that 4E is significantly less breakable than any other version of D&D.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 04:18 PM
...almost :smallbiggrin:

I've seen lengthy debates on when rolling for damage is considered a "damage roll", or on whether "forced movement" is considered a form of movement, or on what, if anything, the difference is between "entering", "moving into" and some similar synonyms. I think 4E could benefit from looking at the MTG ruleset, and really using the same term every time.

That said, I consider those arguments I just mentioned to be more than a little silly, and I do agree with you that 4E is significantly less breakable than any other version of D&D.
IIRC, the Rules Comphendium (in DDI) actually has defined those terms. Not going to check now, though the "forced movement" problem was resolved in a recent Errata.

But yeah, I think the D&D4 team is taking lessons from MtG to heart.

Coidzor
2010-08-12, 04:29 PM
IIRC, the Rules Comphendium (in DDI) actually has defined those terms. Not going to check now, though the "forced movement" problem was resolved in a recent Errata.

But yeah, I think the D&D4 team is taking lessons from MtG to heart.

Took 'em long enough for having been bosom buddies for how many years now?

I think some of these oversights were just made in the first place to create a need for more errata...

Reverent-One
2010-08-12, 04:37 PM
Took 'em long enough for having been bosom buddies for how many years now?

I think some of these oversights were just made in the first place to create a need for more errata...

What would they gain by doing that? The errata is freely available after all.

Coidzor
2010-08-12, 06:39 PM
What would they gain by doing that? The errata is freely available after all.

Watching the forums react would be enough for some of the more perverse individuals, I'm imagining.

BobTheDog
2010-08-12, 07:59 PM
Watching the forums react would be enough for some of the more perverse individuals, I'm imagining.

1 - Create a flawed product so that people are angered.
2 - Fix the flaws so that people who exploited them are angered.
3 - ???
4 - Profit!!!

The more I hear of 4EE, the more I wanna try it on a diehard 3.75 friend (but not Pathfinder 3.75, he has his own looooong collection of houserules stolen from Monte Cook to PF to 4e and more :smallconfused:). Expected result: he'll steal a bunch of it for his 3.75...

skywalker
2010-08-13, 03:39 AM
Wait, where does it say that? :smallconfused:

If you're just making a DMG 42 argument, I'd like to note that it is not at all clear that Arcana is designed to allow you to produce magical effects. Yes, you can Detect Magic while trained in it, but that is but a single application which looks nothing like Prestidigitation. Furthermore, there's not guidance as to how powerful such "minor" effects can be - most such effects must be taken as a Skill Power rather than just by using a skill.

Personally, I'd prefer to see rules for using Arcana to create minor magical effects in 4.4 rather than relying on a DM to handwave it in.

It should show you just how far I've gone into the 4e "just handwave it" mindset that I put forward precisely that: a DMG43 argument. I like calling it that, by the way.


Except they're not changing everything, nor going a different way.

You can say it's not a different rule set, but that doesn't mean it isn't. Was 3.5 a different core rule set from 3.0? Clearly, WotC intended for us to think it wasn't. But it turned out to be, pretty undeniably. Right now, these are indeed just more options. But when the 2008 core set stops being printed, and the character builder stops showing the old magic missile or prestidigitation, are they just options anymore? Or are they the new core versions of those powers? So maybe a few (many?) powers isn't enough for you. What if they removed the Battlerager fighter from the Character Builder? At that point would you start thinking about a new edition?


Or you could, you know, use a Wizard build from the PHB I or AP.

Clearly you've never been exposed to the "if it's not in the current rules, you can't do it" phenomenon.

Are LFR, DDE, etc, going to be compatible with both? Or will you have to have the "current" version of each power to play LFR? I think I know the answer to this one, it's the one that sells more books for WotC. You won't be able to use the old version of magic missile, because that's been errata'd out of existence.


Also, good use of the gray fallacy there.

The what now?

Reverent-One
2010-08-13, 07:17 AM
You can say it's not a different rule set, but that doesn't mean it isn't. Was 3.5 a different core rule set from 3.0? Clearly, WotC intended for us to think it wasn't. But it turned out to be, pretty undeniably. Right now, these are indeed just more options. But when the 2008 core set stops being printed, and the character builder stops showing the old magic missile or prestidigitation, are they just options anymore? Or are they the new core versions of those powers? So maybe a few (many?) powers isn't enough for you. What if they removed the Battlerager fighter from the Character Builder? At that point would you start thinking about a new edition?

Similarly, you can say it's a new core rule set, but that doesn't mean it is. In answer to your last question, it would become a new edition when the new material is no longer compatible with the old stuff. By this I don't mean they errata a power and thus the original writing is no longer accurate, but if when 4EE came out, we were to be told that the old fighter builds and powers were not longer usable and we had to use the new fighter builds and powers only, that would be such incompatibility. They have, however, already said that the builds in 4EE do not replace the older builds anymore than the martial power builds replaced the PHB I builds.


Clearly you've never been exposed to the "if it's not in the current rules, you can't do it" phenomenon.

Are LFR, DDE, etc, going to be compatible with both? Or will you have to have the "current" version of each power to play LFR? I think I know the answer to this one, it's the one that sells more books for WotC. You won't be able to use the old version of magic missile, because that's been errata'd out of existence.

Clearly you don't understand that books released prior to the Essentials are still part of the current rules. Right, you won't be able to use the old magic missile, just like you can't use the original form of ANY of the powers/feats/ect they've errata'd in the past 2 years. So you'll be using the new version, but you won't have to buy the books to get it, as the errata is still free. Again, this is no different than any other errata they've done.


The what now?

The gray fallacy, also known as the Golden Mean fallacy, also known as the Argument to Moderation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

Renchard
2010-08-13, 08:44 AM
Clearly you don't understand that books released prior to the Essentials are still part of the current rules. Right, you won't be able to use the old magic missile, just like you can't use the original form of ANY of the powers/feats/ect they've errata'd in the past 2 years. So you'll be using the new version, but you won't have to buy the books to get it, as the errata is still free. Again, this is no different than any other errata they've done.
The difference between the Essentials changes (like magic missile) and previous errata is that the Essentials changes are being made for the purpose of playability and thematic feel, as opposed to the balance changes of previous errata. The different intent makes the changes feel more pronounced than they actually are. Other than that, I agree with you.

Reverent-One
2010-08-13, 08:51 AM
The difference between the Essentials changes (like magic missile) and previous errata is that the Essentials changes are being made for the purpose of playability and thematic feel, as opposed to the balance changes of previous errata. The different intent makes the changes feel more pronounced than they actually are. Other than that, I agree with you.

I can sorta see where you're coming from, but isn't playabilty the reason why they've tried keep things balanced?

Renchard
2010-08-13, 09:06 AM
I can sorta see where you're coming from, but isn't playabilty the reason why they've tried keep things balanced?

Playability meaning changing the way the game is played, not whether or not the play is being diminished by rules not working they are intended. "Playability" probably isn't the best word for what I mean, sorry. It's more akin to how they're changing the talent trees in WoW (uh oh, I compared 4e to WoW!). The talent trees are being slimmed down to remove passive bonuses; this isn't because of any balance issues, it's to improve the playability of the classes.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-13, 09:08 AM
The difference between the Essentials changes (like magic missile) and previous errata is that the Essentials changes are being made for the purpose of playability and thematic feel, as opposed to the balance changes of previous errata.
True enough. There is a clear difference of intent between "we're going to limit Blade Cascade because it's too powerful otherwise", and "we're going to make Magic Missile an autohit to restore the power to its classical form".

The latter kind of change has been unprecendented until the July errata, and this reflects a change in design philosophy for WOTC.

This is really not that big a deal, but people are correct to point out that there is a paradigm shift between PHB1-3 and DMG1-2 on the one hand, and the Heroes Of Foo series and the Rules Compendium on the other.

Reverent-One
2010-08-13, 09:14 AM
True enough. There is a clear difference of intent between "we're going to limit Blade Cascade because it's too powerful otherwise", and "we're going to make Magic Missile an autohit to restore the power to its classical form".

There's not quite so much difference of intent if the second statement is instead "we're going to make Magic Missile an autohit because we didn't really know what we were doing with controllers in the beginning and made it a striker power orignially."


This is really not that big a deal, but people are correct to point out that there is a paradigm shift between PHB1-3 and DMG1-2 on the one hand, and the Heroes Of Foo series and the Rules Compendium on the other.

Eh, that has yet to be shown.


Playability meaning changing the way the game is played, not whether or not the play is being diminished by rules not working they are intended. "Playability" probably isn't the best word for what I mean, sorry. It's more akin to how they're changing the talent trees in WoW (uh oh, I compared 4e to WoW!). The talent trees are being slimmed down to remove passive bonuses; this isn't because of any balance issues, it's to improve the playability of the classes.

So by playabilty you mean improving the experince of playing the class?

skywalker
2010-08-13, 11:16 AM
Similarly, you can say it's a new core rule set, but that doesn't mean it is. In answer to your last question, it would become a new edition when the new material is no longer compatible with the old stuff. By this I don't mean they errata a power and thus the original writing is no longer accurate, but if when 4EE came out, we were to be told that the old fighter builds and powers were not longer usable and we had to use the new fighter builds and powers only, that would be such incompatibility. They have, however, already said that the builds in 4EE do not replace the older builds anymore than the martial power builds replaced the PHB I builds.

And my point is that of course they're going to tell you that all your shiny 4e books won't be obsolete up until the point where they make them obsolete.

Also, while they may have said all that, the effect of not printing the books containing those builds (nor even telling retailers to stock them) and of heavily promoting books with the new builds is a similar effect. We have no idea how far this will go, but there is more than one way to skin this cat, far more subtle ways that I consider far more likely for WotC to perpetrate.


