PDA

View Full Version : The 4.4 DM's Kit



Kurald Galain
2010-10-09, 02:59 PM
I haven't seen the new DM's Kit in stores yet, but people at the Enworld site point out that it contains no rules for creating monsters, NPCs, or traps, nor rules for non-random treasure; and that a major part of the book is identical to the Rules Compendium. They state that it seems aimed at new DMs, and less interesting for old DMs; WOTC has admitted as much in recent columns.

Just so you know :smallcool:

Tengu_temp
2010-10-09, 03:12 PM
Where do you find those rules, then?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-09, 03:16 PM
Where do you find those rules, then?

The DMG, presumably.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-09, 03:29 PM
tl;dr it should have been titled "DMing for noobs"?

ninja_penguin
2010-10-09, 10:05 PM
guh. does their new monsters book at least have usable monsters that were originally in the MM1?

Gralamin
2010-10-10, 12:56 AM
Thanks for the Info. Might save me a trip to the FLGS for it. I figure I should at least look through them, even If I'm unlikely to buy any more of them.

Reverent-One
2010-10-10, 02:19 AM
tl;dr it should have been titled "DMing for noobs"?

Sounds about right. Which means it's a fit for the Essentials in general, which is, with the exception of the Rules Compendium, pretty much D&D 4e Basic.

dsmiles
2010-10-10, 05:50 AM
I keep finding more and more reasons to abandon WotC to their eternal, poorly written and edited version of hell. Essentials does not seem essential to me, my players, or our campaign. Pun intended. WotC is beginning to irritate me with its corporate gigantism. Perhaps it's time to go back to RM/HARP, where my group waited out the 3.x debacle.
[/rant]

Zansumkai
2010-10-10, 10:57 AM
I'll admit, most of what Wizards is pumping out right now has me more then a little worried for the future of this edition. Frankly I like 4e, but I feel like I've spent as much time trying to re-tailor it into something special as I have playing it. Sites like at-will give me a lot of hope though, that man writes skill challenges so beautiful I want to hang them on my wall.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-11, 04:35 AM
Aside from this, the DM's kit contains only a dozen "rare" items, most of which are from the PHB1 and most of which are lacklustre. WOTC is making a big deal out of the rarity system, but until the next AV comes out (half a year from now), we're stuck with about 12 rare items, about 50 commons, and 9001 uncommons. That's really not a useful system, imho.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-11, 08:18 AM
stuck with about 12 rare items
50 commons
9001 uncommons

Oh god I'm having M:tG flashbacks make it stooooooooooop

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 09:46 AM
we're stuck with about 12 rare items, about 50 commons, and 9001 uncommons.You'll get more once they start putting out booster packs...

Kurald Galain
2010-10-11, 09:55 AM
You'll get more once they start putting out booster packs...
You know the weird thing? They are really doing that. Well, not for items. But you can get a "fortune deck" for your character that includes random effects and bonuses, which will actually come in booster packs.

According to WOTC, this is the perfect addition to any home campaign.

HMS Invincible
2010-10-11, 11:27 AM
You know the weird thing? They are really doing that. Well, not for items. But you can get a "fortune deck" for your character that includes random effects and bonuses, which will actually come in booster packs.

According to WOTC, this is the perfect addition to any home campaign.

Why would anyone buy more than one of those? You'd just end up sharing it with your friends.

Hzurr
2010-10-11, 11:28 AM
guh. does their new monsters book at least have usable monsters that were originally in the MM1?

My understanding is that there's going to be some repeat from MM1 (or at least updated versions of MM1 monsters), about 20% if my memory serves me, but mainly it's going to be new versions of classic monsters (so new goblins, new kobalds, etc.)

My guess is that the 20% will cover things like the new dragons, maybe some demons/devils, beholders, etc. The "classic" monsters that don't have as much varience that are in despirate need of an upgrade (particularly the solos)

Kurald Galain
2010-10-11, 11:37 AM
Why would anyone buy more than one of those?
Well, WOTC is hoping you'll buy a new pack for every session, so that you'll be surprised by its contents every time. No, really.

Mando Knight
2010-10-11, 11:56 AM
Why would anyone buy more than one of those? You'd just end up sharing it with your friends.

Because you will. If WotC knows one thing, it's how to sell random sets of minor tokens in small quantities and high prices.

cdrcjsn
2010-10-11, 12:36 PM
Essentials IS aimed at newer DMs. There's enough material there for a new DM to be satisfied before they look to start tinkering with game rules.

If you do feel like tinkering, then a one month subscription to DDI will get you thousands of traps, monsters, and items than you know what to do with.

The complaint about the lack of items is also a non-issue. WotC is expected to come out with errata to designate the rarity level of the thousands of magic items from previous books.

Christopher K.
2010-10-11, 12:45 PM
I'm not surprised that the DM's kit winds up being somewhat lackluster, especially after having tried the starter set. A lot of stuff has been cut from such books for the sheer purpose of keeping the game streamlined. Personally I appreciate it when things are more streamlined. (Of course, that's because MY group contains two people who, if things fail to hold their interest for even a minute, will start messing with everything in my room. I once found the box to my Sega Genesis in the bathroom. I don't know why, and I'm pretty sure I don't WANT to..)

