PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition: A collection of facts



Pages : [1] 2

Swooper
2007-08-20, 08:00 AM
The announced coming of the 4th Edition of D&D automatically evokes the question: "What will change?" and that's what this thread is for. Collecting all the facts we have into one place. If you know about something that hasn't been said here, sum it up in a sentance or two and state your source. I'll go ahead and start the list:



The PHB will come out in May 2008, the MM in June and the DMG in July. Source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070816a)
The core will include rules for up to level 30. Source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a) This likely means something like the epic rules will be a part of core. Source 2 (http://www.enworld.org)
Tieflings will be a part of the 'core' races, and possibly Eberron's Changelings, too. Either half-orcs or gnomes will not be. Source (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm) Source 2 (http://www.enworld.org)
Races will aquire more racial abilities as they gain levels, maxing out around 10th level. Source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a)
The fighter class will specialize in a weapon or a group of weapons, gaining ToB-like attack manouvers based on his chosen weapon(s). Source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b)
Monster races will be available later, but will not necesserally (I can't spell that word >_<) have the same stats as the monster. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)
Vancian casting (memorization) will be mostly gone. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)
Wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells, suggesting a complete revamp of the magic system. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13473454&postcount=6)
Hellish Paladins of Asmodeus. Source (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3063427&postcount=21)
The feat system is getting completely redone.Source (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3063427&postcount=21)
Their primary concern is making the power levels equal and keeping them equal throughout all of the levels, so that casters don't dominate high levels and melee'ers don't dominate at low levels. Source (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3063427&postcount=21)
The grapple system is getting redone to make it less messy and less confusing. Source (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3063427&postcount=21)
All characters have at will, per encounter, and per day uses they will have to keep track of. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
A wizard will never completely run out of spells. They can run out of their “mordenkainen’s sword, however”. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
The experience point award system is getting reworked. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
The 4th edition Ranger will incorporate many of the features of the 3.5 Scout from Complete Adventurer. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
Magical items will be easier to create, not requiring XP to make or crafting feats. However, their effect on character power will be somewhat toned down. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
The way Attacks of Oppurtunity work will be changed, but they will still be there. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
Multiclassing will still be possible, with different mechanics. The new system will be designed with the intent to not make certain combinations automatically sub-par. Source (http://www.enworld.org)
Likely, the saving throw mechanic will be shifted from 'rolling to defend' against a set DC to 'rolling to attack' agains a set 'saving throw' (for lack of a better term - defence class maybe?) Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...22&postcount=4)
The new edition will aid roleplaying in some undisclosed way. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910164)
There will be an OGL. There will not be an SRD. However, in every purchased book there will be a code that will unlock access to that book online. The goal is to have these e-books useable offline as well. This will also link into the character creator so that the system knows which books you own/play with. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910164)


Go on, help me out here! I'll edit this post once more facts are submitted.

Edit: Please do not use this thread to speculate or discuss, only post if you have something to add to the list, or to correct something already on the list.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 08:02 AM
Aw, man, why another Thread? Wouldn't this have just been better placed in one of the current 4e Threads?

Morty
2007-08-20, 08:14 AM
Vancian casting mostly gone?! God. Damn. It. But I feel whatever rant I may produce about this belongs to another thread.

Arlanthe
2007-08-20, 08:15 AM
I'm a 4th edition skeptic.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 08:18 AM
Aw, man, why another Thread? Wouldn't this have just been better placed in one of the current 4e Threads?
Because this thread is not supposed to be for discussion, merely a place to collect important facts as they come and point people to when they ask what will change in 4th Edition. But hey, stay out if you don't like it.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 08:20 AM
Nothing to do with not liking it, I just expect that it will end up superfluous or quickly disappear.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 08:22 AM
Nothing to do with not liking it, I just expect that it will end up superfluous or quickly disappear.
I fail to see how not having to go through 27 pages of the rapidly growing "4th Edition!" thread to find info is superfluous. Personally I rarely follow any thread for more than ~5 pages and don't feel like digging through a mountain of posts to get to the good bits.

leperkhaun
2007-08-20, 08:23 AM
as for the 30 levels, if you watched the youtube vids the guy says "epic is core" . From that i assume that level 21-30 will use epic rules. They did not mention if epic will get a revamp. I think it does, a level 30 rogue can get a +90 to hide and move silently.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-08-20, 08:25 AM
No more gnomes? This cannot be!

Swooper
2007-08-20, 08:28 AM
as for the 30 levels, if you watched the youtube vids the guy says "epic is core" . From that i assume that level 21-30 will use epic rules. They did not mention if epic will get a revamp. I think it does, a level 30 rogue can get a +90 to hide and move silently.
Thank you, I missed that.


No more gnomes? This cannot be!Gnomes OR half-orcs, not both.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 08:31 AM
I fail to see how not having to go through 27 pages of the rapidly growing "4th Edition!" thread to find info is superfluous. Personally I rarely follow any thread for more than ~5 pages and don't feel like digging through a mountain of posts to get to the good bits.

Fair enough. I'm not intending to stop you or criticise you, I just didn't (and don't) think it necessary to make yet another 4e Thread and I was interested in your reasons. You have given them, and that's fine.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-08-20, 08:32 AM
Gnomes OR half-orcs, not both.

I know that. I seriously hope that they ditch the half-orcs. I never really liked 'im much. Maybe ditch the half-elves too, and come up with "half-breed" rules, although I'm sure such templates will be peppered with Unholy Unions.
Gnomes are just too... too... funny to drop.
*chuckles over the concept of a "gnomish barbarian" again*

Morty
2007-08-20, 08:39 AM
I think half-orcs are more likely to be dropped. As stupid, annoying and absolutely pointless gnomes are, half-orcs have always had the problem with parents. I mean, if orcs are savage beasts as they portray them, how the hell are half-orcs born? So unless they're going to make orcs more civilized race -which I doubt will happen- half-orcs are first to be ditched.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-08-20, 08:41 AM
I think half-orcs are more likely to be dropped. As stupid, annoying and absolutely pointless gnomes are, half-orcs have always had the problem with parents. I mean, if orcs are savage beasts as they portray them, how the hell are half-orcs born?

Orc male, human female. Savage frontiers. "The spoils of war".

And thats the end of my euphamisims.

Morty
2007-08-20, 08:43 AM
Orc male, human female. Savage frontiers. "The spoils of war".

And thats the end of my euphamisims.

And that's all. I can't see many more situations in which half-orc may be born. Besides, it creates space for "my mother doesn't want me" angst, something we don't want to happen.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 08:45 AM
Fair enough. I'm not intending to stop you or criticise you, I just didn't (and don't) think it necessary to make yet another 4e Thread and I was interested in your reasons. You have given them, and that's fine.
Didn't mean to go all defensive on you :smallredface:

The rest of you.. please don't use this thread to speculate, there are other threads for that. Try to keep it to clean facts.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-20, 09:00 AM
Wizards (spellcasters?) will be able to cast 25th level spells in 4th edition.

Source: Associate game designer Rodney Thompson (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13473454&highlight=25th#post13473454)

Matthew
2007-08-20, 09:08 AM
Didn't mean to go all defensive on you :smallredface:

No problem. I could have been clearer about my intentions.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 09:17 AM
Wizards (spellcasters?) will be able to cast 25th level spells in 4th edition.

Source: Associate game designer Rodney Thompson (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13473454&highlight=25th#post13473454)
I just read that, and was coming to this thread to add it to the list. Thanks anyway :smallsmile:

UserClone
2007-08-20, 09:21 AM
Erm...I didn't find the thingy about the tiefling/half-orc/gnome scenario...?

Ranis
2007-08-20, 09:26 AM
I talked to a GM that was playtesting 4th edition with WOTC at GenCon. She told me four things:

Hellish Paladins of Asmodeus.
The feat system is getting completely redone.
Their primary concern is making the power levels equal and keeping them equal throughout all of the levels, so that casters don't dominate high levels and melee'ers don't dominate at low levels.
The grapple system is getting redone to make it less messy and less confusing.

leperkhaun
2007-08-20, 09:35 AM
I talked to a GM that was playtesting 4th edition with WOTC at GenCon. She told me four things:

Hellish Paladins of Asmodeus.
The feat system is getting completely redone.
Their primary concern is making the power levels equal and keeping them equal throughout all of the levels, so that casters don't dominate high levels and melee'ers don't dominate at low levels.
The grapple system is getting redone to make it less messy and less confusing.

Man with 25th level spells i just dont see how non casters are going to keep up. I guess if they went with more of a ToB type system.

I have a question. The 25th level spells. Does that mean you get spell slots up to 25th level? That there will be 10th level spells? Are they going to do away with epic spells and just have higher and higher spell levels?

Honestly that whole 25th level spells just threw out the idea that you could balance casters/non casters.

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 09:37 AM
as for the 30 levels, if you watched the youtube vids the guy says "epic is core" . From that i assume that level 21-30 will use epic rules. They did not mention if epic will get a revamp. I think it does, a level 30 rogue can get a +90 to hide and move silently.

Awwwww.

I really hoped that 30 levels will be just extendet levels 1 - 20. Or something like this, not literally, but something similar... More detailed character creation, more diverse characters. Less "brutal" character advancemet (if 16 lev will be still quite mediocre (you know, now longer: "guy who spent 3 weeks in dungeon, gained 5 levels, so he is instantly 2 times more powerful being" now :smallyuk: )

But it appears that it 20 - 30 will be epic as in 3.5... So where's that change anyway?


Man with 25th level spells i just dont see how non casters are going to keep up. I guess if they went with more of a ToB type system.

I think that 25th level spells will be just as powerful as 9th level in 3.5...

Can't see where's the problem.
Besides 30 minutes of searching one spell trough 20 levels of them of course.

25 is too much, it will be cumber.some

Morty
2007-08-20, 09:42 AM
This 25 levels of spells has got to be a joke. Does anyone have any idea how much bookkeeping is that going to involve? And people -not me- complain that 3.x magic system has too much of it.

leperkhaun
2007-08-20, 09:43 AM
Awwwww.

I really hoped that 30 levels will be just extendet levels 1 - 20. Or something like this, not literally, but something similar... More detailed character creation, more diverse characters. Less "brutal" character advancemet (if 16 lev will be still quite mediocre (you know, now longer (guy who spent 3 weeks in dungeon, gained 5 levels, so he is instantly 2 times more powerful being now :smallyuk: )

But it appears that it 20 - 30 will be epic as in 3.5... So where's that change anyway?