Clearly you don't understand that books released prior to the Essentials are still part of the current rules. Right, you won't be able to use the old magic missile, just like you can't use the original form of ANY of the powers/feats/ect they've errata'd in the past 2 years. So you'll be using the new version, but you won't have to buy the books to get it, as the errata is still free. Again, this is no different than any other errata they've done.

As Kurald said, some of these powers are being fundamentally changed, not just re-worked, and if there are builds based around certain powers, then yes those builds will be made obsolete. There's a difference between "blade cascade no longer does infinite damage so my orcus one-shotter no longer works" and "they 'rewrote tide of iron so that it would work with the Essentials fighter,' and now a whole group of fighter builds is shot." My point is simply that WotC has every incentive to tell us it's going to be the way you say it is. Arguing that they haven't said anything about it being a new system is pointless, because of course they wouldn't.



The gray fallacy, also known as the Golden Mean fallacy, also known as the Argument to Moderation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

That is not an appropriate characterization of my argument.


There's not quite so much difference of intent if the second statement is instead "we're going to make Magic Missile an autohit because we didn't really know what we were doing with controllers in the beginning and made it a striker power orignially."

So they fixed it by making it what is generally accepted to be one of the worst controller powers in existence? Somehow that doesn't make me too confident in their abilities as designers. Which is why I don't believe that's the attitude they're taking at all. The attitude is "people were pissed when they found out magic missile didn't autohit anymore, so we changed it back. People were pissed when they found out fighters got spells. So here, grognards, have a 4e that tastes a little more like 3.5." Having read the dev articles, I'd have to say no-one said "we built magic missile wrong for controllers, and the new change makes it more of a controller power." Because they know that they didn't.

Gametime
2010-08-13, 11:57 AM
My point is simply that WotC has every incentive to tell us it's going to be the way you say it is. Arguing that they haven't said anything about it being a new system is pointless, because of course they wouldn't.

It's certainly possible that Wizards is just trying to be sneaky about shifting in a new edition. The rules changes don't seem quite that drastic, though. Of course, I didn't think the 3.0 to 3.5 shift was drastic enough to call it a new edition; spells and class features and feats got changed, skills got consolidated, and the action paradigm was slightly re-jiggered. The basic mechanics of nearly everything remained the same. There's a reason un-updated 3.0 books are trivial to convert to 3.5 - because, basically, they're the same system.

The Essentials previews so far look a lot like what happened with 3.5, except a bit less replace-y and a bit more addition-y. It's as if, when updating 3.0, instead of changing the Ranger class they added a new class, Hunter, that looked a lot like the Ranger.

It's definitely silly to say that the Essentials series definitely won't be a new edition just because Wizards says so. On the other hand, a shocking number of people have expressed the view that the Essentials definitely will be a new edition on the grounds that Wizards says it won't, which is at least as silly.

They have an incentive to lie if they're planning on sneaking a new edition in under our noses, certainly. They also have an incentive not to lie if they aren't planning on doing that, and there are any number of reasons why it might be more financially sound to not replace 4th edition at this time.

Reverent-One
2010-08-13, 12:00 PM
And my point is that of course they're going to tell you that all your shiny 4e books won't be obsolete up until the point where they make them obsolete.

Also, while they may have said all that, the effect of not printing the books containing those builds (nor even telling retailers to stock them) and of heavily promoting books with the new builds is a similar effect. We have no idea how far this will go, but there is more than one way to skin this cat, far more subtle ways that I consider far more likely for WotC to perpetrate.

So it boils down to you think WoTC is going to change everything, but you can't prove it yet and can't be disproven until after the fact. That's an incredibly paranoid way to look at things.


As Kurald said, some of these powers are being fundamentally changed, not just re-worked, and if there are builds based around certain powers, then yes those builds will be made obsolete. There's a difference between "blade cascade no longer does infinite damage so my orcus one-shotter no longer works" and "they 'rewrote tide of iron so that it would work with the Essentials fighter,' and now a whole group of fighter builds is shot." My point is simply that WotC has every incentive to tell us it's going to be the way you say it is. Arguing that they haven't said anything about it being a new system is pointless, because of course they wouldn't.

You misunderstand my use of the terms builds. I was refering to the builds as in Battlerager Fighter or the dual weapon figher builds, or Brutal Scoundrel or Artful Dodger rogue builds, not some individual's idea of how to combine the powers and feats of the system.


That is not an appropriate characterization of my argument.

It is of the section I quoted, which was "Internet conspiracists say this, WoTC says that, the answer must be in the middle."


So they fixed it by making it what is generally accepted to be one of the worst controller powers in existence? Somehow that doesn't make me too confident in their abilities as designers. Which is why I don't believe that's the attitude they're taking at all. The attitude is "people were pissed when they found out magic missile didn't autohit anymore, so we changed it back. People were pissed when they found out fighters got spells. So here, grognards, have a 4e that tastes a little more like 3.5." Having read the dev articles, I'd have to say no-one said "we built magic missile wrong for controllers, and the new change makes it more of a controller power." Because they know that they didn't.

It's more of a controller power than it used to be, with the additional benefit of being more like the classic idea of the what the spell is. It's uselessness is debatable, but we could argue about that all day and that's also beside the point. If you want a better example of a change made just to be like the old school, the reprint of Shield in 4EE will prevent all force damage for it's duration. Wonder why that sounds familar? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm)

So, we can agree that at least one power has been changed largely to be more old school. Why is this a big deal? If they were to go and only issue errata to make things more old school and no longer did it to balance things, that would be a major change, but not if they just occansionally feel the classic version is better than their modification and switch it. They've changed their minds on aspects of the game many time since it's release, in class design with their use of V Classes (or more specificly, not using V Classes past PHB I), in race design with the addition of the optional attribute boosts, and in monster design with Solo health and damage and the roles of minions just to name a few. That's all fine, but tweaking a power that isn't horribly broken or weak isn't? It's still all about improving the game, and doesn't undermine or change the fundemental mechanics of the edition.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-13, 12:06 PM
It's definitely silly to say that the Essentials series definitely won't be a new edition just because Wizards says so. On the other hand, a shocking number of people have expressed the view that the Essentials definitely will be a new edition on the grounds that Wizards says it won't, which is at least as silly.
Well, yes. It also really doesn't matter one bit whether it is a new edition, or whether some people call it a new edition, or whether some people refuse to do that.

It is a book (several books, to be precise). Some people will buy it, some people won't. Some people will like it, others won't, and yet others will be fairly indifferent. Some people will play with it, some people will play with the PHB instead, some people will use both, some people will use neither, and some people will create a crossover with Bunnies & Burrows, Paranoia, and FATAL all at the same time.

It's Only A Game, You Should Really Just Relax. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)


(edit) oh yeah, and we don't have to speculate on what WOTC's motivation was for changing Magic Missile, because this is spelled out in the errata file. If it matters to you, look it up :smallsmile:

Reverent-One
2010-08-13, 12:24 PM
(edit) oh yeah, and we don't have to speculate on what WOTC's motivation was for changing Magic Missile, because this is spelled out in the errata file. If it matters to you, look it up :smallsmile:

The errata lists that they wanted to bring it in line with the classic version, but not why they wanted to. Because they liked it better? Because it's more controller-y? That the change to bring Magic Missile in line with the older version also makes the wizard's least fitting at-will from a role perspective more controller-y seems like quite the coincidence if it wasn't intentional.

skywalker
2010-08-14, 07:17 PM
So it boils down to you think WoTC is going to change everything, but you can't prove it yet and can't be disproven until after the fact. That's an incredibly paranoid way to look at things.

I personally think this smells exactly like what they've dealt before. And we know how that turned out.


It is of the section I quoted, which was "Internet conspiracists say this, WoTC says that, the answer must be in the middle."

No, no it's not, because I never said that. "Answer is probably in the middle" does not mean "the answer must be in the middle."


So, we can agree that at least one power has been changed largely to be more old school. Why is this a big deal? If they were to go and only issue errata to make things more old school and no longer did it to balance things, that would be a major change, but not if they just occansionally feel the classic version is better than their modification and switch it. They've changed their minds on aspects of the game many time since it's release, in class design with their use of V Classes (or more specificly, not using V Classes past PHB I), in race design with the addition of the optional attribute boosts, and in monster design with Solo health and damage and the roles of minions just to name a few. That's all fine, but tweaking a power that isn't horribly broken or weak isn't? It's still all about improving the game, and doesn't undermine or change the fundemental mechanics of the edition.

The fundamental backbone of 4E was powers. Changing the game so that not everyone gets powers is a significant change. "Everybody gets spells" is not true anymore.

PinkysBrain
2010-08-14, 07:35 PM
How does multiclassing work with the power-less classes?

Reverent-One
2010-08-14, 07:39 PM
I personally think this smells exactly like what they've dealt before. And we know how that turned out.

So yes to the part you're quoting.


No, no it's not, because I never said that. "Answer is probably in the middle" does not mean "the answer must be in the middle."

You still seem to be assuming the answer in the middle, but very well. I will retract my statement.


The fundamental backbone of 4E was powers. Changing the game so that not everyone gets powers is a significant change. "Everybody gets spells" is not true anymore.

Everyone still gets powers. Some classes just get powers that boost basic attacks instead of being actions in their own rights. There is little difference between attacking with the Cleave power, or using a power to give all your basic attacks a cleave-like ability, except in how people learn it, the latter is easier for those who have trouble wrapping their minds around powers.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-19, 08:18 AM
Oh dear :smalleek:

Turns out that the Magic Missile power in the Red Box has one or two targets, whereas the Magic Missile power in the Heroes book is a newer version that has only one target. So the Red Box is going to require errata before it's even out...