Kurald Galain
2010-10-11, 01:01 PM
The complaint about the lack of items is also a non-issue. WotC is expected to come out with errata to designate the rarity level of the thousands of magic items from previous books.
Expected by you, perhaps.

Nobody from WOTC has said anything of the sort; they have no motive to spend time and money errata'ing literally thousands of items; and more importantly the past two erratas could have addressed this but didn't.

Mando Knight
2010-10-11, 03:40 PM
Technically, unless WotC comes back and says so, an item is uncommon. The "Essentials changes" PDF (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DNDessentials.pdf) details several such designations, found in the HFL and HFK Essentials supplements.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-10-11, 08:01 PM
I haven't seen the new DM's Kit in stores yet, but people at the Enworld site point out that it contains no rules for creating monsters, NPCs, or traps, nor rules for non-random treasure; and that a major part of the book is identical to the Rules Compendium. They state that it seems aimed at new DMs, and less interesting for old DMs; WOTC has admitted as much in recent columns.

Just so you know :smallcool:

I hope they have those rules in the Monster Vault, if not I'll be more than a bit put out.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 04:34 AM
You know the weird thing? They are really doing that. Well, not for items. But you can get a "fortune deck" for your character that includes random effects and bonuses, which will actually come in booster packs.

According to WOTC, this is the perfect addition to any home campaign.

This is just friggin' ridiculous. Looks like it's back to RM or 2e for me. WotC makes my brain hurt. :smallannoyed:

Colmarr
2010-10-12, 06:34 AM
Edit: Never mind.

Illithid Savant
2010-10-12, 07:57 AM
This is just friggin' ridiculous. Looks like it's back to RM or 2e for me. WotC makes my brain hurt. :smallannoyed:

It's entirely optional. Besides, good for WOTC to try to make money off of people who want optional products. They're a business.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 10:35 AM
It's entirely optional. Besides, good for WOTC to try to make money off of people who want optional products. They're a business.

However, they still make my brain hurt. They're the reason I dropped 3.x for RM, and the reason I dropped M:tG entirely. It's all becoming too commercialized for my tastes. To each his/her own, I guess, but we should stand up and revolt!

Ormagoden
2010-10-12, 10:38 AM
This is just friggin' ridiculous. Looks like it's back to RM or 2e for me. WotC makes my brain hurt. :smallannoyed:

Play 3.5 with whatever your choice of homebrew is and rejoice!

Sipex
2010-10-12, 10:53 AM
I say, let them do what they want, I just simply won't buy this stuff. Thankfully, with the game being the way it is, this is an option.

From what I've heard Essentials isn't the only way 4th edition is going now, they're still going to release normal 4e material so I'll just focus on that.

Kaervaslol
2010-10-12, 11:00 AM
Sigh, looks like it's caca :(.

It's 2nd edition for me then, until I finish the hybrid ruleset I'm working on.

Really, this sucks, I feel that wizards did not do a god job communicating with its costumers about what you are getting when you buy this stuff.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 11:03 AM
Sigh, looks like it's caca :(.

It's 2nd edition for me then, until I finish the hybrid ruleset I'm working on.

Really, this sucks, I feel that wizards did not do a god job communicating with its costumers about what you are getting when you buy this stuff.

Not so much this, but I feel like they're out of touch with the roleplaying community, and not asking what we want. Instead they're publishing material and saying, "Here it is, take it or leave it."

Sipex
2010-10-12, 11:05 AM
I dunno, I would say they're targetting a new audience since their old audience never seems to be happy with anything they do these days anyways.

Kaervaslol
2010-10-12, 11:08 AM
Not so much this, but I feel like they're out of touch with the roleplaying community, and not asking what we want. Instead they're publishing material and saying, "Here it is, take it or leave it."

Problem is I would love a simpler and cleaner ruleset based on 4th edition. Something akin to the old basic and advanced. That's the impression I got from the Essentials line.

Now what we get is basically more builds, a change in the way magic items work and a reprint of updated rules. The funniest thing of all, to run essentials you need 4 books. Those are a lot of essentials items.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 11:49 AM
I dunno, I would say they're targetting a new audience since their old audience never seems to be happy with anything they do these days anyways.

Could be because they don't take the time to really do some in-depth playtesting and rules balancing (3.x) or they expect us to buy everything they sell (4.4).

Sipex
2010-10-12, 11:56 AM
I dunno, I find it really hard to find a majority of the current fans advocating anything new. Everytime something new comes out the arguements "Doesn't do X.", "They nerfed Y.", "Z is obviously superior." or "Wizards completely ruined everything for ever!" come up from the majority.

It took a while for the boards here to be ok with 4e and still, whenever a 'What's good about 4e?' thread starts it doesn't last more than 20 pages before it's escalated and locked.

I just have a hard time putting any faith in the fans these days I guess.

edit: To clarify, most of the time it feels like, to me, the fans complain about the littlest things and act like the game's been ruined forever due to these changes.

Take for example this 4.4 thing. It's a system which is made to introduce new players to D&D by simplifying the rules yet we're getting worked up about it (I used to at least). Why not just acknowledge it for what it is?

Something ala "I understand what this is and it doesn't fit my needs, so I simply won't buy it."