Well the guy said epic is core, however they havent mentioned if they are revamping the epic levels. I THINK they are, considering the whole 25th level spells thing. I HOPE that they do and that when they do they make a system thats not broken.

Well if they are making 25th level spells the new 9th level spells..... that would balance things on the high end, but that means you have to extend the time a mage is useless at low levels.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 09:44 AM
Erm...I didn't find the thingy about the tiefling/half-orc/gnome scenario...?
Damn, you're right, it's not in the source I stated. I'm confident I read it somewhere, though that source mentioned half-elves and halflings as well, but we know those two are 'safe' since they mentioned one of the half-elves' abilities (inspiring presence) somewhere else and concept art of halflings has been seen. Can someone help me find the source for that?

Ranis: Thanks a bunch, I'll add these to the top post. I'll link your post as the source, seeing it's from an oral source.

leperkhaun: 25th level spells suggest only that they reworked the whole "9th level is the highest level spells" model into "25th level is the highest level spells", likely with 25th level spells roughly as good as 9th level spells are now. As this source states nothing about what will be done to non-casters, there's no grounds for saying that melee vs. casters will be even more unbalanced. In fact, one of their biggest goals is to make sure it isn't. However, this is not a thread for discussion or speculation, please go to one of the other 4th edition threads for that.

bugsysservant
2007-08-20, 09:49 AM
25 levels of spells :smalleek:
Without even going into the horrendous book keeping and probable balance issues, this will wreak havok on many campaign settings. As I recall, Karsus tore the FR world apart with a single tenth level spell. He is now a vestige in the ToM. What, precisely, will a twentifith level spell do?

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 09:56 AM
25 levels of spells :smalleek:
Without even going into the horrendous book keeping and probable balance issues, this will wreak havok on many campaign settings. As I recall, Karsus tore the FR world apart with a single tenth level spell. He is now a vestige in the ToM. What, precisely, will a twentifith level spell do?

Read the previous posts.

Now it will mean that Karsur tore the FR with single 25th level spell. Now there will be just much more levels. Spells will be scaled... Maybe it's not bad idea, fly is much more powerful spell than rather uselles Rage spell, and they are both on 3th level...

Slighty offtopic: Are some Wizard guys reading this forum?

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but there is quite a lot of gamers here, and they probably should know what gamers are thinking about this.
I think.

Roog
2007-08-20, 09:59 AM
25 levels of spells :smalleek:
Without even going into the horrendous book keeping and probable balance issues, this will wreak havok on many campaign settings. As I recall, Karsus tore the FR world apart with a single tenth level spell. He is now a vestige in the ToM. What, precisely, will a twentifith level spell do?

Well, he might need a 30th level spell do that under 4th ed.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-20, 10:13 AM
I talked to a GM that was playtesting 4th edition with WOTC at GenCon. She told me four things:

Hellish Paladins of Asmodeus.
Screw. That.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 10:16 AM
Screw. That.
My thoughts exactly, but alas we are the minority. I think Paladins will draw power from 'their' Deities by default now as well. Paladins are too difficult a concept for the majority of gamers to fully understand (from what I can tell) and we all know what happens to difficult concepts under Wizards...

Morty
2007-08-20, 10:17 AM
Was that "Screw that" because evil paladins make no sense -as I tend to think- or because something else?

Swooper
2007-08-20, 10:29 AM
Please, go to the "4th Edition!" thread to discuss. This thread is meant only for facts.

brian c
2007-08-20, 11:15 AM
I know that. I seriously hope that they ditch the half-orcs. I never really liked 'im much. Maybe ditch the half-elves too, and come up with "half-breed" rules, although I'm sure such templates will be peppered with Unholy Unions.
Gnomes are just too... too... funny to drop.
*chuckles over the concept of a "gnomish barbarian" again*

The gnomish barbarian is the bane of my existence.


Also, with these 25th level spells... I'm guessing that means that you get new spells every level? Interesting...


The only thing that I would have to add here is that you might want to say something about the DnDInsider/Gleemax and the online stuff.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-20, 11:20 AM
My thoughts exactly, but alas we are the minority. I think Paladins will draw power from 'their' Deities by default now as well. Paladins are too difficult a concept for the majority of gamers to fully understand (from what I can tell) and we all know what happens to difficult concepts under Wizards...
Right now, I'm treating this as a compelling reason to not switch to 4e. If there are enough reasons to make the change even after this, though, the house-rule stick is coming out.

Was that "Screw that" because evil paladins make no sense -as I tend to think- or because something else?
The former.

Telonius
2007-08-20, 12:06 PM
Tiefling as core race has been verified; which race it will replace has not been verified. From what I've dug up, it stems from this article (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm). The article describes an interview with Bill Slavicsek, who is the "Wizards of the Coast director of RPG research and development." The article contains several quotes from Slavicsek, but the operative item (in bold):


Part of that polishing includes ramping up the coolness factor on some of the less-popular character classes to make sure that every class has a unique and essential role in a well-balanced party; you might see some of the traditional classes fall out of the base book in favor of sexier roles. The same thing will happen to the races covered in the core books, where the half-demon tieflings will claim a place at the expense of an undisclosed race—we’re guessing a half-elf, gnome and halfling were shut up in a dark cave with some paring knives, and no questions were asked of whoever came out…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition! Not to worry; Slavicsek promises that any beloved races cut from the core books will appear in early Fourth Edition expansions.

... is not a direct or indirect quotation from Slavicsek; but an explanation by the article author. However, the italicized portion indicates (in an indirect quote) that any races cut will appear in expansions.

dyslexicfaser
2007-08-20, 12:14 PM
Orc male, human female. Savage frontiers. "The spoils of war".

Male adventurer, orc female. Orcish war camp. "The spoils of war".

Sorry for not having anything concrete to add, Swooper. I do recall reading somewhere that Wizards was looking to ToB and their Star Wars game for inspiration for 4e, but I don't have a source.

Bitzeralisis
2007-08-20, 12:15 PM
# The PHB will come out in May 2008, the MM in June and the DMG in July.
I'm fine with that.
# The core will include rules for up to level 30. This likely means something like the epic rules will be a part of core.
Ahhg! No!
# Tieflings will be a part of the 'core' races. Either half-orcs or gnomes will not be.
What are tieflings? And I never linked half-orcs or gnomes anyways...
# Races will acquire more racial abilities as they gain levels, maxing out around 10th level.
Darn it. It feels like bloodlines.
# The fighter class will specialize in a weapon or a group of weapons, gaining ToB-like attack maneuvers based on his chosen weapon(s).
Something good for once.
# Monster races will be available later, but will not necessarily have the same stats as the monster.
:smallconfused: ? What?
# Vancian casting will be mostly gone.
What's Vancian casting?
# Wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells, suggesting a complete revamp of the magic system.
Gahh! I don't like this either! Unless their revamp makes spells even easier to manage...
# Hellish Paladins of Asmodeus.
Sooo... evil paladins?
# The feat system is getting completely redone.
Grr.
# Their primary concern is making the power levels equal and keeping them equal throughout all of the levels, so that casters don't dominate high levels and melee'ers don't dominate at low levels.
Yay!
# The grapple system is getting redone to make it less messy and less confusing.
Huh? I never found grappling that complicated.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-20, 12:38 PM
Male adventurer, orc female. Orcish war camp. "The spoils of war".

Sorry for not having anything concrete to add, Swooper. I do recall reading somewhere that Wizards was looking to ToB and their Star Wars game for inspiration for 4e, but I don't have a source.

Ahhh but you do. This was also stated by Rodney Thompson in his blog. (the link about the 25th level spells)

Matthew even drew a comparison to the Saga skills to arrive at 25 when I mentioned this in another thread....

comicshorse
2007-08-20, 12:39 PM
You found the grappling rules easy ? Stop wasting your mighty intellect on this message board and go and develop cold fusion or end world hunger.

Larrin
2007-08-20, 12:49 PM
Understanding the grappling rule and implementing them are two different things, grappling just plain takes forever....[exageration that hopefully gets point across] roll, now roll, roll again, opposed roll, roll. then add str+size+bonus+penalty+bardsong+bless+monkey. you won the grapple, deal your 1d4 damage. repeat. 250 rounds later, the foe dies. [/exageration that hopefully gets point across]

if this was not your grappling experience,1) you were doing it wrong, and 2) i envy you!

Quietus
2007-08-20, 01:04 PM
Understanding the grappling rule and implementing them are two different things, grappling just plain takes forever....[exageration that hopefully gets point across] roll, now roll, roll again, opposed roll, roll. then add str+size+bonus+penalty+bardsong+bless+monkey. you won the grapple, deal your 1d4 damage. repeat. 250 rounds later, the foe dies. [/exageration that hopefully gets point across]

if this was not your grappling experience,1) you were doing it wrong, and 2) i envy you!

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/heffem/blog/posts/macros/youre-doing-it-wrong.jpg)

With that out of the way - so the "right" way to grapple isn't just "Make a modified attack roll. You win, deal damage/pin/disarm/etc!"? Grappling is only tough and confusing if you insist on making it so. Use it from time to time and it becomes second nature, just like everything else in the game.

Doc_Outlands
2007-08-20, 01:56 PM
Swooper - THANK YOU for this thread! This is *exactly* the kind of thread I hoped to see someone start.

Quietus - that pic is hilarious! I think I have a couple who can *do* that...

Swooper, I'm going to start a "Facts Discussion" thread to be a companion to this thread, because I think facts should be discussed separately from speculation.

Eric Desbiens
2007-08-20, 02:18 PM
Interesting excerpt from www.enworld.org

About 30 levels


Is 30 levels just 30 thinner slices of the same loaf, or is it the original 20 slice loaf plus another half a loaf? 1-10 Heroic, 11 - 20 Paragon, 21 - 30 Epic.


About Magic / Powers / Maneuvers


All characters have at will, per encounter, and per day uses they will have to keep track of.
No more mages pulling out crossbows. You will never be penalized for doing what you do best – your clearly defined roles.

A wizard will never completely run out of spells. They can run out of their “mordenkainen’s sword, however”.


About Skills

Skill system – familiar but truncated. Getting rid of tailor, rope use, etc. Focus on the skills that are really useful in an encounter. Saga edition is a significant stride forward and should be considered a preview. Same for profession, etc. We want characters making acrobatics, bluff, jump, etc. No characters will be stuck at 10th level saying “oh I never invested in that.” Hide/Move Silent are brought together. Now an important part of your character, and here’s how to apply it to an encounter. It’s rarely a check and done, it’s now, I make a check, and they react to it. What happens now.