Confusingly, rogues get a Deft Strike power which is identical to the one in the PHB but is melee only; and a variant to the PHB's rogue weapon talent that additionally boosts damage. Also, the Rogue power Tumble was recently errata'ed to let you shift your speed instead of half your speed, but the Red Box version is still half your speed, and gives a damage bonus now.

In better news, there is a new layout to power cards and to the standard character sheet, which in both cases is much clearer and less cluttered than the current version.

Reverent-One
2010-08-19, 09:46 AM
Turns out that the Magic Missile power in the Red Box has one or two targets, whereas the Magic Missile power in the Heroes book is a newer version that has only one target. So the Red Box is going to require errata before it's even out...

Confusingly, rogues get a Deft Strike power which is identical to the one in the PHB but is melee only; and a variant to the PHB's rogue weapon talent that additionally boosts damage. Also, the Rogue power Tumble was recently errata'ed to let you shift your speed instead of half your speed, but the Red Box version is still half your speed, and gives a damage bonus now.


*facepalm*

Editing/Inter-company commuication FAIL! Good job WoTC.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-23, 04:52 AM
Ah, we now have information about magic item rarity.

WOTC states that "Particularly at high levels, a character’s add quite a few powers and abilities that might overshadow other character aspects." D'oh! It was one of their explicit design goals that this would [i]not be the case in 4E. Also, I fail to see how the rarity levels will address this issue.

Anyway, here's the scoop:

{table]|Common|Uncommon|Rare
Intended as|Buy and forget about it|Decision every encounter|Character defining
Show up|50% of loot|49% of loot|Once per tier
Sell for|20% of value|50%|100%
Type|Static bonus|Daily power|Complex
Buy/enchant|Yes|At DM's discretion|At DM's discretion
[/table]

WOTC claims that this is a big change, but it's really not that big a deal. This is because they're making two incorrect assumptions. First, that an activated power is better than a static bonus; and second, that any +2 item is better than a +1 item with a good power or property. The result is that of the items printed so far, commons tend to be better than uncommons, and that any moderate-to-high level character will stock up on a load of low-level items for spare change.

It does mean, however, that you can no longer carry a handful of identical items with an activated power to get around the usage limit, unless the DM lets you. That's a good change, which primarily impacts RPGA (because in a home campaign, the DMs probably wouldn't have let you anyway).

ShaggyMarco
2010-08-23, 08:59 AM
It looks like the "Show Up" category should probably read 50%/37.5%/12.5%

On the basis that a party receives 40 magic items/tier, half will be common (20 items), each character will receive 1 rare (5 items), and less than half are uncommon (the remaining 15 items).

So, per tier, you will receive 1 rare, 3 uncommons, and 4 commons, plus cash.

This is all assuming a 5-man group, and that basic concepts of DMG Wealth-by-level will still stand, more or less.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-23, 09:46 AM
It looks like the "Show Up" category should probably read 50%/37.5%/12.5%
True, assuming the DM uses the wealth guidelines from the DMG. The amount of players doesn't seem to matter here.

However, it seems that most DMs actually don't: I find, both from experience and forum posts, that many DMs intuitively give out substantially less items. Getting 20 items would make it 50% / 25% / 25%. Second, I'm sure that some DMs will interpret this as "one rare, then half of what's left are commons", even though that's not what it really says; this would make it 37.5% / 37.5% / 25%.

Third, in RPGA, you will get 50 items per tier in a five-man party. That makes it 25 / 20 / 5, or 50% / 40% / 10%. And, given the way item choices work in RPGA, people will take certain items much more often. Assuming the one rare limit will be enforced in RPGA rules, and assuming uncommons are actually more powerful than commons, that would make the skew more like 20% / 70% / 10%.

Confusing, no? :smallbiggrin:

Aside from all that, the Artificer class will need errata for several of its powers that recharge or allow extra uses of magical items; the EMI ritual needs clarification on whether it can upgrade rare items to the next plus; and all consumable items that presently count as a Magic Item Daily will require some other limit to prevent people from using them for every single encounter. Classifying them as uncommon would work.

Reverent-One
2010-08-24, 10:08 PM
Gabe of Penny Arcade fame has written up a short review of the Red Box, which he got and ran a game with recently. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/23/) From all the reviews and leaks WoTC has put out thus far, I expect my opinion of 4EE will be much the same as his.

Mando Knight
2010-08-24, 11:09 PM
Gabe of Penny Arcade fame has written up a short review of the Red Box, which he got and ran a game with recently. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/23/) From all the reviews and leaks WoTC has put out thus far, I expect my opinion of 4EE will be much the same as his.

So, Gabe seems to think that Essentials would be fairly cross-compatible with other 4e games...

I haven't had much of an opinion of the new series so far other than "wait and see," but the tutorial-style walkthrough of character creation seems like a neat idea for WotC to at least experiment with putting in an RPG book.

Coidzor
2010-08-24, 11:35 PM
So apparently it gimps martial types even more, reducing them to sub-3.5 levels? :smallconfused: And he considers this a good thing...

I knew he was portrayed as the dumb one in the comedic duo, but, bwuh?

Reverent-One
2010-08-25, 12:35 AM
So, Gabe seems to think that Essentials would be fairly cross-compatible with other 4e games...

I haven't had much of an opinion of the new series so far other than "wait and see," but the tutorial-style walkthrough of character creation seems like a neat idea for WotC to at least experiment with putting in an RPG book.

And he should have some idea what he's talking about, since he's been playing since before 4e was even officially released (that was when the first PA/PVP podcast was recorded, yes?).


So apparently it gimps martial types even more, reducing them to sub-3.5 levels? :smallconfused: And he considers this a good thing...


No, as we've seen in the previews, the martial types simply all rely on basic attacks, which are boosted by their stances to normal at-will power levels and by encounter powers to normal encounter power levels. The martial builds don't have daily powers though, and it is not entirely clear (to me yet, anyway) how exactly that is made up.

DSCrankshaw
2010-08-25, 12:52 AM
No, as we've seen in the previews, the martial types simply all rely on basic attacks, which are boosted by their stances to normal at-will power levels and by encounter powers to normal encounter power levels. The martial builds don't have daily powers though, and it is not entirely clear (to me yet, anyway) how exactly that is made up.

Supposedly the features given in place of daily powers will handle that. It remains to be seen how effective that will be. Obviously, an always-on feature can't be as powerful per attack as a daily power. But they need to be powerful enough to be about equivalent to a daily in the long haul.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-25, 02:15 AM
So apparently it gimps martial types even more, reducing them to sub-3.5 levels? :smallconfused: And he considers this a good thing...
Well, not really. The 4.4 slayer and thief appear to consistently outdamage the 4.0 fighter and rogue, barring heavy optimization of the latter, and several powers of the 4.4 warpriest and mage appear to be better than their PHB equivalents (although of course a regular cleric or wizard can simply take these powers).

It does bring the rogue and fighter closer to their "classic" playstyle where every turn, you simply attack things with your sword (yes, a 4.4 fighter has more options than this, but so does a 3.0 or 2.0 fighter). This is important: a vocal minority claims that 3E sucks because fighters have so few options in play, but it turns out that many people enjoy this playstyle (and people that don't can simply pick another class). So WOTC is broadening the game to include these people, and that strikes me as a good thing.

huttj509
2010-08-25, 03:40 AM
The way I see it there are/were 2 main issues with the "I swing my sword again" style of fighter.

a) People found it boring. If you are one of those people, taking a 4EE variant of a class may not be for you. However, there are people who prefer having fewer options to choose from each round, who want a more "set it and forget it" style of fighter, and they may want to check out the new feel available. In this circumstance, I feel strongly in the "options for playstyle are good" camp.

b) It simply didn't work. Unless you tricked out your fighter with a trick like ubercharging (and sometimes even then), you were not just mechanically less effective, but playing a whole nother ballgame from other guys. It seems like an effort is being made to make sure that a 4EE character can be in a party with 4 "normal" 4E characters (or 2/3, 5/0, etc), and not feel useless, without significant ajustments needed to the encounters (outside of normal "gosh these guys have no leader, I should modify the fights a bit, maybe." Type situations, which can crop up anyway.). I can get behind that.


If 4EE classes end up as class "lite", such that if you have those classes you need to significantly cut the encounter budget, I'd say the intent failed. If they wind up on par with other classes/builds (within the standard deviation different builds can already have, yadda yadda), I have no issue with it being a set of builds for folks who prefer the style, or new players, or people who get overwhelmed trying to sort through all the options, or whatever.

There's a difference between "this is how a fighter is played now," and "this is how a fighter can be played now." I for one like the latter, which seems to be their stated intent, and hopefully what the outcome actually is.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-25, 04:12 AM
There's a difference between "this is how a fighter is played now," and "this is how a fighter can be played now." I for one like the latter, which seems to be their stated intent, and hopefully what the outcome actually is.
That depends. In a 4.4-only game, this is how the fighter is played now. In a game that allows the older books too, this is how the fighter can be played now.

Since it is intended as the always-available new starting point for D&D, it is to be expected that 4.4-only games will become the default for new players, and the equivalent of "core only" games in earlier editions.

huttj509
2010-08-25, 04:26 AM
That depends. In a 4.4-only game, this is how the fighter is played now. In a game that allows the older books too, this is how the fighter can be played now.

Since it is intended as the always-available new starting point for D&D, it is to be expected that 4.4-only games will become the default for new players, and the equivalent of "core only" games in earlier editions.

In any game restricting sources restricts options. If you run an ADnD 2E game I cannot play a 4E sorcerer.