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 12:19 PM
I dunno, I find it really hard to find a majority of the current fans advocating anything new. Everytime something new comes out the arguements "Doesn't do X.", "They nerfed Y.", "Z is obviously superior." or "Wizards completely ruined everything for ever!" come up from the majority.

It took a while for the boards here to be ok with 4e and still, whenever a 'What's good about 4e?' thread starts it doesn't last more than 20 pages before it's escalated and locked.

I just have a hard time putting any faith in the fans these days I guess.

Hey, I'm not gonna lie. I like 4e. I just feel like they don't care what the general populace wants in a new edition (or expansion to a current edition). They just want to sell books. I feel like they would make more money if they published ten worthwhile products instead of thirty half-assed products. Especailly with the internetz. I can always find a copy of (or excerpt from) a book and read it beforehand for free to see if it's worthwile to buy the book (since I don't allow laptops at my gaming table, hard copies are a necessity).

For the record, I lost faith in WotC back in the early splatbooks of 3e. They just weren't worth it, nor was most of 3.5, IMO. I bought the 4e books to give Wizards another chance, and they were doing...not spectacular, but OK, compared to "The 3.x Debacle," until this new Essentials stuff was announced. I sat on the sidelines playing RM/HARP until 4e came out, and now, my friends and I are going to M&M to pass the time. The possibility exists that we won't give Wizards any more chances, and move to RM/HARP permanently for our fantasy-fiction games. I know I'm leaning strongly in that direction. They just need to send out polls or questionnaires and ask what the consumers want, instead of polling their own employees. How hard can it be?

Cater to the consumers, and you can't go wrong ('cause they're the ones buying the product).

Sipex
2010-10-12, 12:29 PM
I don't see it that way. Essentials, as I mentioned before, seems like a way to get new customers interested in the franchise, a number of people who are very hard to poll. What little information they did get revealed 'Characters are too difficult and time consuming for a new player to generate.' and 'The game is too complicated for a new player.' so essentials went forward to solve those issues while remaining compatible with 4th edition so new players can convert to the base system once they've got the hang of things (if they so wish).

And, to be fair, is there any product they should be working on right now? I agree that they might want to think about slowing down book production (because really, they're coming faster than anyone can afford) but I think most of the books they're pumping out are things the fans have wanted (more items, more player options, converted campaigns from old editions).

Gryffon
2010-10-12, 12:30 PM
I like, play, and DM 4e. Essentials is not necessary. It's optional. You don't have to use any of the builds in it, but it adds what I think are excellent options for continuing your current campaign. The addition of choice for Ability stats to the base races was a good thing. I for one(and my players too) enjoy the Expertise line of feats from Essentials(+1 to attack, and reroll a 1 for damage die, makes it more fun to hit.) Just because Essentials is there doesn't mean that's the way you have to play.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 12:55 PM
I don't see it that way. Essentials, as I mentioned before, seems like a way to get new customers interested in the franchise, a number of people who are very hard to poll. What little information they did get revealed 'Characters are too difficult and time consuming for a new player to generate.' and 'The game is too complicated for a new player.' so essentials went forward to solve those issues while remaining compatible with 4th edition so new players can convert to the base system once they've got the hang of things (if they so wish).
I don't see this as valid if I can teach a 6-year-old to make a character in about 30 minutes, and teach him all the relevant rules in another hour, which I did over this past summer with my youngest son. I don't feel that taking an hour or two to learn the game is 'too complicated'. I spent at least two hours learining AD&D 1e at the age of 8, and it was far more complicated than 4e. "Roll over this number, roll under this number, you can move this many inches in a round, a spell takes this many segments to cast," etc.

And, to be fair, is there any product they should be working on right now? I agree that they might want to think about slowing down book production (because really, they're coming faster than anyone can afford) but I think most of the books they're pumping out are things the fans have wanted (more items, more player options, converted campaigns from old editions).
You have a point, but it's more about quality than quantity for me. If they give me three books a month, and only one is passably good, I'm only going to buy the one. This was more of a problem in 3.x than it is now.
And I do feel like they need to improve quite a few rules subsets (NPC building, skill challenges, monster building, etc.) Why don't they work on that instead of trying to make it 'simpler'?

Sipex
2010-10-12, 01:00 PM
I don't see this as valid if I can teach a 6-year-old to make a character in about 30 minutes, and teach him all the relevant rules in another hour, which I did over this past summer with my youngest son. I don't feel that taking an hour or two to learn the game is 'too complicated'. I spent at least two hours learining AD&D 1e at the age of 8, and it was far more complicated than 4e. "Roll over this number, roll under this number, you can move this many inches in a round, a spell takes this many segments to cast," etc.

See, I used to think this way too because I learned 4e easily. I loved it, I toted it as the edition which is easy to learn and teach.

But I realised, not everyone is like me. Certain people find different subjects harder or less interesting to learn. Some people might find it needlessly complex. From the sounds of things your son thinks more along the same lines you do so this worked for him but I know kids which wouldn't care to learn 4e in it's current state but might actually try essentials. In the end I just accepted that this isn't a product for me but that's okay, because it's not the only thing available for 4e.