About Experience Points

XP not getting rid, and for those not comfortable with eyeballing it will have a clear time as to when to advance. Much easier for the DM. I’ll build a level 8 encounter, totaling 8000 xp, this one, plus this one = 8000 done. No tables. Monsters have a level, just like characters. “A group vs. a “group” of 5th level is about the same as an EL5 encounter today.


About the Ranger and Scout Class

“We had an expression from earlier discussions, the ranger kills the scout and takes his stuff…sorry Scout, you’re not going to make it. But now the Ranger’s going to be cooler because he’s taking all your stuff.”

About Alignment

It’s not going to be what it is now. Alignment is part of the story, part of the character. It is a useful shorthand, but too many books and too many players mistake it for limitation. We want to treat alignment as something bigger than that. We won’t get rid of it, but we don’t want it to be a replacement for character and personality.

About Magical Item Creation

they will no longer use Magic Item XP. XP are NOT a resource to be spent. There will not be magic item creation rules for DM’s as we realize that as professional game designers we don’t even get it right every time. We’re going to give you lots and lots of examples and suggest that you build it, test it, etc.

Will it be easier for a wizard to create magic items? Yes, characters can still build magic items, it will be a way for characters to acquire things, but it will be more flexible and easier.

About Races

There is a tiefling on the player’s handbook. There may also be a changeling (from Eberron).

In the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can’t do.


About Attacks of Opportunity

It won't be the same thing, but the concepts are all there.

Swooper
2007-08-20, 02:53 PM
Very nice Eric Desbiens, if you could give the exact link for those I'll add them to the list (the ones that haven't been covered yet, that is).

Number 6
2007-08-20, 02:56 PM
On a side note, a bunch of people hate the new video released by WOC to explain 4e because they hate the "fake French accent" of the narrator. Note: It's a parady of Jauqe Cousteu (sp?) the French oneanologist who used to have his own TV show.

Falrin
2007-08-20, 03:26 PM
"magic item Christmas tree" was going the way of the dodo, and that magic items aren't going to be required to be competitive at high levels. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13473454&postcount=6)

Can we conclude that magic items will have less effect on the game?

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 03:29 PM
Can we conclude that magic items will have less effect on the game?

Hopefully - yes.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-20, 03:36 PM
This isn't entirely a collection of facts; although most of your facts are okay they seem heavy on interpretation:

30 levels may be, as said earlier, thinner slices.Levelling may be designed to be more frequent and more meaningful, not necessarily core epic.

Fighters having weapon based styles and certain things going for them does not necessarily mean ToB style; it's possible, but not exactly a fact. All we know is the general position statement.

Nobody said Vancian magic (a term I'm sick of people bandying around every time they can: it's pointless to sound official just say prepared magic) is gone; they said that wizards are using a different system with some preparation;

"Facts" means not jumping to conclusions.

Hopeless
2007-08-20, 03:37 PM
On a side note, a bunch of people hate the new video released by WOC to explain 4e because they hate the "fake French accent" of the narrator. Note: It's a parady of Jauqe Cousteu (sp?) the French oneanologist who used to have his own TV show.

REALLY?
What annoyed me was the fact they could have treated us to a series of teasers instead of one that had to call upon the grapple rules to get a laugh.

Why not...
The scene opens on an old gaming session set in black and white you know the truly noirish style and sees a group of students sitting around a table, the one at the head opens the scene shown inside a tavern with the same players in costume and you hear them saying what they're characters are doing as the narrator then points out things change.

Moves to a somewhat better era where the group suitably aged has added new members as old members have either moved away or have settled down and can only make the game occasionally so you see them introduce their characters except the inn is now enlarged to show off the new choices that can be made in this addition of the game say you now have halfling spellcasters or dwarven clerics maybe even an elven paladin for example.
This leads to a classic meeting as they find a secret door leading into the depths beneath this inn...

Now its more four colour as with the new era the characters head into the depths and we see 3.0 rules for the first time showing off the difference between 2nd and 3rd editon as we see a new gm running the show and maybe the old gm showing off his experience in the process.

Now we go to 3.5 as the table has changed again except we now see they're inside a convention hall and several visitors young and old meet up again and we see the resulting game as old and new characters meet in the game and we see the options expand as a result.

Now we see the scene goes black as the heading 2008 is shown and the scene shows a group around a table with the dm using a laptop or computer to help organiser their notes and the players crowded around the table consisting of both young and old players discuss their choices as the excitement of the new edition inspires them to greater and more imaginative play...

And I'm willing to bet you can do a heck of a lot better than that!

Give it a try or maybe a new thread should be started for that very purpose... discussing the new options as they appear and more importantly how they could ahve done this better.

Telonius
2007-08-20, 03:41 PM
Can we conclude that magic items will have less effect on the game?

Good Lord. Wizards is going to nuke my Gnome Artificer twice before our next campaign starts. (No gnomes, lack of magic items).

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 04:17 PM
30 levels may be, as said earlier, thinner slices.Levelling may be designed to be more frequent and more meaningful, not necessarily core epic.


Well, I wish it to be so, but it had been implied few times, that 20 -30 will be epic just as now.

Rasumichin
2007-08-20, 05:11 PM
Where did you get the information that half-orcs will not be in the new PHB?

The articles quoted mention half-elves, halflings and gnomes as possible races to appear not in the PHB, but "an early supplement" (read : 4E MM).


What are tieflings?

A so-called planetouched race, originating from interbreeding between humans and fiends.
Basically, a tiefling is a humanoid with fiendish features (horns, pointy teeth, sulfuric smell, glowing eyes and the like).

Also found in the SRD :

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-20, 05:41 PM
Well, I wish it to be so, but it had been implied few times, that 20 -30 will be epic just as now.

Which really wouldn't mean anything other than including a small bit of the Epic Hanbook in the PhB.

I've yet to reach lvl 20 on any character, so having higher levels than that means even less.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-21, 12:01 AM
Their primary concern is making the power levels equal and keeping them equal throughout all of the levels, so that casters don't dominate high levels and melee'ers don't dominate at low levels.

To be fair, melee'ers don't exactly "dominate" low levels either(Sleep, Colour Spray, Entangle, etc.).:smalltongue:

Half-Orc. "Mummy loved Daddy's big, hard muscles!" When brawn is valued more than brains...:smallamused:

Arlanthe
2007-08-21, 12:18 AM
Go read the "new" 4th Editions conversations Wizards says we're about to have. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b


Great. They are officially condoning metagame thinking. "4th Edition: Wuts UR spec man?'.

horseboy
2007-08-21, 12:22 AM
Go read the "new" 4th Editions conversations Wizards says we're about to have. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b


Can't see it.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-21, 01:22 AM
Go read the "new" 4th Editions conversations Wizards says we're about to have. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b


Great. They are officially condoning metagame thinking. "4th Edition: Wuts UR spec man?'.

Unlike now, when nobody discusses their players stats.

Nobody says you shouldn't metagame, you just shouldn't do it at the expense of roleplaying.

Tyrael
2007-08-21, 02:36 AM
Question:

What is Vancian casting?

BardicDuelist
2007-08-21, 02:46 AM
Question:

What is Vancian casting?

The "cast-and-forget" style that all non-spontaneous casters have where one must prepare spells, etc.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 02:47 AM
Question:

What is Vancian casting?

It's D&D Magic as inspired by the literary work of Jack Vance. Basically, it's the idea that Wizards lose the memory of how to cast their Spells after casting them.

[Edit]
Ninja'd

Morty
2007-08-21, 05:49 AM
It's D&D Magic as inspired by the literary work of Jack Vance. Basically, it's the idea that Wizards lose the memory of how to cast their Spells after casting them.



Except it doesn't work that way fluff-wise, but I'm tired of talking about this.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 06:10 AM
Actually, in 2e it does:


A spell book contains the complicated instructions for casting the spell -- the spell's recipe, so to speak. Merely reading these instructions aloud or trying to mimic the instructions does not enable one to cast the spell. Spells gather and shape mystical energies; the procedures involved are very demanding, bizarre, and intricate. Before a wizard can actually cast a spell, he must memorize its arcane formula. This locks an energy pattern for that particular spell into his mind. Once he has the spell memorized, it remains in his memory until he uses the exact combination of gestures, words, and materials that triggers the release of this energy pattern. Upon casting, the energy of the spell is spent, wiped clean from the wizard's mind. The wizard cannot cast that spell again until he returns to his spell book and memorizes it again. Initially the wizard is able to retain only a few of these magical energies in his mind at one time. Furthermore, some spells are more demanding and complex than others; these are impossible for the inexperienced wizard to memorize. With experience, the wizard's talent expands. He can memorize more spells and more complex spells. Still, he never escapes his need to study; the wizard must always return to his spell books to refresh his powers.

Are there other ways to interpret it? Yeah, of course there are, but that's how it is presented in the 2e PHB.
[Edit] Also, see pages 40 and 100 of the 1e PHB for pretty much the same statement.

Swooper
2007-08-21, 06:20 AM
Added facts to the top post, stating simply enworld.org as the source as it seems impossible to link directly to the right newspost. If someone has a link regarding half-orcs possibly dropping out, please post it. I'm certain I read it somewhere. Halflings and half-elves are proved to be in, since a concept art sketch of a halfling cleric has been leaked, and one of the developers mentioned an ability inherent to half-elves.

ArmorArmadillo:
First, yes, Bill Slaviszec (sp?) confirmed that levels 21-30 will be 'epic', so it is safe to assume they somehow correspond to the current ELH. See link.
Second, by 'ToB-like attack manouvers based on his chosen weapon(s)' with reference to the link given, I thought it obvious that I meant to mechanics, not fluff. I deduced from the article in the link that what one of the players in the conversation calls 'rain of blows' with his sword and another mentions a spear's speed and ability to go past AC refers to something similar to the mechanics presented in ToB. Nothing supernatural is indicated. Still disagree?
Concerning Vancian magic; I didn't say it was gone either. Mostly gone, yes, but those are the exact words of Mike Mearls in his blog, and his announcement on GenCon on the subject.

Morty
2007-08-21, 06:27 AM
Actually, in 2e it does:

Are there other ways to interpret it? Yeah, of course there are, but that's how it is presented in the 2e PHB.
[Edit] Also, see pages 40 and 100 of the 1e PHB for pretty much the same statement.