However, some options are replaced/restricted by the system. If the group is playing 3.5E, I cannot be playing 4E alongside them. However, if the group is playing 4E, I could conceivably be playing a 4EE class with them, or vice versa, and the system would not restrict it at all. The players might, and they may have varying reasons for doing so (if the DM were new and didn't want to learn the other mechanics yet, feeling like he had to know what was up with each character, for example).

Similarly, a player group could insist on a "striker only" game. Or a "All martial power source" game. That's not a design failing if the players decide to impose additional restrictions.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-25, 04:35 AM
Similarly, a player group could insist on a "striker only" game. Or a "All martial power source" game. That's not a design failing if the players decide to impose additional restrictions.
I don't think anybody is calling it a design failing.

But aside from restrictions, there is another reason for which classes appear in a game: awareness. There are campaigns that do not include e.g. a battlemind, assassin, or artificer for the reason that the players are unaware these classes exist in the first place.

It is quite possible that a group of players who start with 4.4 will be unaware of the existence of e.g. the Brutal Scoundrel Rogue.

Loren
2010-08-25, 08:28 AM
However, with DDI as soon as a new group gets solidly into the game they will become aware of other possiblities very quickly.

Which raises a question I have, how will 4EE interact with the Character Builder? Will the new powers be availible to all builds within a class or do you have to select the particular builds to gain access to 4EE powers?

Coidzor
2010-08-25, 09:44 AM
However, with DDI as soon as a new group gets solidly into the game they will become aware of other possiblities very quickly.

Which raises a question I have, how will 4EE interact with the Character Builder? Will the new powers be availible to all builds within a class or do you have to select the particular builds to gain access to 4EE powers?
They'd probably have to write in a bit about how certain stances are ended by using powers while in them or not, but that would be interesting to have a mixture of both stance and use powers for melee types.

Reverent-One
2010-08-25, 09:51 AM
But aside from restrictions, there is another reason for which classes appear in a game: awareness. There are campaigns that do not include e.g. a battlemind, assassin, or artificer for the reason that the players are unaware these classes exist in the first place.

It is quite possible that a group of players who start with 4.4 will be unaware of the existence of e.g. the Brutal Scoundrel Rogue.

Which has all the relevance in this discussion as houserules do when we're talking about RAW. Because like houserules, the exact material a group allows or disallows (or knows about or not) will vary from group to group, and for us to be able to dicuss 4e or the Essentials line as a whole we need to have common ground.

Gryffon
2010-08-25, 10:00 AM
I believe you've misread it.


From what I’ve been told this is a return to the roots of D&D where fighters hit stuff and wizards were the ones with all the cool spells. Essentials attempts to solve two problems that I don’t actually have, so it’s hard for me to really comment on it. It does a great job of doing something I’m not interested in doing.

He's says it does a great job, if that's what you want. He and his group likes Fighters with powers.

Mando Knight
2010-08-25, 10:41 AM
They'd probably have to write in a bit about how certain stances are ended by using powers while in them or not, but that would be interesting to have a mixture of both stance and use powers for melee types.

They probably won't need to. Almost all of the stances for the Essentials versions specify that you need to use a basic attack (generally melee) with the stance. Villain's Menace certainly isn't a melee basic attack.

Anyone else think that the freshly-announced Neverwinter, with its iconics-only set of classes (initially, or so Cryptic promises), will be based off of the Essentials variation?

Gryffon
2010-08-25, 12:15 PM
They probably won't need to. Almost all of the stances for the Essentials versions specify that you need to use a basic attack (generally melee) with the stance. Villain's Menace certainly isn't a melee basic attack.

Anyone else think that the freshly-announced Neverwinter, with its iconics-only set of classes (initially, or so Cryptic promises), will be based off of the Essentials variation?

To be honest. No. As 4th edition is already the prime set for an MMO style game. Using Essentials would be a step backwards for them.

shadowmage
2010-08-25, 12:29 PM
To be honest. No. As 4th edition is already the prime set for an MMO style game. Using Essentials would be a step backwards for them.

How so? Just like for the Pen and Paper game it would be just a different option. Instead of clicking different at-Will/Encounter/Daily buttons. You will just click a Stance then spam an attack button and click other encounter and level based attack. I think there are plenty of MMO's/games with Stance like abilities you can turn on and still click other buttons.

Gryffon
2010-08-25, 01:50 PM
How so? Just like for the Pen and Paper game it would be just a different option. Instead of clicking different at-Will/Encounter/Daily buttons. You will just click a Stance then spam an attack button and click other encounter and level based attack. I think there are plenty of MMO's/games with Stance like abilities you can turn on and still click other buttons.

Plenty of games have stances yes, but most of them are accompanied by a range of attacks still. From what I get from Essentials, being a melee class your options are pretty much Basic Attack, Change Stance, Basic Attack. It could come from only knowing a limited amount about what we do about Essentials.

If you check out Massively.com, the did an interview with Jack Emmert. They specifically talk about 3.5 versus 4th edition.

And then he specifically talks about how 4e is like an MMO.


Everyone jokes that Fourth Edition is like an MMO for your tabletop.

That is something that's been bandied about. There's elements that they've adapted. The mechanics for taunting and holding aggro, within the game itself, that are inspired or seem to be inspired from computer games, if not MMOs, but I think a lot of it is when you focus in on a 3-D world, when you talk about miniatures and you're systemizing things like a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, a cleric, you're inevitably going to end up with MMO game mechanics, because that's what MMOs did. They took a look at the fantasy tropes and systemized them.

I could see some Essentials options showing up. But I doubt that would be the base. They're aiming for two markets. The MMO crowd, and the D&D crowd.

Borrowing from Gabe to illustrate about the MMO group:


My players all come from video games and almost all of them have played World of Warcraft for years. My wife felt very comfortable stepping into 4e because it felt like building a character in WOW. Even if she is a warrior she expects to see a ton of different powers down there in her action bar. The idea of only being able to do basic attacks from a couple different stances just doesn’t cut it for most of the players I know.

Essentials is a product for beginners and non-converts. They don't need Essentials to attract people who are already fans of 4e. What's going to attract D&D fans is the franchise and the toolset.

Could Neverwinter be based on Essentials? Yes. But I very highly doubt it.

BlckDv
2010-08-25, 02:56 PM
At this point I'm trying to figure out how this new magical system will "click" cleanly with the current 4e rules.

If I have a bag of 4e low level "Master's Wand of ...." are they suddenly going to sell for 50% of cost and no longer be available for purchase? Are all current items going to be considered "Common" or are we going to get a massive errata dump with Common/Uncommon/Rare for every item already published (Let me tell you that even more than power rewrites knowing that *Every Entry* in my AV books is out of date annoys me)?

What about items like the Master's Wands that have an effect and a daily? Are they "Complex" (Rare)? Only getting one a tier seems absurd for many arcanist builds.

Frankly this new magic item system with variable costs, rarity levels and no daily use limits seems much harder to drop into an ongoing 4e game as just another part of play than a new Slayer fighter or an Invoker Mage.

I know it will frustrate a couple of my players who have carefully planned their gear wish lists to mix allowable daily uses with static and encounter powers.

Loren
2010-08-25, 03:11 PM
My understanding is that the new magic items rules are very flexible to a DM's discretion. So it shouldn't impact any on going games unless the DM desides to impact the game.
My guess is that rare items line up more closely with artifacts than anything else and most of the equipment "on the Market" at this point will be common or rare.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-25, 03:29 PM
The news so far is that most existing items will be classed as "uncommon". Based on that, yes, if your DM uses the errata, these will increase in sale price and will no longer be available in stores. However, it has also been stated that items with only a static bonus are "common", so a reasonable assumption is that existing items with only a static bonus will in fact be "common", and all the others "uncommon".

Items with a property and a power probably aren't complex enough to automatically become rares; and artifacts aren't rares either, but are a fourth class. You can probably tell how complex an item is by how much rules text it needs (e.g. Figurines of WP).

It appears to go against designer intent that many high-level characters walk around with a bagfull of low-level items for their encounter power, so the main effect of rarity levels is to switch those items from "you can have as many as you like" to "you can only have them if your DM lets you". Other than that, the only rule-technical difference between uncommon and rare is the sale price.

This shouldn't make any difference in most home campaigns.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-26, 06:24 AM
This Just In:

The third season of 4E Encounters is going to exclusively use 4.4 material.

Encounters is basically RPGA-lite, where you play a regular adventure split out over multiple short sessions, and it's intended to be easily accessible. Its second season was exclusively Dark Sun, and the first was more generic.


(edit) oh yeah, and wizards get the Suggestion ability, which lets them substitute Arcana for a Diplomacy check. Clerics get an option that lets them resist thunder and lightning. Rogues get an ability that make a natural 20 count as two successes in a skill challenge. Halfling Dodge and Elven Accuracy are confirmed as unchanged.

Matthew
2010-08-26, 03:08 PM
Have you seen the D&D Game Day character sheets?

http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/Red_Box_Game_Day_Chars.zip

Silly Wizard
2010-08-26, 04:44 PM
I actually like what they did with fighters, now that I'm seeing the pregens. I think I'm going to play Brannus on Game Day. . .

But seriously, I never liked martial classes in 4e because they felt too similar to the magical classes. Now I think I'm finally going to play a martial class.

RebelRogue
2010-08-26, 05:02 PM
Ooh, seeing those classic character illustrations makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :smallsmile:

My sincere opinion is, that 4e feels more old school than 3rd edition ever did, and 4.4 seems to take this to a whole new level. I will certainly check it out (although I do like the standard power structure).

Loren
2010-08-26, 05:43 PM
I'm liking the rogue myself (the move at wills seem cool), but I'm wondering if sneak attack only applies to the primary target of an attack, because if one could get double sneaks of Tumbling Trick... sweet!