You have a point, but it's more about quality than quantity for me. If they give me three books a month, and only one is passably good, I'm only going to buy the one. This was more of a problem in 3.x than it is now.
And I do feel like they need to improve quite a few rules subsets (NPC building, skill challenges, monster building, etc.) Why don't they work on that instead of trying to make it 'simpler'?

This is more general confusion. Wizards is working towards creating two D&D teams, one to further develop essentials with the other working on 4th edition material so in the end we're not really seeing a change in effort (once this in place) since we'll still be getting 4e material while the company also produces it's essentials line.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 01:13 PM
This is more general confusion. Wizards is working towards creating two D&D teams, one to further develop essentials with the other working on 4th edition material so in the end we're not really seeing a change in effort (once this in place) since we'll still be getting 4e material while the company also produces it's essentials line.

Don't split the party.

Seriously, splitting their efforts will result in two sub-standard product lines, instead of one almost-to-standard line, IMO.

Sipex
2010-10-12, 01:16 PM
Don't split the party.

Seriously, splitting their efforts will result in two sub-standard product lines, instead of one almost-to-standard line, IMO.

I think you're just finding negativity where it doesn't exist now.

WotC is a large company, they already have several different teams working on several different things. I would trust that they can handle this and at most it will either mean:

A) We get less 4e books in a year, which is fine, there have been complaints about there being too many in such short of a time anyways.

B) Wizards hired new guys so we don't notice the difference anyways.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 01:25 PM
I'm a pessimist by nature. It allows for lots of good surprises, and comparitively few bad ones. Also, as I indicated earlier, WotC has lost my trust, and it will take a lot to get it back.

Sipex
2010-10-12, 01:33 PM
This would explain a lot, I'm an optimist. The sort of guy who might give the benefit of a doubt to a hobo with a knife if it came to it.

(Actually, probably not that severe but you get the idea).

When I see arguements along your lines I think "Why? They seem to be trying hard but they've got a huge fan base. It's not like they kicked your dog or stole your money. It's just options."

Mando Knight
2010-10-12, 01:54 PM
When I see arguements along your lines I think "Why? They seem to be trying hard but they've got a huge fan base. It's not like they kicked your dog or stole your money. It's just options."

Pretty much. Actually, I think we've got enough options as it is for almost anything (after, of course, we get those updates for the other races' flex stats), really, even though it's not good for business. I mean, we've got the full set of Martial (well, OK, two Strikers instead of a Controller, but Martial really doesn't need a Controller), Arcane, Divine, Primal (I like the split... lumping in nature worship with deity worship as one source makes sense, but nature-themed characters have a totally different feel from divine warriors), and Psionic classes, and then some. We've also got the normal races (Two Elves and their dark counterpart, Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, as well as Gnomes), as well as a few unusual ones (Everyone else), and more Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies than most people are ever going to actually think of using.

Pretty much anything different that WotC comes up with will be more and more exotic, in an increasingly niche market... except for an Arcane weapon-based Striker, a "pure-magic" Arcane Leader, ranged Defenders, and a competent Divine Striker, in both the weapon and god-laser varieties. Thus, instead, WotC repackages the same old and presents it in a slightly different way, so that you can buy their products twice. After all, that's the Hasbro way... look at how many different action figures there are for the same Star Wars or Marvel character, or the number of cards that are printed in multiple Magic sets, or how many NERF and Super Soaker guns they produce that are mechanically similar (if not identical) to each other.

Southern Cross
2010-10-12, 02:15 PM
Which is why,if I was still able to afford to purchase roleplaying games, I'd be buying Paizo products instead of WOTC.

ShaggyMarco
2010-10-12, 02:37 PM
Could be because they don't take the time to really do some in-depth playtesting and rules balancing (3.x) or they expect us to buy everything they sell (4.4).

Wait, what?

3.X threw out tones of material that was knowingly unbalanced and only vaguely play-tested. Getting good errata took a while and wizards rarely, and I use rarely because I am not quite confident enough to say never, did a whole-sale change of how any broken rules-element worked. Maybe they did more playtesting before each release in 3.5 (I don't know about this one way or another. Do you have any evidence for this?), but I appreciate the fact that 4ed is constantly updating their rule-set, and noticing when things are broken and need fixing.

Also, I don't see how WotC is acting like they expect us to buy whatever they sell. In 3.X, I had to purchase any book released if I wanted access to it's "crunchy bits." I spent way more money for way less satisfaction in 3.X.
Essentials is presented as a "new entry point" for 4ed. I am already in, so I figure, I don't need to buy Essentials. Throw in DDI to the mix, and it seems to me 4ed WotC is LESS concerned with me buying everything released.

I say all of this to make this point: 4EE products offer some things to existing 4ed players, but not so much that I'd be interested in buying anything past the Rules Compendium (which is handy for anyone who plays 4ed.) The rest I will wait and get in the compendium/character builder (should they ever show up!). This product seems like it is supposed to be the entry point for DMs new to 4ed, and maybe new to DMing altogether, and as far as that goes, it seems to do a pretty good job. The stuff that's not there is stuff that isn't necessary for your first campaign. Is it everything you'd ever want for running a game? No. But it's plenty to get started.

dsmiles
2010-10-12, 05:44 PM
or how many NERF and Super Soaker guns they produce that are mechanically similar (if not identical) to each other.