I don't have 2ed or 1ed books at all, and I don't have 3ed PHB at hand now, but I'll only say that "memorizing" and "forgetting" aren't the best words here. "Preparing" fits better.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 06:29 AM
I would agree, but 'Memorizing' and 'Forgetting' are the words explicitly used in the 1e and 2e PHBs. I can only present what they do with regard to description for the D&D version of the Vancian Spell Casting System.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-21, 12:59 PM
Added facts to the top post, stating simply enworld.org as the source as it seems impossible to link directly to the right newspost. If someone has a link regarding half-orcs possibly dropping out, please post it. I'm certain I read it somewhere. Halflings and half-elves are proved to be in, since a concept art sketch of a halfling cleric has been leaked, and one of the developers mentioned an ability inherent to half-elves.

ArmorArmadillo:
First, yes, Bill Slaviszec (sp?) confirmed that levels 21-30 will be 'epic', so it is safe to assume they somehow correspond to the current ELH. See link.
Second, by 'ToB-like attack manouvers based on his chosen weapon(s)' with reference to the link given, I thought it obvious that I meant to mechanics, not fluff. I deduced from the article in the link that what one of the players in the conversation calls 'rain of blows' with his sword and another mentions a spear's speed and ability to go past AC refers to something similar to the mechanics presented in ToB. Nothing supernatural is indicated. Still disagree?
Concerning Vancian magic; I didn't say it was gone either. Mostly gone, yes, but those are the exact words of Mike Mearls in his blog, and his announcement on GenCon on the subject.
I don't disagree, only challenge that an inference, however clear or reasonable, isn't a fact; which is apparently the focus of this thread.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-21, 03:09 PM
Either at ENworld or the GenCon posts at wizards (I can't remember), I read somthing about Asmodeous becoming a god.

Orcus will be in the MM (and the code name for 4e was Orcus). GenCon posts

Saga Edition is a preview for 4e skills. EN

In the Class Roles D&D article on WotC they said somthing about rogues doing more amazing things with acrobatic skills (though that is heavily up to interpretation). WotC

Multiclassing will be there, and casters will be penalized less. EN

7 books will be released in 2008. They will be the 3 core, FR, a martial one, a magic one, and a magic item one. EN, check the source on the threads for the list of books.

Foolosophy
2007-08-21, 09:14 PM
It's great to talk with fellow gamers and explain things like our thoughts on resource management, character role, or "flipping" saves to attacks.

From Rich Baker's blog (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13487022&postcount=4)

The last part about flipping saves to attacks sounds a lot like the "players make all the rolls" option of UA, where you make a d20+mod throw against a flat save value.

Dhavaer
2007-08-22, 06:46 AM
The 'iconics' thread on the 4ed boards seems to indicate there will be a class called 'Warlord'.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 06:49 AM
Yeah, aparently somebody on EnWorld paused the video stream and noted the Warlord Class somewhere on the interface. One of ZeroGamer's interviews with the designers mentions it.

Morty
2007-08-22, 06:53 AM
Couldn't be a "warlord" type represented by one of the alleged "talent trees" or other alternative class features of Fighter or Paladin?:smallconfused: Unless this class goes futher than just leading troops or allies to battle.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-22, 07:26 AM
Couldn't be a "warlord" type represented by one of the alleged "talent trees" or other alternative class features of Fighter or Paladin?:smallconfused: Unless this class goes futher than just leading troops or allies to battle.

I doubt it, Paladins and Fighters are frontliners, not leaders according to the party roles they talk about

But a lot could change before the release. The Lord of War ("I like it better my way", small portion of popcorn for the reference) may already have moved out of the Core books as we speak.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 07:55 AM
From James Wyatt's Blog (at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388]

In post #7 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13496433&postcount=7)
(Emphasis mine)


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

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

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

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

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 08:07 AM
Here is a link to the Compiled 4e FAQ on the Gleemax site

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910164

Some excerpts from the FAQ:


Epic is core! Epic levels in PH and epic critters in the MM.
Alignment - It won't have any overarching impact, but it certainly might be meaningful for your character or that NPC. You can assume the paladin doesn't have to be LG—but that is an assumption on your part. Time will tell.
Roleplaying - Ah, roleplaying (RP), that ever-popular but wildly divergent topic. I can tell you that some elements of 4e virtually require RP in one sense or another to make the game work smoothly. The DM has to communicate certain things just to be fair, and character powers are gonna provide RP opportunities too. Add in certain mechanical elements you’ll eventually get a preview of (hint: they don’t enforce roleplaying, but they certainly aid it), and the normal background and personality stuff a lot of players (such as me) already do. I personally think this edition has fantastic RP potential, and it’ll give those who don’t’ know how to do it some helpful guidelines.
There will be an OGL. There will be an SRD.
The D&D Insider applications will not be required to play 4th Edition D&D. (Emphasis theirs)
Our plan is that when you buy a book it will have a unique code and with a very nominal fee you can unlock the e-book version. This will also auto-populate the data bases in the character creator so the system knows what books you own/play with.
e-books - Our goals is that you will be able to use them offline

Techonce
2007-08-22, 09:05 AM
Quick question,

Has there been any mention about the dice to be used? I have assumed that it will be the standard, 4,6,8,10,12,20... But after reading the new bits at wizards, I'm not too sure. They seem to never exactly say.

TechOnce

P.S. If any of you find that you can't access the wizards site at work because of WebSense, you can always get there by going to shadow.wizards.com It works for me.

Telonius
2007-08-22, 09:07 AM
The whole thing will be based on d7, forcing everybody to buy new dice.

... no, not really. :smallbiggrin: Haven't heard anything either way.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-22, 12:04 PM
I doubt it, Paladins and Fighters are frontliners, not leaders according to the party roles they talk about

But a lot could change before the release. The Lord of War ("I like it better my way", small portion of popcorn for the reference) may already have moved out of the Core books as we speak.

André Baptiste, Lord of War. If I don't get my popcorn, there will be a bath of blood! :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but in this youtube video, James Wyatt mentions that they will not be doing a 4.5, thanks to the ability to update stuff through the online service. (Reference: Don't look at GamerZer0's shorts if you value your eyes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-22, 04:14 PM
André Baptiste, Lord of War. If I don't get my popcorn, there will be a bath of blood! :smallbiggrin:

You do get your Corn of Pop.:smallsmile:


I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but in this youtube video, James Wyatt mentions that they will not be doing a 4.5, thanks to the ability to update stuff through the online service. (Reference: Don't look at GamerZer0's shorts if you value your eyes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs)


Providing errata directly to the character generator and online rule collection is great, but major overhauls like a 4.5 edition will make the books unusable.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-22, 04:20 PM
You do get your Corn of Pop.:smallsmile:



Providing errata directly to the character generator and online rule collection is great, but major overhauls like a 4.5 edition will make the books unusable.

Yeah, it'll probably end up like strategy guides for MMORPGs. They release one right off the bat, and give it a few months, and all the information is obselete.

Black Hand
2007-08-22, 04:53 PM
Eh? What's this?! Up until now for me 4e was just rumor, but it seems the edition is changing yet agian...ugh, well that's it. I'm going back to 2E :smalltongue:

Logic
2007-08-22, 05:21 PM
I may not buy 4th edition. This sounds more and more like they are trying to compete with WoW.

Attention Wizards of the Coast! Stop trying to compete with WoW! You are only hurting your loyal fanbase! :smallfurious:

Aximili
2007-08-22, 07:52 PM
Edit: Please do not use this thread to speculate or discuss, only post if you have something to add to the list, or to correct something already on the list.
And you thought it would help to say please.:smallamused:

Jarlax
2007-08-23, 06:58 AM
although i think everyone had, at this point pretty much came to the same conclusion. PCs are not backwards compatible with 3.5 and there will no no conversion guide to making 3.5 PCs into 4th edition PCs.

Wizards are encouraging all players to start at level 1 and work their way up to learn all the new rules. Source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ask)

thank you wizards for making a sensible decision, this give the new ruleset a lot more space to grow by not being held back by keeping in line with 3.5

Fixer
2007-08-23, 11:09 AM
I found this comment on the Wizards boards:


Ok, I was at the unvailing and at the semonars on both friday and saturday. With that and some well asked questions by me and my friend (Fallenangel359) we know that Gnomes are not in the Players Handbook 1 (as it stands now). This has been comfermed by R&D members.

They also told us that 1 year after the Core 3 are released there will be a Players Handbook 2, DMG 2, and Monster Manual 2 and a new one every year after that. In this they told us each will have a new set of races and classes. The More dificault Classes and Races to balance will be released in the later PHBs. My speculation would be Gnome would be in PHB2 4e.

Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13484347&postcount=6)

I also found this list but not sure how accurate it is:
Elf
Half-elf
Half orc
Goblin
Tiefling
Halfling
Human
Changling
Warforged

Swordguy
2007-08-23, 03:55 PM
4th Edition Slashdot article:
http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/08/22/1847207.shtml

Items of note:


The R&D team at WotC is looking to adapt Dungeons and Dragons to the way that it's played, and stop forcing gamers to play the game the way the game is set up.



On the far end of the scale, this means that epic-level play will now be a core part of the game. That is, the Player Handbook will support level progression from 1-30. Levels 1-10 will be known as 'heroic' levels, where characters are better than the average human but still 'normal'. Levels 10-20 are 'paragon' levels, where characters accomplish feats only possible in a fictional environment. Levels 20-30 are 'epic' levels, where heroes will be able to step out into the world and change the course of history.



On top of that, WotC feels as though a new edition is necessary to support the other three columns of their ambitious new plan. Physical books are the most important part, but there are three other pieces that feed into the game. The first is community, exemplified by the terribly-named Gleemax.com website. Gleemax is going to offer up a single place where D&D gamers can come together to discuss the game, as well as CCGs, boardgames, and the lot; a MySpace for tabletop nerds, essentially.

...


Unfortunately, it's not clear how separate that piece will be from the ambitious D&DInsider.com.
...
The WotC folks were very clear: this is not meant to take the place of your regular game. It's a place to go if your gaming group is spread across the country (or world) as so often happens in our busy modern world. They also envision a future where players who don't have regular games can hop online and connect with other folks to play in a regular campaign.

Falconsflight
2007-08-23, 03:59 PM
My only question is Why add in a Half fiend instead of a Half Celestial? No love for the Aasimar.

Anyway, Multiclassing has been overhauled.

Enworld (http://www.enworld.org/)
Multiclassing: New multiclassing rules, you ask. Yep, we've got 'em. Multiclass characters are running at a couple of our internal playtest tables right now. Early results are promising, but we're talking about only a couple of characters, so we haven't seen broad proof of concept yet.

Also, according to the DnD podcast, somethign they kept on mentioning (Paraphrased):
"We can't give out specific mechanics because there is a chance they could be removed/changed while we are saying this. We are still playtesting and fiddling with the product."