Shouldn't Korzon have another at will?

true_shinken
2010-08-26, 05:49 PM
I'm wondering if sneak attack only applies to the primary target of an attack, because if one could get double sneaks of Tumbling Trick... sweet!

It's only 1/turn.

Loren
2010-08-26, 06:31 PM
*sigh* the evil player in me was hoping they over looked/dropped that clause in Essentials

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 06:42 PM
My understanding is that the new magic items rules are very flexible to a DM's discretion. So it shouldn't impact any on going games unless the DM desides to impact the game.
My guess is that rare items line up more closely with artifacts than anything else and most of the equipment "on the Market" at this point will be common or rare.

I think the rarity rules were primarily targeted at LFR.

Home games, DM always has the final say on what is/is not available anyway.

ImperiousLeader
2010-08-26, 11:24 PM
Shouldn't Korzon have another at will?

Since some Essentials classes lack at-will attack powers, Humans will now have a choice: gain a bonus at-will attack power (if your class has them), or gain the racial power "Heroic Effort", which allows you to add four to a failed saving throw or attack role. It's on Korzon's and Brannus's character sheets.

Silly Wizard
2010-08-30, 04:58 PM
I ended up buying the Starter Set on Sunday at my FLGS, thinking that it has the basic rules for the cleric, wizard, rogue, and fighter. Little did I know, that it was just a 1st-level adventure (curse my impulse buy!). However, it has some pretty awesome stuff.

Stuff it contains, in case anyone cares:
-For one, a red box to carry my D&D stuff in. I can carry my PHB, whichever book has my class in it, as well as my dice set.
-A "For Players" softcover book, which guides player choices for race, class, at-wills, ability scores, and whatnot. It uses a nifty "Choose Your Own Adventure" style to make your character (Fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric).
-The DM's softcover book, containing a rundown of the adventure: room-by-room rundown, how to run through skill challenges, etc. Also has a section in the back which gives monster blocks for a bunch of low-level creatures, and instructions on making your own encounters.
-Die-cut tokens with portraits of the monsters (all of the monsters in the DM Book accounted for) and the heroes.
-Seven pages of cardstock power cards of all the powers you can choose in this book, including second winds.
-Map for the adventure, double-sided.
-Insert with a passcode to download the follow-up adventure for 2nd level.
-A set of black dice, with white numbers. Not a quality mold, but not unusable.
-Four blank beginner character sheets. In my opinion, these character sheets are so sleek and uncluttered; I like them more than the regular character sheets, although it probably isn't a good style for higher level play.

Despite not being what I wanted, I am still happy that I bought it. I think I'm gonna convert a few people with this box in the near future. :smallbiggrin:

Crossfiyah
2010-08-30, 05:37 PM
That is true, but for dwarves, this is giving them a +2 to a primary stat for many classes they were already very good at. I think it's less about the +1 to riders and more about getting the +2 Strength on top of the rather strong racial feat support, and Second Wind as a minor action. At a glance, I would definitely not have much reason to even consider playing a human over a dwarf for a Fighter or Warden.

...Well, okay, that could be a bit of an exaggeration. A bonus feat/at-will isn't bad... still, I always felt like the one thing that made me reconsider playing a dwarf in those cases was the lack of boost to a primary stat, and now that's gone.

Dwarves are now a GOLD Warden race. Str, Con, and as a minor action you get your Con to all your defenses.

In Epic tier, it's a free action.

It's insane.

cdrcjsn
2010-08-30, 05:49 PM
(edit) oh yeah, and wizards get the Suggestion ability, which lets them substitute Arcana for a Diplomacy check. Clerics get an option that lets them resist thunder and lightning. Rogues get an ability that make a natural 20 count as two successes in a skill challenge.

I think all these are just the class abilities of those particular builds (like orb wizard, staff wizard, sly rogue, etc).

The suggestion ability is probably specific to the Enchanter sub-class (it's been announced that there are specializations sub-builds for the essentials wizard).

Likewise the thunder/lightning resistance of the cleric is probably a specific domain ability (Storms?)

Kurald Galain
2010-08-31, 10:32 AM
The suggestion ability is probably specific to the Enchanter sub-class (it's been announced that there are specializations sub-builds for the essentials wizard).
That sounds likely.

Shall we open some random speculation about what the Evoker's and Illusionist's special abilities are? (we already know that these are the three schools in the first Heroes book, and that twin Magic Missiles is not actually the evoker's specialty).

I will guess that the Evoker gets a power that blows up objects, and the illusionist gets Disguise Self.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-01, 07:27 AM
Well...


Eladrin are int / (dex or cha).
Halflings are dex / (con or cha).
Humans cannot get a third at-will, their +4-bonus-power is the only option.
Rogues get to pick two "tricks" out of a list of nine, and pick one more at level 4, 7, 17. These are move actions as seen in the preview. Note that the Red Box rogue instead has at-will powers like in the PHB1. D'oh!
There appear to be other discrepancies between the Red Box starter set, and the actual rules in Heroes Of. Nothing major, but enough small errors or last-minute-changes to make it somewhat annoying for first-time players.
The fighter's higher level class abilities increase their bonuses. They do not get powers with a level number (other than utility powers).
There are two kinds of priest: sun and storm. The latter apparently gets the lightning resistance I mentioned earlier.
A 4.4 assassin will be printed in this month's Dragon mag.
Strangely enough, the Rules Compendium does not include equipment lists, and neither does it contain a list of what items are rare/uncommon/common. It does have lists for random treasure generation, but not the older "parcel" system.
The RC does not cover companions, familiars, or aerial combat. This is expected to be in the DM book instead.
The RC does answer the question of whether the new Magic Missile is considered an attack or not.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-01, 07:55 AM
Have you seen the D&D Game Day character sheets?

http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/Red_Box_Game_Day_Chars.zip

I like the oldschool character pictures. Everything else looks like simplified 4e - or dumbed down, should I say, because 4e is already simple on its own. But hey, maybe it's a wrong impression from someone who doesn't actually own the system. How useful Essentials are to someone who likes 4e and doesn't wish to simplify it, but rather to get rid of some of its flaws?

Nu
2010-09-03, 03:46 PM
I like the oldschool character pictures. Everything else looks like simplified 4e - or dumbed down, should I say, because 4e is already simple on its own. But hey, maybe it's a wrong impression from someone who doesn't actually own the system. How useful Essentials are to someone who likes 4e and doesn't wish to simplify it, but rather to get rid of some of its flaws?

Well, that depends on what one sees as a "flaw." If it was a "flaw" that martial classes got daily powers, well, 4E essentials offers an alternative.

Though I don't really see Essentials as "fixing" anything, it still just looks like another set of splat books to me. There are some drastic changes in class design, but the older versions are still there and were not written out of the rules.

In general, I can say that I agree with the design philosophy that went into doing what they did for the most part, though I can't stay I am immediately interested in rolling up any of the essentials classes. Heck, the thing I'm most excited about is +2 Strength for dwarves.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-03, 04:45 PM
Let's start with rituals and alchemy. How do Essentials handle them? Are they still useless, apart from some rare exceptions? Do they even exist at all in Essentials?

Nu
2010-09-03, 05:20 PM
Wasn't alchemy in a splatbook? I don't think essentials touched them, aside from saying that the wizard and cleric builds presented don't have ritual casting.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-03, 05:31 PM
Let's start with rituals and alchemy. How do Essentials handle them?
The Heroes book makes no reference that rituals or alchemy exist in the first place, and none of the classes therein have either as a class feature.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-03, 05:51 PM
How do they handle raising dead characters then?

Esser-Z
2010-09-03, 05:52 PM
So, basically, 4e greatly nerfs utility1, and then Essentials goes and totally lacks it? Nice.



1Not commenting on whether this is good or bad.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-03, 06:11 PM
How do they handle raising dead characters then?
By giving clerics a resurrection class feature at level 8.

This does mean that every 4.4 party is expected to contain a cleric - which I believe was a necessity 4.0 was trying to avoid.

Esser-Z
2010-09-03, 06:18 PM
Assuming that a party member has to raise, not an NPC. :smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2010-09-03, 07:52 PM
This does mean that every 4.4 party is expected to contain a cleric - which I believe was a necessity 4.0 was trying to avoid.

Well, aren't clerics the only leaders in Essentials anyway? It's pretty hard to adventure without a leader in 4e anyway.

Esser-Z
2010-09-03, 07:58 PM
Well, aren't clerics the only leaders in Essentials anyway? It's pretty hard to adventure without a leader in 4e anyway.

Wait what? Cleric only? But... Warlord is my favorite thing about 4e. D:

kyoryu
2010-09-03, 08:17 PM
Wait what? Cleric only? But... Warlord is my favorite thing about 4e. D:

I really don't think that essentials is supposed to replace 4e. I think it's an equivalent of the Red Box of yore, with the added bonus that characters from essentials can be brought into a "full" game.

Esser-Z
2010-09-03, 08:27 PM
Fair enough.

cdrcjsn
2010-09-04, 12:33 AM
Though I don't really see Essentials as "fixing" anything, it still just looks like another set of splat books to me. There are some drastic changes in class design, but the older versions are still there and were not written out of the rules.

In general, I can say that I agree with the design philosophy that went into doing what they did for the most part, though I can't stay I am immediately interested in rolling up any of the essentials classes. Heck, the thing I'm most excited about is +2 Strength for dwarves.

I seriously think that Essentials is targeted specifically towards three audiences:

1) New players to RPGs. I mean total newbies. Never played RPGs before, much less D&D. According to third party market research done several years ago, 80% of the US general population is aware of D&D, even if they've never played it. It makes sense that WotC is making an effort in reaching these people. You can see it with their transmedia expansion into blogs, podcasts, videos, etc. Partnering with webcomic and tv personalities is also part of this outreach to non-hobby gamers.