It's NERF or NOTHIN'!
http://www.cold-moon.com/40k/Props/Stubgun.JPG

Once again, I find myself unable to control my impulses. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2010-10-12, 07:31 PM
This is more general confusion. Wizards is working towards creating two D&D teams, one to further develop essentials with the other working on 4th edition material
This is absolutely not the case.

WOTC has repeatedly stated that 4.4 is their way forward, and that they'll errata the rules from 4.0 to match. In fact, their latest errata already promises more class powers will be errata'ed next month, to match with the upcoming HOFK book. No, they will not revert this and get back to 4.0 material.

Colmarr
2010-10-13, 06:07 AM
WOTC has repeatedly stated that 4.4 is their way forward, and that they'll errata the rules from 4.0 to match.

Care to share a citation? I know a lot of people fear/believe it, but I've never seen anything to confirm.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 06:34 AM
Care to share a citation? I know a lot of people fear/believe it, but I've never seen anything to confirm.
These (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/essentials) are the rules that have been revised for 4.4; they either add clarity or represent "philosophical changes in our design process". All of these are considered errata for the earlier books, as listed here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive).

So yes, it's observable fact that if the 4.4 team wants something to work differently (the big ones being implement usage, item rarity, sneak attack, defensive feats, and magic missile) then 4.0 will be errata'ed to follow suit. And they haven't finished yet, for the errata document states "In November, we will present changes to existing powers that are being updated in Heroes of the Forgotten KingdomsTM."

In Dragon #390, Mike Mearls repeats that e.g. item rarity is now an official rule, and that you can no longer stockpile uncommon items except by houseruling, or if you happen to find them as loot. This shouldn't really affect home campaigns, but RPGA is expected to follow the official rules at all times.

The philosophical changes really aren't that big a deal, but they do mean that if WOTC will print a wizard encounter power in the future, it will have a miss effect; if they add an item, it will have a rarity; and if they create a new feat, it won't have a tier. The notion that D&D would have a secondary development team that ignores these changes is ludicrous, both from a game design and from a business perspective.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 07:35 AM
These (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/essentials) are the rules that have been revised for 4.4; they either add clarity or represent "philosophical changes in our design process". All of these are considered errata for the earlier books, as listed here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive).

So yes, it's observable fact that if the 4.4 team wants something to work differently (the big ones being implement usage, item rarity, sneak attack, defensive feats, and magic missile) then 4.0 will be errata'ed to follow suit. And they haven't finished yet, for the errata document states "In November, we will present changes to existing powers that are being updated in Heroes of the Forgotten KingdomsTM."

In Dragon #390, Mike Mearls repeats that e.g. item rarity is now an official rule, and that you can no longer stockpile uncommon items except by houseruling, or if you happen to find them as loot. This shouldn't really affect home campaigns, but RPGA is expected to follow the official rules at all times.

The philosophical changes really aren't that big a deal, but they do mean that if WOTC will print a wizard encounter power in the future, it will have a miss effect; if they add an item, it will have a rarity; and if they create a new feat, it won't have a tier. The notion that D&D would have a secondary development team that ignores these changes is ludicrous, both from a game design and from a business perspective.

So, in essence, this is 4.5e, since there will be no more development of 'standard 4e.' Crap, time to break out the RM books again.

shadowmage
2010-10-13, 09:03 AM
So, in essence, this is 4.5e, since there will be no more development of 'standard 4e.' Crap, time to break out the RM books again.

No it is 4.4 as others have started to call it. After the 10 essential books they are going back to the more "normal" 4e stuff but with the new design philosophy. I am sure we might see more of the Knight and thief builds for other classes, but all will not be that way. What they develop from now forward should not be so newbie focused.

Sipex
2010-10-13, 09:06 AM
Oh damn, I thought essentials changes were a seperate product that could be added, I didn't hear they had officially become a change.

Oh well, I'll just stick to 4e rules then, not like it hasn't been done before.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 09:24 AM
No it is 4.4 as others have started to call it. After the 10 essential books they are going back to the more "normal" 4e stuff but with the new design philosophy. I am sure we might see more of the Knight and thief builds for other classes, but all will not be that way. What they develop from now forward should not be so newbie focused.

I disbelieve their 'design philosophy.' 4e was good, why change the rules in the middle of the game? I've read all of their articles, and changing the rules that they're changing just doesn't make sense to me. The more atricles I read the less of their stuff I want to buy.

Sipex
2010-10-13, 09:30 AM
I disbelieve their 'design philosophy.' 4e was good, why change the rules in the middle of the game? I've read all of their articles, and changing the rules that they're changing just doesn't make sense to me. The more atricles I read the less of their stuff I want to buy.

See, we agree here. The changes made work for an alternate style of gameplay, something simpler to those who are learning or those who...for instance, don't believe the fighter should be more than stances and hitting things.

That said, they shouldn't be the end all be all changes as the old rules and classes still work fine and are compatible with the new stuff. I'd like to see things developing along both paths. (ie: Get a Psionic Power book out, maybe create 2nd iterations of the other power books so all the classes have the same variety of choice available.)