So, from their perspective: this list of facts could be half wrong. But I think that the big things like different levels or magic system will remain the same with some medium/minor differences. While they could later remove the Tiefling and toss the Gnome back in.

Serenity
2007-08-23, 05:02 PM
I think it's faintly silly to include rules for the tiefling and not the aasimar. I'd feel the same vice-versa too.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-24, 12:28 AM
The lack of Gnomes makes me sad. I found a source for the 7 books listed to come out, but it is hebrew (my friend translated it for me, but did not write it down).

horseboy
2007-08-24, 01:00 AM
No gnomes, man the Gnackles are going to be pissed. That's a whole con down.

starwoof
2007-08-24, 01:20 AM
Orcus will be in the MM (and the code name for 4e was Orcus). GenCon posts

He isn't just in it, he's on it (http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/starwoof2/34574578.jpg). AS evidenced by what is clearly the rod of orcus.


I also think its a mistake if they drop gnomes.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-24, 01:28 AM
No gnomes? Bah. That's the first change I've heard that I've been immediately turned off by. Poor old Gimble, slickest of the iconics.

On another note, I read through all of the WotC blogs posted in the forums today, and I'm pretty sure one of them mentioned that goblins would not be a PHB race by explaining there'd be support for playing as goblins elsewhere.

Helgraf
2007-08-24, 01:48 AM
YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/heffem/blog/posts/macros/youre-doing-it-wrong.jpg)

With that out of the way - so the "right" way to grapple isn't just "Make a modified attack roll. You win, deal damage/pin/disarm/etc!"? Grappling is only tough and confusing if you insist on making it so. Use it from time to time and it becomes second nature, just like everything else in the game.

Make a touch attack. Make an opposed grapple check. If you win, you have grappled the opponent, pulling them into your square. If you are still in control of the grapple on your next attack, you can then attempt another opposed grapple to pin your opponent - or to inflict damage (unarmed, unless you have a natural weapon or have a light weapon at hand, or you have that wonderful feat from PHB II that lets you use your greatsword (or other utterly mastered weapon of choice) in grapple..

Grappling typically works best for monks and high strength power attack brutes with ridiculous grapple bonuses from size & race.

At low levels though, a monk with improved grapple (likely taken at level 2 for "free"), can pin down most opponents of his CR without undue effort espeically if he has a positive str modifier. It's not as effective against Size Large+, of course, but he can do quite well against Size Medium critters, as he can usually make the touch ac to initiate the grapple more easily than hitting the monster's normal AC, then just has to keep winning opposed checks to do unarmed damage each round.

Morty
2007-08-24, 05:53 AM
Errr... where is it said there will be no gnomes? I must have missed it.

Reinboom
2007-08-24, 07:01 AM
Errr... where is it said there will be no gnomes? I must have missed it.

They didn't say exactly that, everyone is jumping to conclusions.
If you follow about on the two sources - there will be a phb race removed. We don't know which. Guesses are on half-orc, half-elf, and gnome by most of the larger sources. Which isn't confirmed, and could be none of the above.

TSGames
2007-08-24, 08:45 AM
They didn't say exactly that, everyone is jumping to conclusions.
If you follow about on the two sources - there will be a phb race removed. We don't know which. Guesses are on half-orc, half-elf, and gnome by most of the larger sources. Which isn't confirmed, and could be none of the above.

I don't think it's jumping to conclusions... This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070824a) article says:


Conversion was far from 100% accurate. Not only have the classes changed, but we’re also using plenty of stuff that wasn’t in the playtest document. Several of us needed new races.
The author, playing a gnome in a four person party says several of us. In addition to that, it's shown in the report that the Warforged character did not have to change race. It's a safe assumption that the Elan had to change race, and the last player's race(Rich Baker) was not stated. It seems like it's more than jumping to conclusions, it seems like it's a safe bet:no Gnomes in 4.0 Player Handbook I. :smallbiggrin:
Commence partying.

Morty
2007-08-24, 09:24 AM
Well, there's no mention of a race of this Warblade/Warmage. Maybe he had to change races.
Saying that gnomes are gone is still jumping to conclusions, even it's indeed likely. And besides, if they remove gnomes, they'll have to rewrite whole settings' histories, because there are no longer gnomes there.

Thinker
2007-08-24, 09:40 AM
Well, there's no mention of a race of this Warblade/Warmage. Maybe he had to change races.
Saying that gnomes are gone is still jumping to conclusions, even it's indeed likely. And besides, if they remove gnomes, they'll have to rewrite whole settings' histories, because there are no longer gnomes there.

I agree it would make more sense to remove half-orcs. I think it would make even more sense to remove both half-orcs and half-elves and merely incorporate halfbreed rules. Unfortunately they have only explicitly stated that they are removing half-orcs or gnomes.

DrummingDM
2007-08-24, 09:41 AM
And besides, if they remove gnomes, they'll have to rewrite whole settings' histories, because there are no longer gnomes there. No, they can still be there, they're just no longer currently playable.

Morty
2007-08-24, 09:48 AM
I agree it would make more sense to remove half-orcs. I think it would make even more sense to remove both half-orcs and half-elves and merely incorporate halfbreed rules. Unfortunately they have only explicitly stated that they are removing half-orcs or gnomes.

Half-orcs have a problem of parents, aside from "spoils of war" it's hard to imagine circumstances of half-orc's birth. Half-elves don't suffer from this. But I agree that from these two, half-orcs are better for drop.


No, they can still be there, they're just no longer currently playable.

Technically, every humanoid race is playable, and I've heard something that they're going to add racial progression to orcs and goblinoids as well. So I don't think it'll look like that. Besides, gnomes usually have quite an influence on the world and are fairly common, so it'd look strange for them to be there but unplayable.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 10:10 AM
And besides, if they remove gnomes, they'll have to rewrite whole settings' histories, because there are no longer gnomes there.
Aside from Krynn, name a single setting in which Gnomes have played a significant role.

That's why they're getting bumped.

Morty
2007-08-24, 10:16 AM
Aside from Krynn, name a single setting in which Gnomes have played a significant role.

That's why they're getting bumped.

Well, I'm no expert, but it looks like both on FR and Eberron gnomes play quite a significant role. Not as big as elves, humans or orcs, but they're part of both worlds. Maybe not enough to change the setting if they gone though, I'm not sure.
I know that gnomes are superfluous race usually, and are often hardly noticed. But they are there.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 10:29 AM
Unfortunately, "they exist" isn't particularly significant. That's always been the weakness of the Gnomes - they've never really mattered. They've just "been there".

Of course, this varies by campaign. My home-brew world, for instance, has Gnomes as highly significant; they invented Sorcery, are the unparalleled arcane masters of the world, and the creators of Giants. They're also the same species as Halflings (meaning the two races can interbreed - and yes, there are, in fact, "Gnomlings".) My world would be very different without Gnomes - but it's an oddity in that fact.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-24, 10:34 AM
The author, playing a gnome in a four person party says several of us.The author actually said he was playing a Chaos Gnome, not a gnome; it's not surprising that a subrace from Races of Stone wouldn't stick around for the 4e PHB.

I'mma keep clinging to the hope that gnomes will still be around now.

Serenity
2007-08-24, 10:54 AM
I'd say being one of the Dragonmarked Houses in Eberron makes gnomes fairly important in that setting...

Aximili
2007-08-24, 02:27 PM
They didn't say exactly that, everyone is jumping to conclusions.
If you follow about on the two sources - there will be a phb race removed. We don't know which. Guesses are on half-orc, half-elf, and gnome by most of the larger sources. Which isn't confirmed, and could be none of the above.

The half elf is already a certain race to show up.
In this source (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a), he names one of the abilities that half-elves will have in 4e. I know, anything can change from playtesting to publishing, but it's really safe to say the half-elf is not the race they're dropping.

Fhaolan
2007-08-24, 03:28 PM
Unfortunately, "they exist" isn't particularly significant. That's always been the weakness of the Gnomes - they've never really mattered. They've just "been there".

Of course, this varies by campaign. My home-brew world, for instance, has Gnomes as highly significant; they invented Sorcery, are the unparalleled arcane masters of the world, and the creators of Giants. They're also the same species as Halflings (meaning the two races can interbreed - and yes, there are, in fact, "Gnomlings".) My world would be very different without Gnomes - but it's an oddity in that fact.

My campaign also heavily uses Gnomes. Maybe. They're *called* Gnomes, at least....

Okay, I'll come clean. There is one race in my campaign that occupies the cultural niche of Gnomes, Halflings, and Goblins. They are called different things in different regions, but they're all the same race.

TSGames
2007-08-24, 03:49 PM
The author actually said he was playing a Chaos Gnome, not a gnome; it's not surprising that a subrace from Races of Stone wouldn't stick around for the 4e PHB.

I'mma keep clinging to the hope that gnomes will still be around now.

Then it seems to me that he would have merely switched over to a Gnome, and yet the article made no mention of this. Keep your vain hope, Gnomes aren't core!!! I like 4.0 already. Now if they can just get to work on bards, I may go back to buying their books...

horseboy
2007-08-24, 04:08 PM
I'd say being one of the Dragonmarked Houses in Eberron makes gnomes fairly important in that setting...

Well, they did say that the "missing" race would be coming out later on. So, if they're really important to Eberron, then it's feasible they will show up in the Eberron campaign book, or in a book prior to Eberron's 4ed release. They're not gone for good, they've just got a "long vacation."

Sulecrist
2007-08-24, 04:14 PM
Edit: too slow.

I hope Gnomes aren't core. They'd be an okay NPC race, like Treants or whatever.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-24, 04:17 PM
Aside from Krynn, name a single setting in which Gnomes have played a significant role.

That's why they're getting bumped.

Azeroth? They're plenty involved there.

Aximili
2007-08-24, 04:57 PM
Now if they can just get to work on bards, I may go back to buying their books...

Let's just pray the bard even exists.:smallfrown:
Does anyone know since when have the bards been around? If they first showed up in 3rd, then there's no telling what his fate will be. But if he's been here since the beginning, then at least I can rest assured.

Funkyodor
2007-08-24, 05:03 PM
Bards were in AD&D 1st Edition as an involved "prestege class" requiring you to level up as several different classes then start as a Bard. 2nd Edition AD&D had Bards as a base class, 3.X has base class Bards, so I think the future of the Bard is safe. The Monk however... In 1st, not in 2nd, added to 2nd, then in 3.X but the subject of discussions that are beaten like a dead horse (similar to THF vs. TWF discussions).