2) Lapsed players. The whole red box and nostalgia marketing angle is too focused not to see this. Back in the 80s, lots of people played D&D but no longer do so for whatever reason. WotC is hoping that nostalgia will bring those people back.

3) Retailers. Right now if a non-gaming store wants to order D&D or any RPG, they'll be presented with too many options. WotC is telling those retailers that if they only ever need to stock these 10 things (which includes 5 books, dice, 3 tile sets, and a starter box). The fact that you can get the starter set outside of gaming shops and bookstores (like Target or Walmart) shows that this is working.

I think that those are the three main target audiences for Essentials, and if you don't fall under those categories, then don't be surprised that it doesn't appeal to you.

My opinion only, but I don't think Essentials is targeted at all towards players that lapsed from 3e to 4e. After all, if someone decided not to play 4e just because fighters had daily powers, I don't think they'll reconsider just because the Essentials fighter doesn't have them. More likely they'll have issues with other game play elements of 4e that were not changed.

kyoryu
2010-09-04, 12:42 AM
I think you're right. The original red box could also be found in all kinds of odd places - I think I got mine at a Walgreen's. It's probably an easier sell to carry a single box than an entire shelf of books.

Shadow_Elf
2010-09-04, 01:06 AM
I got halfway through this thread, then decided tl;dr. So, excuse me if this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/23/) has already been linked. The second post is the one of greater relevance.

Nu
2010-09-04, 01:51 AM
So, basically, 4e greatly nerfs utility1, and then Essentials goes and totally lacks it? Nice.



1Not commenting on whether this is good or bad.

I wouldn't say TOTALLY lacks it, things like Suggestion are still completely non-combat things.

But there does seem to be quite a bit less, yes.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-04, 03:28 AM
Well, aren't clerics the only leaders in Essentials anyway?
Apparently the Druid from the second book is considered a leader now.


I really don't think that essentials is supposed to replace 4e. I think it's an equivalent of the Red Box of yore,
The new "Red Box" is intended as equivalent of the Red Box Of Yore, and plays up to level 2. The 4.4 books are a full game that plays up to level 30, including e.g. epic destinies.



My opinion only, but I don't think Essentials is targeted at all towards players that lapsed from 3e to 4e.
I agree, and neither is it targeted at existing 4E players much (although of course they can use it as Yet Another source for some powers or feats if they want).

(edit) interestingly, the HFL book contains no uncommon or rare items, nor does it contain rings, tattoos, boons, or superior weapons. These will likely be found in the DM guide instead.

Reverent-One
2010-09-04, 10:59 AM
The new "Red Box" is intended as equivalent of the Red Box Of Yore, and plays up to level 2. The 4.4 books are a full game that plays up to level 30, including e.g. epic destinies.

Well yes, but he obviously already knows about D&D 4e.

Meta
2010-09-05, 11:02 AM
I like the design of the new defensive feats and the new expertise feats but they seem like blatant power creep if you're one of the consumers that wants to use 4EE and 4E together.

Lans
2010-09-05, 08:31 PM
So when is this going to be on character builder? October?

kyoryu
2010-09-06, 12:40 AM
The new "Red Box" is intended as equivalent of the Red Box Of Yore, and plays up to level 2. The 4.4 books are a full game that plays up to level 30, including e.g. epic destinies.



So you'll have to excuse me, but what, exactly, are the 4.4 books, and do we have any ideas of their contents?

Reverent-One
2010-09-06, 01:09 AM
So you'll have to excuse me, but what, exactly, are the 4.4 books, and do we have any ideas of their contents?

They're the D&D Essentials line of books. They're the continuation of what you find in the Red Box. Here's a decent (though short) summary of the line. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706) The player books continue the builds in the Red Box to level 30, as well as add another few class builds in the same vein as the one in the Red Box. This thread is full of the leaks they've put out so far. Don't worry about the 4.4 moniker Kurald likes to scare people with, they're just meant to be a spot for beginners to start 4e.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-06, 03:24 AM
So you'll have to excuse me, but what, exactly, are the 4.4 books, and do we have any ideas of their contents?
A new series of books, consisting primarily of two Player's Handbooks, a Dungeon Master book, and a Rules Compendium. The first PHBs contain new versions of the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric classes; the second PHB will contain new versions of the Warlock, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin classes.

Up to now, the PHB1 was the starting point for new players; from now on, instead the 4.4 "Heroes Of The Fallen Lands" book will be the starting point. It is somewhat easier, has a smaller array of options, and reworks the fighter and rogue to rely on basic attacks instead of per-encounter and per-day powers.

As a side effect, substantial portions of the older rules are expected to be errata'ed in october to make them match up with WOTC's new design philosophy.

kyoryu
2010-09-06, 03:48 AM
A new series of books, consisting primarily of two Player's Handbooks, a Dungeon Master book, and a Rules Compendium. The first PHBs contain new versions of the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric classes; the second PHB will contain new versions of the Warlock, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin classes.

Up to now, the PHB1 was the starting point for new players; from now on, instead the 4.4 "Heroes Of The Fallen Lands" book will be the starting point. It is somewhat easier, has a smaller array of options, and reworks the fighter and rogue to rely on basic attacks instead of per-encounter and per-day powers.

As a side effect, substantial portions of the older rules are expected to be errata'ed in october to make them match up with WOTC's new design philosophy.

Do we actually know how this will differ from/impact the existing books/classes yet, or are we just presuming that it will be a stealth version change?

I don't really care, so long as the new stuff is "compatible" in the sense that an Essentials character can party with a Core group, even if they can't mingle feats/powers.

If "Fighters are now totally different, rebuild any Fighters you have as the existing builds are now irrelevant," well, then I'll admit it's 4.4.

Also - if I were to design the Fighter (carte blanche) I'd have the Fighter focus more on at-wills and perhaps a sprinkling of Encounter powers. It plays well with how I see the class - versatile, with an answer for every situation, and non-stopping, but not having the big guns.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-06, 04:35 AM
Do we actually know how this will differ from/impact the existing books/classes yet, or are we just presuming that it will be a stealth version change?
We know part of it. For instance, several wizard encounter powers will get a miss effect, and rogue sneak attack is changed to once per turn rather than once per round, and some powers are changed to "restore them to their classic form", such as Magic Missile. Also, rules for treasure bundles and magic item activation are changing.

Aside from that, this is a list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9090134&postcount=90) of major rules changes since the PHB was first printed; the new books will give you the opportunity to get a printed version of the rules incorporating all errata.



I don't really care, so long as the new stuff is "compatible" in the sense that an Essentials character can party with a Core group, even if they can't mingle feats/powers.
Of course you can combine things. You can always combine things if your DM lets you, and you can always use the previous form of some rule if your DM doesn't like the change. This is not exactly new, either.

This was also the case for 3.5, years ago. Of course you can stick with your 3.0 character while adopting the 3.5 resistance rules, and of course options from Sword And Fist are compatible with a 3.5 campaign. It's not like the 3.0 => 3.5 changes were a big impact to most running campaigns at the time: some people adapted them, others didn't, and it was no big deal either way.

Morph Bark
2010-09-06, 07:08 AM
Well, there is 4ed AD&D, and this one is basically 4ed D&D. Just removing the "advance" bit. Its basically a simpler version, not required for any 4ed game. Has a few neat options, but that is it.

Ignoring Kuralds little tongue in cheek, its actually called 4ed essentials, I believe.

So it's not like this is as 3.5 was to 3.0 then?

Because that's the way it seemed to me from what the OP said. :smalleek:

Kurald Galain
2010-09-06, 07:35 AM
So it's not like this is as 3.5 was to 3.0 then?

Because that's the way it seemed to me from what the OP said. :smalleek:
That depends entirely on your point of view.

You can make a lengthy list of everything that changed between 3.0 and 3.5, and compile a similar list of changes between 4.0's initial release and what we have now, and you'll see that there will be similarities and differences between those lists.

Some people point at the similarities to claim that this is "obviously" 4.5, and other people point at the differences to claim that this is "obviously" not 4.5. Both are an exercise in futility because the term "4.5" is not officially defined anywhere, so every definition thereof is as arbitrary as the next one.

Me, I'm saying it's just a number, and use 4.4 (not 4.5) as a convenient shorthand, just like how people don't want to spell out "Dungeons And Dragons Fourth Edition" and say "4E" for short. Because hey, if having one 4 in your game is good, then having two 4s in there is twice as good. Makes sense, no?

huttj509
2010-09-06, 07:36 AM
So it's not like this is as 3.5 was to 3.0 then?

Because that's the way it seemed to me from what the OP said. :smalleek:

Based on what has been marketed, and the information I have seen about it, it is NOT a new edition. It's more like a Player's option +*.

+: The sourcebooks contain all the current errata'd rules in print form, meaning some folks may just want to get the Rules Compendium, if they like having that sort of thing in dead tree form.

*: These options are stated to be the new "entry point" for new players, as they tend to have a less complex feel compared to the other 4E classes, as well as having intro adventure specifically designed to help build the character, etc. For example, folks who wonder "what's with all the powers, can't I just hit the thing?" Well, now you can. This has also been claimed to be a boon to some brick and mortar stores, who may not have the ability/desire to keep copies of the entire 4E line on hand. With these materials specifically designed to be eyecatching and easier to pick up, they can keep them on hand to catch new eyeballs, and if someone familiar with the product line wants something they don't have, they can probably order it through the store.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-06, 07:42 AM
Based on what has been marketed, and the information I have seen about it, it is NOT a new edition.
That seems to be correct.

Exactly likewise, 3.5 was not a new edition either, and was also a set of sourcebooks containing all the the current errata'd rules in print form, and was also stated to be the new "entry point" for new players.