Reverent-One
2010-10-13, 09:35 AM
I disbelieve their 'design philosophy.' 4e was good, why change the rules in the middle of the game? I've read all of their articles, and changing the rules that they're changing just doesn't make sense to me. The more atricles I read the less of their stuff I want to buy.

Because as they learn what works and what doesn't, they want to do more of the former and less of the latter. If they didn't change things, we'd still have V classes, solos with bloated health, monsters that do less damage than they really should, ect and so on.

Esser-Z
2010-10-13, 09:42 AM
Because as they learn what works and what doesn't, they want to do more of the former and less of the latter. If they didn't change things, we'd still have V classes, solos with bloated health, monsters that do less damage than they really should, ect and so on.

From what I've seen of Essentials, though, it seems to be doing a lot of changing of the stuff that works fine (like, say, Fighter, and man it's impressive that I can say that).

Reverent-One
2010-10-13, 09:45 AM
From what I've seen of Essentials, though, it seems to be doing a lot of changing of the stuff that works fine (like, say, Fighter, and man it's impressive that I can say that), instead of the stuff that needs to be changed (like lack of utility).

The Essentials line has the additional primary goal of being a beginner's entry point to D&D, which most of the rest of the 4e material doesn't have.

Esser-Z
2010-10-13, 09:50 AM
I'm not sure things like Basic Attack Fighter and Auto-Hit Magic Missile really serve that goal, but... That does make sense. Which then furthers the idea of it as a side line, though--something to start with, then segue into regular 4e.


(Also, I edited out my utility line above, because I realized it was a little too close to edition war stuff)

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 09:52 AM
The Essentials line has the additional primary goal of being a beginner's entry point to D&D, which most of the rest of the 4e material doesn't have.

As per a previous post of mine: I still feel that if a 6-year-old can learn the basics of regular 4e, and how to create a character, in an hour and a half, essentials is pretty pointless as "entry-level-DnD."

Granted, he's my child, so I naturally expect a lot from him, but still, he's 6.

Esser-Z
2010-10-13, 09:53 AM
There's that, too. People already talk about how 4e was 'dumbed down', or in kinder language simplified for ease of learning and such.

Reverent-One
2010-10-13, 10:02 AM
As per a previous post of mine: I still feel that if a 6-year-old can learn the basics of regular 4e, and how to create a character, in an hour and a half, essentials is pretty pointless as "entry-level-DnD."

Granted, he's my child, so I naturally expect a lot from him, but still, he's 6.

While a 6-year-old may be able to learn 4e in an hour and a half when you (or another experienced player) is there to teach them and answer questions and explain things, how much longer would it be if they were learning it entirely on their own? And if some person entirely new to D&D is learning it alone, or as part of a group with a similar lack of experience, how long is too long for them to just give up in frustration or just get bored and try something else? It seems these sorts of people are the target of the essentials line.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 10:11 AM
I can honestly say that I've never met a serious gamer that hadn't been 'brought into the fold,' as it were, by a more experienced gamer.

Amiel
2010-10-13, 10:16 AM
WotC is beginning to irritate me with its corporate gigantism. Perhaps it's time to go back to RM/HARP, where my group waited out the 3.x debacle.
[/rant]

This could be Hasbro's financial policy, not WotC's.

My friends are eagerly waiting for more 4e goodness, they could be disappointed.

Sipex
2010-10-13, 10:17 AM
I can honestly say that I've never met a serious gamer that hadn't been 'brought into the fold,' as it were, by a more experienced gamer.

Erm.

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Reverent-One
2010-10-13, 10:19 AM
I can honestly say that I've never met a serious gamer that hadn't been 'brought into the fold,' as it were, by a more experienced gamer.

At which point we've moved on to questioning WoTC's business sense, not their design philosophy.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 10:30 AM
At which point we've moved on to questioning WoTC's business sense, not their design philosophy.

I believe that questioning their business sense is a step backwards through this thread.

@Sipex: Congratulations for making it without help. I (completely seriously) applaud you. Making it without help is commendable. (Even more so if you learned in 3.5, which, IMO, was the hardest edition to learn.) :smallsmile:

Sipex
2010-10-13, 10:35 AM
Uhh, not to make you look stupid but I did learn 3.5 first. I started playing 4th edition because I decided I finally wanted some books of my own (instead of sticking to an SRD) and the 3 piece 4th editon set was on sale so I figured 'Why not?'

4e was a lot easier to learn than 3.5 though, although I did get a lot of 3.5 rules confused with 4e rules for the longest time (OAs being the worst offenders)

edit: I'm the kind of guy who will read the rules over and over and experiment until I fully understand if I really want to play something though, so don't take me as the average case.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 10:38 AM
I think the point is this: D&D has always contained classes with easy mechanics (e.g. the fighter) and classes with complex mechanics (e.g. the wizards). These obviously cater to different players. While forum regulars may be quick to point out that fighters are sooo boring to play in 1E through 3E, in fact many players disagree with that opinion; perhaps they don't have the time or the inclination to learn complex mechanics.

Or, to put it differently, it is obvious that Starcraft is a more complex game than Tetris. It is also obvious that, while Starcraft has a vocal and active fan following, worldwide the game Tetris is much more popular overall.