Aximili
2007-08-24, 05:20 PM
Thanks, that makes me feel safer about the bards fate.:smallbiggrin:
But indeed, I believe that the monk will be one of the (or the only) classes to fall from core. Mostly because we can cross out almost all of the other classes from this list.

Starsinger
2007-08-24, 05:29 PM
Thanks, that makes me feel safer about the bards fate.:smallbiggrin:
But indeed, I believe that the monk will be one of the (or the only) classes to fall from core. Mostly because we can cross out almost all of the other classes from this list.

I recall them saying they had about 8 classes ready for play when they began testing.. so shall we try and trim the fat?


Fighter- Dragon article
Rogue- Dragon article
Cleric- Dragon article
Wizard- Dragon article
Ranger- It was mentioned that rangers are assimilating scout abilities.
Paladin- If there are to be "hellish paladins of Asmodeus" then there are to be Paladins.

Which is 6, and 3.5 PHB only leaves: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer all vying for the coveted last two spots. Ignoring the Warlord class that's been mentioned, and with the acknowledgment that Sorcerer is probably cut, leaves Barbarian, Druid, Monk. Of the three of them, only 1 or 2 is getting in if they stay at 8 classes.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 05:37 PM
As far as 'archetypes' go, what nook did gnomes ever really fill, uniquely? We have the token "I'm really small!" race, (halflings) we have the "I'm a slightly-less-tall, builds things!" race, we have the "We're like, really magical?" race.

What is a gnome for? I'd be kind of amused if they really were being dropped from the Core Handbook, though. I'll not hold my breath, but neither shall I cry the lawn ornaments a river. ;)

I really doubt the bard is likely to go from Core, though. It's the archetypal "diplomat" / "Party Face" class. It's pretty safe, I'd wager. It's the poor, maligned Monk who should be sweating, I'd guess.

If nothing else, the 8 ready for testing might just be that; The 8 ready for testing. Doesn't automatically mean only 8 core classes in the players handbook.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 05:37 PM
As far as I understand it, it looks like this:

Controller: Wizard
Striker: Rogue, Ranger,
Defender: Fighter, Paladin,
Leader: Cleric, Warlord,

Thinker
2007-08-24, 05:43 PM
I recall them saying they had about 8 classes ready for play when they began testing.. so shall we try and trim the fat?


Fighter- Dragon article
Rogue- Dragon article
Cleric- Dragon article
Wizard- Dragon article
Ranger- It was mentioned that rangers are assimilating scout abilities.
Paladin- If there are to be "hellish paladins of Asmodeus" then there are to be Paladins.

Which is 6, and 3.5 PHB only leaves: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer all vying for the coveted last two spots. Ignoring the Warlord class that's been mentioned, and with the acknowledgment that Sorcerer is probably cut, leaves Barbarian, Druid, Monk. Of the three of them, only 1 or 2 is getting in if they stay at 8 classes.

Barbarians could probably be easily mixed into fighters, especially if they do talent trees similar to Saga Edition.

Monks could probably be easily mixed into rogue or fighter for the same reason.

Druid could be rolled into cleric.

You left out bard for potentials to stay:
Bards are too much like a rogue/caster mix and could be easily eliminated.

There is strong ground for all to be eliminated and I almost hope none of these make it in.

Funkyodor
2007-08-24, 05:44 PM
I'm thinking the Monk and Barbarian will be variant Fighters, Druid will be a variant Ranger, Sorceror will be a variant Wizard, so that leaves Bard as #7 and Warlord as #8? Unless the Warlord is also a Fighter variation, and the Druid is #8. Or both are variants of base classes and #8 is still empty?

TETanglebrooke
2007-08-24, 05:44 PM
in the playtest article on wizards they talk about a warlock.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-24, 05:48 PM
It would be ironic if they folded Barbarian into Fighter, given that it seems to be general consensus that the Barbarian at least slightly edges out over the fighter for usefulness. :)

Monk, I could almost see.

It might be an interesting way to counter the spellcaster domination, if they in some manner *combined* the three of them. That'd be novel, at the very least.

It doesn't sound very likely though, really.

Jack Mann
2007-08-24, 05:52 PM
Mind, we don't know that there will only be eight classes at opening. We only know that at that point, there were only eight ready for testing. To me, it sounded more like the others were still in the works.

Thinker
2007-08-24, 06:13 PM
Mind, we don't know that there will only be eight classes at opening. We only know that at that point, there were only eight ready for testing. To me, it sounded more like the others were still in the works.

Pfft, there you go bringing logic into a perfectly good conversation :smalltongue:

Aximili
2007-08-24, 06:51 PM
Mind, we don't know that there will only be eight classes at opening. We only know that at that point, there were only eight ready for testing. To me, it sounded more like the others were still in the works.

yes, but we do know that there won't be 11 classes. (I'll look for the source, appreciate if someone can back me up). So they're gonna drop something.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-24, 09:33 PM
About gnomes - I found this interesting quote from Mike Mearls from way back in april:



OTOH, the current gnome lacks a really cool, obvious hook. Dwarves and elves have roots in pop culture that allow people to identify with them. Halflings make good rogues and trickster type characters, plus they're fun to play against type (halfling barbarians!) Half-orcs are the big brutes. Gnomes are sort of stuck in the middle.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=12348878#post12348878


I actually feel the same about gnomes. They've reinvented themselves a lot of times, and I bet a lot of us have different mental pictures of gnomes (for instance Dragonlance inventors). Since I primarily remember them from 1st edition, I think of them as pretty flavorless (like dwarves, but they read more).

Lord Xaedien
2007-08-24, 11:53 PM
8 classes actually seems right if they are doing them like Star Wars saga edition (which is my guess).

Nota Biene
2007-08-25, 12:13 AM
I'm fairly certain that I read from a reliable source somewhere (I know, I know) that "sorcerers and wizards will be moving farther apart." That would seem to confirm the existence of sorcerers, as well as that of wizards (though we knew that already.)

Zherog
2007-08-25, 12:41 AM
Monster races will be available later, but will not necesserally (I can't spell that word >_<) have the same stats as the monster. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)
Vancian casting (memorization) will be mostly gone. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)


These two points link to the same "source" while only documenting the first fact.

Falconsflight
2007-08-25, 05:32 AM
Yeah, that's a long list of things.

Anyway, Sorcerer and Wizard has been mentioned on Enworld. Stating "We are not combining the two" So that doesn't mean they kept them both, but it just doesn't seem likely to say "we won't be combining the two" rather than, say, "The sorcerer isn't going to get on the 4th edition ride."

And, as stated above, in the latest thing from Wizards of the coast.com. Warlocks are in
Supposed new things about them:
Able to make enemies fight amongst each other.
able to fire more than one eldritch blasts? (Maybe?)

Morty
2007-08-25, 10:44 AM
Maybe Warlocks replace Sorcerers in 4ed? They have similiar flavor, so that seems likely. This way we'd have two arcane casters but unlike sorcerers and wizards in 3.x they'd be really different from each other.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-25, 01:51 PM
Man, I hope we don't have core base classes called "Warlock" and "Warlord".

Oh well. 3.5 has warlock, warblade, warrior, and warmage. Plus, as prc's, war chanter, war hulk, war weaver, warchief, warpriest, warshaper, and maybe some other ones. Never gets confusing.

Renx
2007-08-25, 05:37 PM
I'd like to know what they'll do to the Cleric. It's been mostly untouched after 3.0 (save for some downtunes along with all caster classes in 3.5)

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-08-25, 10:45 PM
many people are leaving the druid on the chopping block, but i know the druid is on there. on one of the video interviews (sorry can't remember which one) they were talking about the "roles" of the characters, and how certain classes can replace the basic class, but they aren't as good. I'm positive the cleric and the druid were compared here

Swooper
2007-08-26, 09:00 AM
Thanks for all the input, I've been kind of offline for a few days so I haven't been able to update the top post. I'll get to it now.

On the number of classes in the PHB, I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned that it would have 10 classes. The monk looks like the most likely to be cut (I always wondered why the hell it was a part of the 3rd Ed. core), and maybe reappear in some kind of oriental supplement later.

Swooper
2007-08-26, 09:05 AM
These two points link to the same "source" while only documenting the first fact.
Read the last line again.

Starsinger
2007-08-26, 09:06 AM
On the number of classes in the PHB, I'm pretty sure I've heard it mentioned that it would have 10 classes. The monk looks like the most likely to be cut (I always wondered why the hell it was a part of the 3rd Ed. core), and maybe reappear in some kind of oriental supplement later.

Ah well if it's 10, and they just cut one from the PHB, I see it being the Sorcerer, and having them introduced later in a supplement, probably eating the dragon shaman and/or dragonfire adept... Because Sorcerer = Dragon :smallyuk:

Zherog
2007-08-26, 10:47 AM
Read the last line again.

Yay! for reading comprehension skills on my part...

Starbuck_II
2007-08-26, 11:19 AM
Ah well if it's 10, and they just cut one from the PHB, I see it being the Sorcerer, and having them introduced later in a supplement, probably eating the dragon shaman and/or dragonfire adept... Because Sorcerer = Dragon :smallyuk:

So a Dragon Sorceror class?

The Sorceror killed and looted the Dragon Shaman? I guess at higher levels, but lower levels I favor the Dragon Shaman.

The Demented One
2007-08-26, 10:44 PM
Gold mine of new info here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13457928&postcount=1)

Upcoming products between now and 4e will be usable in the new edition. DND insider may factor into this.
Focus of combat will be shifted from PCs versus one big monster to PCs versus groups of monsters.
All classes will have features that work at will, per encounter, or per day.
You'll have about only one choice to make in terms of feats, class options, and the like each time you level up.
Magic items are getting deemphasized.
Classic figures like Asmodeus, Bigby, and Vecna still have a place in the game.
Vancian casting is getting axed, but elements of it will remain.
The OGL stays.
Hide and Move Silently combined into one skill.
More focus on "active" skills, less focus on "passive" skills like Profession.
Prestige classes stay. You'll be able to advance in both a prestige class and a base class at the same time.
Feat trees get the axe.
Multiclass characters, like Fighter/Wizards, won't be so gimpy.
XP calculation is easier, determined by something called Monster Level, which will replace the CR system.
Monsters will have less abilities.
There will be bigger differences between wizards and sorcerers.
The scout class will be subsumed into the ranger class. This is apparently a common trend in 4e.
Errata will be virtually downloaded into the online copies of the books.
Very few monsters will be usable as PC races. :(
Slightly fewer core classes.
Alignment will no longer be a mechanical element.
Magic item creation won't use xp.
The online Dungeon adventures will be portable to the online tabletop feature somehow.
No more ECL.