...getting back to content instead of meta...


The book contains one paragon path per class, two for fighters (one for the knight, one for the slayer) and one epic destiny total.
Parts of the wizard's PP depend on his specialism.
The wizard's Suggestion ability is a cantrip, not a specialist power.
There are new expertise feats which are better and more flavorful than the current expertise feats
There are heroic defense feats that scale with tier, which are better and more flavorful than the current Paragon Defenses and Epic Fort/Ref/Will feats.
Surprisingly, Hexblade is confirmed as a warlock build for the second book, rather than a new class for the third.

Reverent-One
2010-09-06, 11:13 AM
That seems to be correct.

Exactly likewise, 3.5 was not a new edition either, and was also a set of sourcebooks containing all the the current errata'd rules in print form, and was also stated to be the new "entry point" for new players.


Yes it was an edition change, the 3.5 material replaced the 3.0 material and marked a point where the new books began to render the old books obsolete, which is not the case with the DDE.


So it's not like this is as 3.5 was to 3.0 then?

Because that's the way it seemed to me from what the OP said. :smalleek:

Yes, it's not the "3.5" to 4e's "3.0", though Kurald may want you to think it is (regardless of his denials).

Matthew
2010-09-06, 05:08 PM
I have mentioned this before, but the idea of "versions" is not quite the same as editions, even back in 1987 when David Cook first suggested it for D&D:



"In any case, no matter what you change in the AD&D game system, a good number of us will continue to play bards... and whatever else gets axed or deleted." - Steve Null

Please do. I anticipate that many out there will mix parts of First and Second Editions together to get the game they want (along with a healthy dose of DRAGON Magazine articles and other ideas). Do this! Have fun and use your own creativity. At any rate, rest assured that as far as TSR is concerned, anything you liked in First Edition is legal in Second Edition. If you liked First Edition bards, they’re legal. If you liked monks, they’re legal. Ultimately, there will be people out there who will be playing Version 1.0, Version 1.5, Version 2.0, and probably even Version 2.3 of the AD&D game. Perhaps we should figure out some type of numbering system like that used on computer programs!

So, I would say "4.4" is a fairly similar signifier, it is just that "3.5" itself has negative connotations because it really did replace "3.0" in a very "that version is no longer valid" way. Consequently, Wizards of the Coast is no longer using that nomenclature (it being seen as poisonous), no matter how accurate it might actually be.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-07, 08:29 AM
...aaaand...

Fireball gets +1d6 damage.

Lightning Bolt gets +1d6 damage to its secondary attacks, and predictably now deals half damage on a miss.

Both are brutal-1 if you're an invoker.

true_shinken
2010-09-07, 09:50 AM
...aaaand...

Fireball gets +1d6 damage.

Lightning Bolt gets +1d6 damage to its secondary attacks, and predictably now deals half damage on a miss.

Both are brutal-1 if you're an invoker.

Kinda weird to see ' brutal fireball', uh? ^^

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-07, 09:54 AM
Kinda weird to see ' brutal fireball', uh? ^^
Nah, makes sense. It's an elegant way to boost the damage potential of Invokers; rolling more dice is more fun than adding numbers :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken
2010-09-07, 10:28 AM
Nah, makes sense. It's an elegant way to boost the damage potential of Invokers; rolling more dice is more fun than adding numbers :smallbiggrin:

I didn't mean it rules-wise. But 'brutal fireball' sounds weird. Is there a gentle fireball somewhere? ^^

Kurald Galain
2010-09-07, 10:37 AM
I didn't mean it rules-wise. But 'brutal fireball' sounds weird. Is there a gentle fireball somewhere? ^^

Scorching Burst, perhaps? It's smaller and only does 1d6+mods damage?

kyoryu
2010-09-07, 12:21 PM
I didn't mean it rules-wise. But 'brutal fireball' sounds weird. Is there a gentle fireball somewhere? ^^

"Harkin's Gentle Caress of Rolling Flame"

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 06:33 AM
Interestingly, today's Dragon article spells out that the feats therein are compatible with 4.4.

Since the upcoming third season 4E Encounters is going to use 4.4 material only, the implication is that these feats can be taken by Encounters characters, and older ones cannot.

BobVosh
2010-09-09, 06:38 AM
"Harkin's Gentle Caress of Rolling Flame"

I kinda want to see the icy-hot cantrip now. For the muscle bound warrior on the go.

Although being 4th I guess it would be a ritual.

Erom
2010-09-09, 08:44 AM
Interestingly, today's Dragon article spells out that the feats therein are compatible with 4.4.

Since the upcoming third season 4E Encounters is going to use 4.4 material only, the implication is that these feats can be taken by Encounters characters, and older ones cannot.
Unfortunate. Acceptable for Encounters but hopefully feats remain compatible between 4 <-> 4.4 in normal play. Where by "normal play" I mean "the books and character builder support it" not " You can rule 0 anything to compatible."

shadowmage
2010-09-09, 08:46 AM
Unfortunate. Acceptable for Encounters but hopefully feats remain compatible between 4 <-> 4.4 in normal play. Where by "normal play" I mean "the books and character builder support it" not " You can rule 0 anything to compatible."

It is my understanding the feats remain compatible, just they they might be doing away with the paragon and epic level of feats and going more for feat does this at heroic , this at Paragon and this at epic. At least that was the way I understood what I was hearing about the new design method.

Reverent-One
2010-09-09, 09:22 AM
Interestingly, today's Dragon article spells out that the feats therein are compatible with 4.4.

Since the upcoming third season 4E Encounters is going to use 4.4 material only, the implication is that these feats can be taken by Encounters characters, and older ones cannot.

Why would you think that? Since all Encounters characters will be made from the Essentials products (much like the Dark Sun Encounter season characters were made from Dark Sun products), there simply are no older characters to use the feats. That doesn't mean that in games that actually have older characters (like say, LFR) that the older characters can't use them.

Violet Octopus
2010-09-09, 10:21 AM
A new series of books, consisting primarily of two Player's Handbooks, a Dungeon Master book, and a Rules Compendium. The first PHBs contain new versions of the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric classes; the second PHB will contain new versions of the Warlock, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin classes.

Wait, does this mean the Essentials PHBs are shorter, or do the class writeups manage to take up more space? Or are there extra rules moved into them?

BlckDv
2010-09-09, 10:22 AM
Take it for what it is worth, but our local Encounters DM has told us that the DM instructions for the next round of Encounters specifically disallow pre-Essentials material, including heroic level options such as feats unless they are reprinted in the Essentials books, unlike Dark Sun in which many of the pre-gens, and all of the "roll your own" PCs, were allowed to use materials from pre-Dark Sun books.

Can use old materials with some limits is not equal to must use new materials only. And sanctioned play restricted to Essentials only is different than sanctioned play restricted to a specific campaign setting only.

Yes, this is for Encounters only for now, which is not the same as an edict for how "proper" games are run. I think it is good that LFR will mix essentials and original 4E materials, as many novice DMs will look to "official" play when trying to decide what to allow and how to structure their own worlds.

I've accepted that the shift in 4E is very much a point of view issue, but to me the fact that they learned from the 3.0 to 3.5 backlash and now make changes by introducing new options that simply make old rules/choices obsolete or inferior instead of a concentrated "All X is no longer legal" hammer shows that they learn from their missteps and adapt. So we are getting a newer, more streamlined style of version upgrade for 4E than we did in 3rd.

As a thought exercise I do wonder what would have happened if the Player's Option series in 2nd Ed had not been released so near the end of it's life cycle. The marketing team behind D&D seems to have been learning and refining how to revise a game without a new edition for a long time.

Added:

Wait, does this mean the Essentials PHBs are shorter, or do the class writeups manage to take up more space? Or are there extra rules moved into them?

The Heroes of XXX books (Sometimes referred to as the Essentials PHBs) will be very rules light compared to the PHB 1, as the Rules Compendium is intended to be the go-to source for most game rules in Essentials. This lets them have a much lighter amount of text, and focus on character creation/leveling elements.

shadowmage
2010-09-09, 10:26 AM
Wait, does this mean the Essentials PHBs are shorter, or do the class writeups manage to take up more space? Or are there extra rules moved into them?

I belive the new ones are all shorter. The essentials line is all paperback books or box sets. Not that that would make it any less short due to that fact alone but I think it is. It would be short just because you do not have all the daily and encounter powers that the current books have I would think.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 10:33 AM
It is my understanding the feats remain compatible, just they they might be doing away with the paragon and epic level of feats and going more for feat does this at heroic
The feats are compatible. It remains to be seen if all existing paragon and epic feats will receive errata so that heroic characters can take them, but I expect not. That's because 4.4 is known to print several heroic feats that obsolete earlier paragon or epic feats.


Wait, does this mean the Essentials PHBs are shorter,
Yes, it does. For instance, most magical items are instead found in the DMG, and certain rules are instead found in the Rules Compendium, and there are only four classes (and four more in the PHB2).


I think it is good that LFR will mix essentials and original 4E materials, as many novice DMs will look to "official" play when trying to decide what to allow and how to structure their own worlds.
LFR is no longer official, though. Encounters has taken that place.

There is no news yet as to whether LFR will allow 4.4 materials, but I expect that it will, since it traditionally allows pretty much anything.

Reverent-One
2010-09-09, 10:41 AM
LFR is no longer official, though. Encounters has taken that place.

Unless you have a source saying they're ending LFR or somehow "de-officializing" it, you're wrong. Encounters is an easy to get into and play campaign meant to bring in new players, it doesn't replace LFR.

EDIT: To be more precise, LFR follows D&D RPGA rules, the stated official rules. Encounters does not. So yeah, you're totally off-base here.