Then came 4E, with its at-will/encounter/daily power mechanics that were the same for all classes - and hardcore fans lauded the design because there was no more booooring fighter. But, hardcore fans are not representative of people as a whole, and the more casual players miss the easier-to-play classes. And that is why WOTC has printed the Slayer and Thief.

I think that's why those new classes exist. To be honest I wouldn't want to play either of them, but then I'm not their target audience, and I'd still be happy with the wizard. Arguably 4.4 caters to a wider audience than 4.0. Whether it will succeed at that, time will tell.

Reverent-One
2010-10-13, 10:39 AM
I believe that questioning their business sense is a step backwards through this thread.

In that case, we've created a circle!

Mando Knight
2010-10-13, 10:43 AM
I'm not sure things like Basic Attack Fighter and Auto-Hit Magic Missile really serve that goal, but... That does make sense.

Those were part of the other intent of the Essentials line: to appease the complainers who grumbled "A Magic Missile that can miss isn't a Magic Missile!" or "Fighters getting powers that operate 1/Encounter doesn't make sense! They should just 5-foot step and full attack like they always did!" Same goes for the new School Specialization option for the Mage.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 10:45 AM
Uhh, not to make you look stupid but I did learn 3.5 first. I started playing 4th edition because I decided I finally wanted some books of my own (instead of sticking to an SRD) and the 3 piece 4th editon set was on sale so I figured 'Why not?'

4e was a lot easier to learn than 3.5 though, although I did get a lot of 3.5 rules confused with 4e rules for the longest time (OAs being the worst offenders)

edit: I'm the kind of guy who will read the rules over and over and experiment until I fully understand if I really want to play something though, so don't take me as the average case.

I may look stupid, but I don't feel stupid, so, no problem. :smallsmile: I'll admit it though, going from 2e to 3.0 was the hardest game transition I've ever made. Even going from 2e to White Wolf's Storyteller System was easier for me. 3.0 made me 'unlearn' things I had always thought were inviolate rules of Dungeons and Dragons. As in, "Wait, what? I have to roll over the skill check number?" And another question I had (seriously) was, "How many segments do a standard action, a move action, and a free action take, exactly?" :smalleek: Yes, I probably look stupid now, but I felt stupid then. I mean, like, zombie-type, "braaaaiiiins..." stupid. As a self-proclaimed nerd and gaming geek, that was the worst session of my life. :smalleek:
3.5 to 4e on the other hand, for me, was almost intuitive. I picked up the 4e rules in about 30 minutes of reading in the PHB.

EDIT: I can understand it not being intuitive for other people, though, having been through what I went through in my (reluctant) conversion from 2e to 3.0.

EDIT AGAIN:
@Kurald: Really, I always considered myself a hardcore fan, and I loved 4e when it first started. Maybe I've been wrong all these years. :smallwink:

Jayabalard
2010-10-13, 10:50 AM
I can honestly say that I've never met a serious gamer that hadn't been 'brought into the fold,' as it were, by a more experienced gamer.For certain values of "more experienced gamer" perhaps. I got involved because of my cousin and it would have been really hard to label him as "experienced gamer". His mother was very religious, and it was the early 80s, so she wouldn't let him get D&D, but did allow him to pick up something else. I think we started off with TSR's Conan, and Powers & Perils, and he had only had them a few weeks before I had come to visit that time. I don't know if he had run an actual game, or played in anyone else's before we started playing or not.

Egad, that latter was absurdly complicated for new gamers. I looked back at the rules recently, and there's some interesting stuff there but I'm surprised we didn't just give up in frustration (maybe it's why I consider D&D an entry level RPG).

Realms of Chaos
2010-10-13, 01:07 PM
So, in essence, this is 4.5e, since there will be no more development of 'standard 4e.' Crap, time to break out the RM books again.

What, why?
It sounds as though you thought that 4e was a step in the right direction so even if the "good books" aren't being produced right now, why just retreat to another RPG? Why not just use 4e to wait out 4.4?

There are still people out there who play 2e and 1st edition, proving that even a set amount of rulebooks out there can provide a nearly limitless amount of different adventures.

Even if you're that rare person who can never play mechanically identical characters twice, there are still a good number of decent classes out there and joining enough campaigns to use each one at least once could literally take years (not counting the various possible combinations of base class decisions, paragon paths, epic destinies, and multiclassing) and the existance of specific support for your class (paragon paths, feats, etc.) means that the lack of additional support could go unnoticed (except in the item department) for a pretty darn long time.

Unless you're that one guy or gal who desires to push the power of your characters further and further each time (AKA desiring powercreep), I don't see why 4e is suddenly an invalid option. :smallconfused:

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 05:32 PM
What, why?
It sounds as though you thought that 4e was a step in the right direction so even if the "good books" aren't being produced right now, why just retreat to another RPG? Why not just use 4e to wait out 4.4?

...

Unless you're that one guy or gal who desires to push the power of your characters further and further each time (AKA desiring powercreep), I don't see why 4e is suddenly an invalid option. :smallconfused:

Because even if they go back to making the 'standard 4e' books, they've already said that the rules will be updated to be reflect the changes made for this Essentials...um...stuff. That and because some of the people I game with are the 'most current errata and updates or nothing' crowd, and I already disagree with some of the WotC errata/nerfsupdates. It's easier to get them in on a new system than to use older rules for the current system.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-13, 05:44 PM
In that case, we've created a circle!

or the circle has always existed. you may just be experiencing its latest revolution.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 05:52 PM
or the circle has always existed. you may just be experiencing its latest revolution.