Can't say I'm terribly pleased with all of these, but some look neat.

Fhaolan
2007-08-26, 10:56 PM
Very few monsters will be usable as PC races. :(

Okay. This tops my list for stuff I will be homebrewing almost immediately. I am not abandoning centaurs, gnolls, or orcs. They are a significant presence in my campaign, and making them NPC-only would be detrimental to the campaign.

Dhavaer
2007-08-26, 10:59 PM
Okay. This tops my list for stuff I will be homebrewing almost immediately. I am not abandoning centaurs, gnolls, or orcs. They are a significant presence in my campaign, and making them NPC-only would be detrimental to the campaign.

From what they've said previously, they'll be releasing 'PC-ified' monster races in the later Player's Handbooks.

Zincorium
2007-08-26, 11:00 PM
I'm liking it, with the possible exception of 'very few monster races will be available to PCs'. If, however, the ones that are available are done well, I won't have any real complaints.

The fact that alignment will no longer be mechanical is going to hamstring most of the paladin-based conflicts, and just in general reduce confusion. You no longer kill orcs because they're evil, you kill them because they're trying to kill you.

I am really curious how they're working the prestige class and base class combination. It's just plain a good thing, since one of the major weaknesses of 3.5 is that prestige classes are so good that it's very rare to see people take all 20 levels of a class without external factors (new to the game, DM restrictions, etc).

Reel On, Love
2007-08-26, 11:14 PM
I am really curious how they're working the prestige class and base class combination.
I suspect something like HD/skill points/etc of the base class, class abilities of the prestige class. Or maybe the scaling class abilities you already got will continue to advance when you take a prestige class.


It's just plain a good thing, since one of the major weaknesses of 3.5 is that prestige classes are so good that it's very rare to see people take all 20 levels of a class without external factors (new to the game, DM restrictions, etc).
Druid!

Aximili
2007-08-26, 11:34 PM
Very few monsters will be usable as PC races. :(

This is really not something to worry. They've said that extra races will be coming around pretty soon in supplements.
So I'd rather they took their time making each basic race balanced and interesting (specially considering they're doing something new with them), instead of investing more in number than in quality (which was the problem with the PrCs of the first Completes).

Also, they've said that they'll make the monsters easy to homebrew into races.

Sulecrist
2007-08-26, 11:34 PM
I'm liking it, with the possible exception of 'very few monster races will be available to PCs'. If, however, the ones that are available are done well, I won't have any real complaints.

The fact that alignment will no longer be mechanical is going to hamstring most of the paladin-based conflicts, and just in general reduce confusion. You no longer kill orcs because they're evil, you kill them because they're trying to kill you.

I am really curious how they're working the prestige class and base class combination. It's just plain a good thing, since one of the major weaknesses of 3.5 is that prestige classes are so good that it's very rare to see people take all 20 levels of a class without external factors (new to the game, DM restrictions, etc).

At the same time, I do sort of like that they're dehumanizing Orcs and such a bit. When they took class levels there was a lot more ambiguity about slitting their throat. The less their set of numbers has in common with my set of numbers the more likely I'll equate them with Chimerae instead of, say, halflings.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-26, 11:37 PM
I continue to be shocked by the number of people that are annoyed by the reduction of monsters available as PCs. LA'd races are things I've often looked at and said "Hey, neat," but never something I've looked at and said "I will actually be using this material." Beyond a very specific few -- Drow, Minotaur, Orcs -- I've never even considered playing one, and even those I've never actually bothered with, even for a one-shot.

But then, I think I'm the only person I've ever heard complain about the ridiculously large number of sentient races in D&D, so I guess that makes a bit of sense.

I would like to see more templates for use, though, especially low-impact ones. UA's bloodlines are interesting, but ultimately have too high a cost for too little a payout. I'd like to see a revamp on those.

TSGames
2007-08-26, 11:52 PM
I continue to be shocked by the number of people that are annoyed by the reduction of monsters available as PCs.

I agree, people need to just accept that the Gnome is no longer core.

Thinker
2007-08-26, 11:54 PM
At the same time, I do sort of like that they're dehumanizing Orcs and such a bit. When they took class levels there was a lot more ambiguity about slitting their throat. The less their set of numbers has in common with my set of numbers the more likely I'll equate them with Chimerae instead of, say, halflings.

You don't think there should be some ambiguity associated with wholesale slaughter of a sentient race? Then again, mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, outside of soccer.

Sulecrist
2007-08-26, 11:59 PM
New information up: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a

It's about monsters.

@Merlin: I complain a lot too. If they're all sentient, they probably all have disparate cultures. And in the end, that's a lot of work.

@Thinker: I think there should be some ambiguity. I don't think I should agonize over killing every single Orc the way I would a human infant. Instead, I think I should consider it a pointless waste, in the same fashion that taking an axe into the zoo and spending an afternoon doing horrible things to the public's animals for nothing more than fur-based cash money is a waste.

To sum up: Killing Orcs isn't like murdering babies. It's like killing giraffes. Giraffes that make people happy.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-27, 12:00 AM
You don't think there should be some ambiguity associated with wholesale slaughter of a sentient race? Then again, mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, outside of soccer.

I don't know, I played a mean game of kickball today and let me say, it is FAR more exausting that mass genocide. Pushing the button only really exercises one finger. Kicking a ball and then running around in circles for the sake of arbatrary numbers however...phew!

Also, if you check out RPGA, Living FR will be the next living campaign.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-27, 12:36 AM
I agree, people need to just accept that the Gnome is no longer core.Quiet, you!:smalltongue:
New information up: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a

It's about monsters.Iiiiinteresting.

One of the things that was mentioned as a goal was making combat more mobile, more dynamic, and overall more exciting. It was noted in other threads that just dropping AoOs and reliance on the full attack wouldn't automatically induce that, though, since those are a matter of removing a restriction rather than offering an incentive.

This, on the other hand, should do quite a bit to that effect. Making more unit-intensive combat viable to run combined with additional character mobility means that terrain such as higher ground and choke points will actually come into play a bit more, as movement is now both possible and helpful.

And since the immediate question is going to be "But how much will this slow things down?"... Reading the WotC and ENWorld boards, I've seen a lot of comments to the effect of "Combat doesn't take much less or more time overall than 3.x combat, but there's a lot more going on in that time," from the developers and playtesters. Hopefully that proves to be the case. At least for the moment, I trust they can pull it off, and ergo am stoked.

It also has the side-effect of making a comment in the GenCon preview videos less ridiculous. Honestly, "In 1st edition, you fought a troll. In 2nd edition, you fought maybe one and a half trolls. But in 4th edition..." Without this to frame the idea, that just sounded idiotic.

"Hey guys, how cool is this RPG?"
"Oh, about 4 metric trolls."

Matthew
2007-08-27, 04:07 AM
Yeah, some interesting stuff there. Some of these ideas really appeal to me (because they suit my preferences), like emphasis on groups of Monsters, straight forward Experience mechanic and a grim and gritty style of play that reduces reliance on Magic Items (and the useless experience mechanic to make them). Some of them, not so much, such a reduced Character customisation, emphasis on the mechanical differences between Races, merging of Skills (which sounds an awful lot like needless simplification) and the merging of some Classes (such as Ranger and Scout).

Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-27, 08:10 AM
It would be ironic if they folded Barbarian into Fighter, given that it seems to be general consensus that the Barbarian at least slightly edges out over the fighter for usefulness. :)

Monk, I could almost see.

It might be an interesting way to counter the spellcaster domination, if they in some manner *combined* the three of them. That'd be novel, at the very least.

It doesn't sound very likely though, really.

On Enworld, their news seems to indicate Barbarian is its own class. So he might not be folded.

Sulecrist
2007-08-27, 08:39 AM
Yeah, some interesting stuff there. Some of these ideas really appeal to me (because they suit my preferences), like emphasis on groups of Monsters, straight forward Experience mechanic and a grim and gritty style of play that reduces reliance on Magic Items (and the useless experience mechanic to make them). Some of them, not so much, such a reduced Character customisation, emphasis on the mechanical differences between Races, merging of Skills (which sounds an awful lot like needless simplification) and the merging of some Classes (such as Ranger and Scout).

Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.

I've wanted a better medium-scale combat system for ages; it's one of the reasons I got heavily into WHFRP (that and my decade-long obsession with Warhammer as a whole, but never mind.) If this provides a way to have meaningfully-sized warbands going at it without too much streamlining or slowing, I'll be very happy.

Zherog
2007-08-27, 09:32 AM
There will be an OGL. There will not be an SRD. However, in every purchased book there will be a code that will unlock access to that book online. The goal is to have these e-books useable offline as well. This will also link into the character creator so that the system knows which books you own/play with. Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910164)


There will be an SRD. It's necessary for 3rd party developers to know what material from the core books is open content and what material is not. In the link you provided (which goes to the first post of the FAQ being maintained over on the WotC forums), I can find two quotes from WotC folks (Chris Sims and Scott Rouse) which mention there will in fact be an SRD.

Fhaolan
2007-08-27, 09:47 AM
I continue to be shocked by the number of people that are annoyed by the reduction of monsters available as PCs. LA'd races are things I've often looked at and said "Hey, neat," but never something I've looked at and said "I will actually be using this material." Beyond a very specific few -- Drow, Minotaur, Orcs -- I've never even considered playing one, and even those I've never actually bothered with, even for a one-shot.

In my case it's because my campaign is based on a slightly different set of PC races, as it's a cumulation of thirty years of gaming in many different gaming systems. Most true 'monsters' are one-off aberations and as such are not available as PCs. Centaurs and orcs, however, have large and detailed civilizations, and my players have come to expect that any civilization with enough population will produce 'adventurers'.