Matthew
2010-09-09, 11:44 AM
As a thought exercise I do wonder what would have happened if the Player's Option series in 2nd Ed had not been released so near the end of it's life cycle. The marketing team behind D&D seems to have been learning and refining how to revise a game without a new edition for a long time.

I think the biggest problem is support for the rules changes, and building on them. The options introduced with second edition were all isolated from one another and the quality of the new versions was decidedly lacking, both in clarity and production values. That was pretty much emblematic of the mid nineties at TSR, I suppose. Possibly if the revisions had been better produced and supported we might have seen more widespread acceptance, but the popularity of D&D was at a low ebb in the same time frame. I suppose some of it has to do with knowing your market, it seems like AD&D might have really benefited from the technology available today, and speed of communications, but then it would have to compete in the market of today. Interesting thoughts.

Violet Octopus
2010-09-09, 01:33 PM
I belive the new ones are all shorter. The essentials line is all paperback books or box sets. Not that that would make it any less short due to that fact alone but I think it is. It would be short just because you do not have all the daily and encounter powers that the current books have I would think.

Ah, if it's paperback that seems OK. Huge paperbacks are annoying, and my worry was that it was less value for money compared to 4E PHB.

I like that magic items are moving to the DMG again, even if the point is presumably to decrease the learning curve for new players.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 01:53 PM
And, as indicated earlier, the earlier books have gotten errata to match with the new 4.4 rules, which is about five pages total.


Sneak attack is once per turn now, rather than once per round, and now works on shortbows but no longer on heavy crossbows.
The rapier is now no longer a superior weapon, so the default rogue weapon changes from the 1d4 dagger to the 1d8 rapier. Combined, these two make the rogue a top-tier striker; not that it was bad before.
Some wizard encounter powers gain a miss effect, most of them don't.
A handful of paragon feats no longer require paragon level.
Multiclassing now lets you use the new class's implements with any and all implement powers you know.
Items default to uncommon, but half a page lists items which are actually common. Most of those aren't all that interesting. It turns out that no existing items are rare, and that many items with only a simple property aren't common, e.g. Iron Armbands of Power.


Aside from that, there are minor changes to several powers and feats for no apparent reason, so several tiny things now work differently than you might be used to. Or not, I suppose; ignoring errata is hardly a big deal.

Esser-Z
2010-09-10, 04:27 PM
So, uh. The Presti nerf seems... entirely pointless. I mean. WHY?

Similarly, Melee Training. This one does have the side effect of making Intelligent Blademaster actually have a purpose now.

Jokes
2010-09-10, 07:22 PM
The rapier is now no longer a superior weapon, so the default rogue weapon changes from the 1d4 dagger to the 1d8 rapier. Combined, these two make the rogue a top-tier striker; not that it was bad before.


Unless rogues get updated to be proficient with martial weapons, then no, it will still cost them a feat either way.

Gralamin
2010-09-10, 07:32 PM
I actually have the books right now, and am slowly writing a review. You can find it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167922). Any specific questions should be asked in there, since my review is going over the top level, getting broader view of the system, before I go in depth.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-11, 02:47 AM
Unless rogues get updated to be proficient with martial weapons, then no, it will still cost them a feat either way.
There's also a background that gives you a martial weapon proficiency. Assuming you play mix-and-match, that is, because I don't think the HOFL book has backgrounds in it.

Gralamin
2010-09-11, 02:52 AM
There's also a background that gives you a martial weapon proficiency. Assuming you play mix-and-match, that is, because I don't think the HOFL book has backgrounds in it.

I can confirm it does not.

kyoryu
2010-09-12, 02:09 AM
I can confirm it does not.

I don't think PHB1 did, either.

Anyway, picked up the Compendium and HoFL.

Compendium looks like a less-fluff version of all the basic rules and errata. Nothing much there. I'm sure there are some changes here and there (apart from item rarity), but I frankly don't know the system well enough to give a detailed analysis. It doesn't look that different, though - a lot of text is word-for-word from PHP/DMG. There doesn't seem to be any "stealth version" there at least.

LoFR - yeah, okay, here's some differences.

I'm not going to go into specifics on the differences, just to say that... they're different. Way different. I don't think you could call them cookie cutter any more (I didn't in the first place, but to each his own).

But... are they compatible with existing characters? Good question, and it depends on what you mean by "compatible." Could you run an Essentials character with a non-Essentials party? Sure, I don't see why not. Can you mix feats/abilities between Essentials and 4E? Um.... don't know about that. Consider that the two fighter subclasses have separate ability lists from each other... given that they're not even compatible with each *other* on the ability-sharing front, how could they be compatible with 4E?

I suspect that we will, in the future, see the direction to be more "builds" of basic classes, that are not cross-compatible with each other. This makes a lot of sense - it allows WotC to create new flavors of characters, with less cross-chatter to worry about imbalancing things or making older abilities obsolete.

What does this mean for the existing classes? Will they continue to be supported with new abilities and upgrades and content? No idea. However, it's not *all* that different from what we've seen so far to a certain extent - abilities that require class features, or specific implements/weapon styles to be used, etc. I do suspect that the future direction will have even *more* separation between the builds/flavors in the base classes.

Gralamin
2010-09-12, 02:14 AM
I suspect that we will, in the future, see the direction to be more "builds" of basic classes, that are not cross-compatible with each other. This makes a lot of sense - it allows WotC to create new flavors of characters, with less cross-chatter to worry about imbalancing things or making older abilities obsolete.


The very next book out after Essentials would seem to be about the Shadow Power Source. So I'm guessing your guess is off. Time will tell though.

kyoryu
2010-09-12, 02:19 AM
The very next book out after Essentials would seem to be about the Shadow Power Source. So I'm guessing your guess is off. Time will tell though.

As I said, it's a guess. That doesn't mean my guess is wrong, though... the Shadow power source book could present shadow-themed builds of classes.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. I am all the time. Just ask my wife :)

Kurald Galain
2010-09-12, 05:15 AM
The very next book out after Essentials would seem to be about the Shadow Power Source. So I'm guessing your guess is off. Time will tell though.

...maybe.

The hexblade, which was said to be in Heroes of Shadow, turns out be a warlock build in HOFK. The assassin, which was also supposed to be in HoS, is going to be in Dragon magazine this month. Speculation is that the necromancer, also from HoS, may be a new wizard build, because 3E has eight types of specialist wizard and 4E has only shown three of them yet (four if you count summoner).

shadowmage
2010-09-12, 05:20 AM
As I said, it's a guess. That doesn't mean my guess is wrong, though... the Shadow power source book could present shadow-themed builds of classes.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. I am all the time. Just ask my wife :)

They have said the Shadow power book is going to offer another assassin build and tell you how the different races react to the power source and shadow options for the different classes. Not sure if it will be shadow builds for the other classes or shadow powers and feats.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-12, 07:44 AM
A list of rules changes in the Rules Compendium, and discussion thereof.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25820897/Interesting_items_from_Rules_Compendium?pg=1

true_shinken
2010-09-12, 07:53 AM
They have said the Shadow power book is going to offer another assassin build and tell you how the different races react to the power source and shadow options for the different classes. Not sure if it will be shadow builds for the other classes or shadow powers and feats.

I would really like that. Hexblade could be a shadow-powered Swordmage, then? I like the sound of that. Playing a Hexblade could get me back into 4e.

shadowmage
2010-09-12, 07:55 AM
I saw, I think in the review thread of the red box, compendium and first class book, that Hexblade is Warlock. Let em check.


Edit yeap here you go. From post 2 of http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167922

If you want Dragonborn, Drows, Half-elfs, half-orcs, Humans (Again?), or Tieflings, you will have to buy Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms when it comes out. That book also comes with the following classes:
Druid, Sentinel build (leader)
Paladin, cavalier build (defender)
Ranger, hunter build (Controller)
Ranger, scout build (striker)
Warlock, hexblade build (striker).

CapnVan
2010-09-12, 10:36 AM
Unless you have a source saying they're ending LFR or somehow "de-officializing" it, you're wrong.

That would be here (http://community.wizards.com/lfr/blog/2010/06/14/a_new_direction_for_lfr). It's no longer canonical.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-13, 03:16 PM
Hm, this is a bit underwhelming, but there are a grand total of twelve "rare" items listed in the DMG, most of which are unchanged copies from earlier books, and only one of which is below level 15. Most of these items are not particularly interesting or desirable (for instance, a Ring of Invis sounds cool until you read that it only works for one round per day).

Mantle of the Seven Winds Level 23 +
Holy Avenger Level 25 +
Vorpal Weapon Level 30
Staff of the Magi Levle 15 +
Gauntlets of Ogre Power Level 5
Ioun Stone of True Sight Leve 28
Cloak of Invisibility Level 23 +
Ring of Freedom of Movement Level 15
Ring of Invisibility Level 18
Ring of Protection Level 17
Ring of Regeneration Level 24
Flying Carpet Level 20

So yeah, pretty much every interesting or powerful item printed anywhere is an uncommon. Meh.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-17, 04:02 PM
And for today's newsflash, the following rules items are absent from the Rules Compendium, or only mentioned in passing without actually explaining how they work:

Rituals (but note that the 4.4 cleric and wizard get utility powers that duplicate the effect of certain PHB rituals)
Masterwork armor
Superior and double weapons
Certain weapon properties
Vehicles
Starting wealth for higher-level PCs
Ironically it doesn't have the Evocation keyword :smalltongue:


It would seem that certain options are being phased out.

Reverent-One
2010-09-17, 09:10 PM
Fortunately, that's about all it's missing, as the Rules Compendium is really comprehensive, including stuff down to explanation of the monk's Full Discipline keyword.