The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. :smallwink:

Lord Raziere
2010-10-13, 06:37 PM
The Wheel of Time turns, and Editions come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Edition that gave it birth comes again. :smallwink:

fixed that for you.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 06:48 PM
fixed that for you.

Thanks? :smalltongue:

WitchSlayer
2010-10-13, 06:57 PM
By the way, just to note: The Magic Missile never missing thing has been in 4e for a while, it was errata'd in before Essentials was out, but Essentials just printed all the Errata.

Edit: Also, I think they should've switched the names of the previous 4e Magic Missile and the Arcane Arrows power. Since a lot of abilities from older editions, such as Stunning Fist or Quivering Palm, got a higher level makeover for 4e, I think it would be appropriate for Magic Missile too, especially since Arcane Arrows was already an always hit power.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 04:17 AM
By the way, just to note: The Magic Missile never missing thing has been in 4e for a while, it was errata'd in before Essentials was out,
Yes, but it is very likely that it was errata'ed that way by the 4.4 team, because of what they wanted for 4.4. Up until then, every single line of errata was either to clarify something, or to nerf a broken option; and then suddenly magic missile was changed to "restore the power to its classic form".

Kerrin
2010-10-14, 03:22 PM
After the 10 essential books...
Yowzers, 10 "essential" books?

Powerfamiliar
2010-10-14, 03:24 PM
10 products. I think its only 3-4 books.

Kerrin
2010-10-14, 03:52 PM
I did pick up the Rules Compendium and the Heroes of the Fallen Lands as my first forray into 4e - to see what it is all about.

One thing I noticed is that there aren't really any "magic items" in these two books to choose from when making a character.

Am I going to have to pick up the regular 4e PHB or another regular 4e book to find a trove of possible magic items? I do realize I can just make up whatever magic items I want in a 4e game I might run, but am looking for a few of the magic item lists we've all come to know and love.

Jaidu
2010-10-14, 04:21 PM
One thing I noticed is that there aren't really any "magic items" in these two books to choose from when making a character.

Am I going to have to pick up the regular 4e PHB or another regular 4e book to find a trove of possible magic items? I do realize I can just make up whatever magic items I want in a 4e game I might run, but am looking for a few of the magic item lists we've all come to know and love.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of magic items in that book. If you want access to a huge number of magic items, I would suggest getting a 1-month subscription to DDI, download the character builder, and cancel the sub. All of the magic items in the sources for the character builder are included in the update, and organized by slot and level. If you keep a DDI subscription, you can also have access to the Compendium, an online database of lots of stuff, including classes, races, items, feats, and creatures.

The character builder can be used even without an active subscription, but can only be updated with one. This means for $10 you can have access to a huge amount of 4e info. Unfortunately, a lot of the newer stuff (Essentials, Dark Sun) were not included in the recent CB update, though they are on the Compendium (with significant formatting issues for Essentials classes).

Mando Knight
2010-10-14, 04:23 PM
There are four basic sources for magic items: PHB1 & 2 and Adventurer's Vault 1 & 2. Or you can shell out $10 or so and grab DDI and the Character builder. The Character Builder does not yet have the Fallen Lands options in it (they might be waiting for Heroes of Sword & Spell first), though the Compendium (http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx) does. Both have the full magic item lists.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 05:06 PM
Yowzers, 10 "essential" books?
Five books (two PHBs, one DMG, one MM, and the compendium), three tilesets, a diceset, and a box.


One thing I noticed is that there aren't really any "magic items" in these two books to choose from when making a character.
Correct. But then, you don't get to choose magical items; your DM is supposed to roll for them randomly. The best book to find magical items in is the Adventurer's Vault.

Kerrin
2010-10-14, 05:07 PM
Thank you for the info guys! :smallcool:

Asbestos
2010-10-14, 06:01 PM
Because you will. If WotC knows one thing, it's how to sell random sets of minor tokens in small quantities and high prices.
Isn't this the business model taken with Gamma World as well?

gdiddy
2010-10-14, 09:54 PM
I was excited about Gamma World when my friend was telling me about it. Then he used the words "Booster Pack". I think I stared at him for about ten seconds before trying strangle his vulnerable neckbeard region.

I think a new life goal for myself is to become rich, and then buy Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.

Reverent-One
2010-10-14, 10:04 PM
I was excited about Gamma World when my friend was telling me about it. Then he used the words "Booster Pack". I think I stared at him for about ten seconds before trying strangle his vulnerable neckbeard region.

I think a new life goal for myself is to become rich, and then buy Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.

Eh, the cards for Gamma world are for random gear to find and mutations to occur during the game, selling more cards separately makes sense.

Mando Knight
2010-10-14, 10:08 PM
I think a new life goal for myself is to become rich, and then buy Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro.

You can only buy properties from Hasbro in the form of randomized foil-wrapped sets. You'll find D&D and MTG as Very Rares in the WotC set.