Gnolls are a weird case, which I will need to homebrew anyway as my gnolls are different enough from standard D&D they don't map very well. Same with Lizardfolk.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 10:17 AM
such a reduced Character customisation,
I assume, cuz I like to, that you're referring to the thing that said something about 1 choice-ish per level? If you have a plethora of options, but only one choice, then it's still good for customizing, yes?


emphasis on the mechanical differences between Races,
Depending on how much emphasis this is is a good or bad thing. But let's say every race gets 4 "feat chains" for now, a stealthy skill chain, a combat chain, an arcane chain, and a divine chain. For dwarves that might be stuff that increases darkvision or allows you to hide in plain sight underground in the stealth chain, dwarven stability, special earthy type spells or maybe rune magic, and a stronger connection to Muradin than your average dwarf.
But an elf would get the ability to be untracked in the woods or hide in plain sight in the forests in stealth, a focus on archery, more druidy spells in the arcane and divine trees, and a stronger focus on Correleon Larethian in the divine tree.
Admittedly it might be something else, but if it's like that, it's not so bad.


merging of Skills (which sounds an awful lot like needless simplification)
Merging hide and move silently is nice since it frees up a skill point. Eliminating profession, which is mostly a skill people use to RP, is also a good thing, why bother wasting skill points when you can RP without them?
Merging Jump and Climb and Swim into one Athletics skill would highly benefit fighters since they have so few skill points.


and the merging of some Classes (such as Ranger and Scout).
Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.
If they go a talent system with 4e like they did in SW Saga, then this wont be so bad either. Since more choices means you have more options, and options are good.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 10:31 AM
and the merging of some Classes (such as Ranger and Scout).

I like the idea of merging classes. Personally, I don't find any flavor difference between ranger and scout that really resonates with me, so the only reason to choose one over the other is to get a set of class abilities. If the same class has both sets of abilities, then I don't have to make a choice.

Similarly, I thought, at the time, that the introduction of Swashbuckler, in CW, was a sign of the failure of the D&D class system. A swashbuckler is basically a ligntly-armed fighter with some mobility, and the introduction of Swashbuckler seemed to be an admission that such a character couldn't be represented by the fighter class, with appropriate feat choice. Base classes should not be multiplied beyond necessity. (Blunder's Razor?) :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-08-27, 10:56 AM
I assume, cuz I like to, that you're referring to the thing that said something about 1 choice-ish per level? If you have a plethora of options, but only one choice, then it's still good for customizing, yes?

Sure, but it's reduced customisation. I was hoping for more than one Manoeuvre per level. I also had in mind the lack of Skill Point allocation.


Depending on how much emphasis this is is a good or bad thing. But let's say every race gets 4 "feat chains" for now, a stealthy skill chain, a combat chain, an arcane chain, and a divine chain. For dwarves that might be stuff that increases darkvision or allows you to hide in plain sight underground in the stealth chain, dwarven stability, special earthy type spells or maybe rune magic, and a stronger connection to Muradin than your average dwarf.
But an elf would get the ability to be untracked in the woods or hide in plain sight in the forests in stealth, a focus on archery, more druidy spells in the arcane and divine trees, and a stronger focus on Correleon Larethian in the divine tree.
Admittedly it might be something else, but if it's like that, it's not so bad.

It's just not my thing. I want Racial Abilities to be there from the start and of minor concern. Too much differential is too cheesy for my liking.


Merging hide and move silently is nice since it frees up a skill point. Eliminating profession, which is mostly a skill people use to RP, is also a good thing, why bother wasting skill points when you can RP without them?
Merging Jump and Climb and Swim into one Athletics skill would highly benefit fighters since they have so few skill points.

That's assuming they use Skill Points (which I doubt). There are better ways of handling this, in my opinion. I want some Characters to be good at Listening, but not so good at Observing or whatever.


If they go a talent system with 4e like they did in SW Saga, then this wont be so bad either. Since more choices means you have more options, and options are good.

Yeah, it depends. We'll see.


I like the idea of merging classes. Personally, I don't find any flavor difference between ranger and scout that really resonates with me, so the only reason to choose one over the other is to get a set of class abilities. If the same class has both sets of abilities, then I don't have to make a choice.

That is the real failure, in my opinion. Rangers have lost their way in 3e. I prefer them as Warriors with a bit of Rogue, rather than Rogues with a bit of Warrior.


Similarly, I thought, at the time, that the introduction of Swashbuckler, in CW, was a sign of the failure of the D&D class system. A swashbuckler is basically a ligntly-armed fighter with some mobility, and the introduction of Swashbuckler seemed to be an admission that such a character couldn't be represented by the fighter class, with appropriate feat choice. Base classes should not be multiplied beyond necessity. (Blunder's Razor?) :smallwink:
Heh, heh. I just thought it was a sign of 'new idea, more money'. I always expected there to be more Base Classes and I was surprised when it barely happened in 3.0. I hate Multi Class Characters, though, so colour me biased.

Draz74
2007-08-27, 10:57 AM
The scout class will be subsumed into the ranger class. This is apparently a common trend in 4e.


Right, so, combining this with the earlier topic of "10 base classes in the PHB," here's what I'd like to see:

- Fighter: killed the Warblade and took his stuff (and a little of the Swordsage's stuff).
- Paladin: killed the Crusader and took his stuff.
- Ranger: killed the Scout and took his stuff.
- Rogue: killed the Factotum and took part of his stuff.
- Wizard
- Sorcerer: killed the Warlock and the Binder and took their stuff to make him much more different from the Wizard (and not just a dragon disciple guy).
- Cleric: killed the Ardent and took his stuff (including his limitations; I hope there aren't very many spells that all Clerics, regardless of their deity, can cast anymore).
- Druid: killed the Spirit Shaman and the Dragon Shaman and took their stuff. But if you want just a straight-up nature-themed divine caster and melee combatant, with less "shaman" flavor, I hope you'll be better off playing a Cleric of Nature, rather than a Druid.
- Bard

That's only 9 classes. What else? Barbarian as a base class isn't too bad an idea, except that if the Fighter is really very flexible, he can be a decent Barbarian anyway. Could they make a Swordsage-type, a "mystical fighter," who can fulfill the Monk/Ninja/Dervish role but isn't necessarily confined to have an Asian flavor?

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 11:31 AM
I tend to agree with the idea that 3E had too many base classes (not in the PHB, that was pretty much ok, but in the added classes in other supplements). However, I do believe that several of them were "test cases" by WOTC as part of research for 4E. If everybody had hated the TOB maneuvers, they wouldn't be using that for 4E fighters. If lots of people like Warlocks, 4E sorcerer gets to kill them and take their stuff. Et cetera.

Question - I'm sure everybody could kill the Samurai, but would anyone even want their stuff? :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-08-27, 11:58 AM
Question - I'm sure everybody could kill the Samurai, but would anyone even want their stuff? :smalltongue:

What stuff? You can't rob someone who's got nothing.
As for classes, I hope they don't drop Barbarians. They can be replaced by Fighters, but they're worth their own class.

Krellen
2007-08-27, 12:49 PM
But then, I think I'm the only person I've ever heard complain about the ridiculously large number of sentient races in D&D, so I guess that makes a bit of sense.
I think there are too many sentient races in D&D. In fact, doing something about the plethora of sentience was one of the founding tenets of my homebrew world. I have four sentient species - humans, dwarves, gnomes and dragons (and only humans are native to the main material plane; dragons pre-exist creation, and gnomes and dwarves are from other material planes). This isn't to say I've done away with races - between those four species and the "goblinoid" corruption I've introduced, there are at least sixteen sentient "races", plus the various colours of dragons - but 16 is still a far cry less than D&D as a whole.

Of course, I've not included outsiders in this count, but they're outsiders, so they don't count. I for one welcome our new less-species-diverse overworld. Though I admit, the first thing I'll need to do is homebrew gnomes back in.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 12:56 PM
But then, I think I'm the only person I've ever heard complain about the ridiculously large number of sentient races in D&D, so I guess that makes a bit of sense.

Agreed. I think it was Cloakers, with their 14 int, that finally drove me over the edge. If these guys are populous enough to maintain their species, and also significantly smarter than average, there must be at least one who has opted not to go with "clinging to ceilings" as a job description and has become, say, a university professor or something.

Swooper
2007-08-27, 03:37 PM
What stuff? You can't rob someone who's got nothing.
Yeah, that would be like killing a homeless guy :smallbiggrin: Made my day.

Don't have time to update main post now, will hopefully get to it tomorrow.

skeeter_dan
2007-08-28, 08:01 PM
Agreed. I think it was Cloakers, with their 14 int, that finally drove me over the edge. If these guys are populous enough to maintain their species, and also significantly smarter than average, there must be at least one who has opted not to go with "clinging to ceilings" as a job description and has become, say, a university professor or something.

I smell a plot hook!

Starbuck_II
2007-08-28, 09:29 PM
Question - I'm sure everybody could kill the Samurai, but would anyone even want their stuff? :smalltongue:

I can see the intimidate abilities being given to Barbarians: I see Barbs use Intimidate most anyway. But not the Twfing stuff that sucks how they were limited to those particular weapons.

Arlanthe
2007-08-29, 05:36 AM
"Attorney" as a class in 4E has been confirmed.

They use a d6 for hit dice.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/9540.html

Kurald Galain
2007-08-29, 07:01 AM
(and only humans are native to the main material plane; dragons pre-exist creation, and gnomes and dwarves are from other material planes)

Out of curiosity - how can something predate Creation?

Tormsskull
2007-08-29, 07:11 AM
Out of curiosity - how can something predate Creation?

I'm guessing it means when the material plane was created. So there would have been other planes (one where dragons existed), then the material plane was created, and some/all dragons migrated there.

Falconsflight
2007-08-31, 03:24 PM
Well, some new articles appeared.
Tomb of Tor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070831a)
PC Roles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a)

Tomb of Tor
There is mention of a wizard performing a "Wizard Strike" Which appears to push opponents back, at least 5 feet. Probably a Save or be pushed back thing attached to a wizard's attacks. probably an x/encounter thing. Also mentions capturing more than one creature in the "Blast" So possibly a spell that can be used in conjunction with attack. Or the special ability affects a line/area.

There is a ton more to do in suprise rounds. From my calculations. Before actual combat started, the ranger fired 5 shots at the goblin sniper.

Warlord is like the "Marshal" class? Maybe like the Bard class? Has the ability to grant bonuses to others just by being all commanding and cool

Warforged/ Eladrin is either Core or one fo the "Monster" races that can be played.


PC Roles
4 PC roles: every class is going to fit into at least one.
Leader: Buff and heal (Definitly Cleric and Bard's are leaders.)
Defender: Errr... Probably fighter,
Controller: Controls the field: Wizard, Rogue
Striker: Can target one person and take them out. Sniper or a charging person. Barbarian, Ranger

Jack Mann
2007-08-31, 03:27 PM
The ranger fired three shots. First one as a counter attack on the goblin (immediate action), and then two on his own turn. Still impressive.

Morty
2007-08-31, 03:31 PM
Warforged/ Eladrin is either Core or one fo the "Monster" races that can be played.

Or they were simply playing in Eberron or homebrew setting with those races.


The ranger fired three shots. First one as a counter attack on the goblin (immediate action), and then two on his own turn. Still impressive.

There goes my hope for more realism and bowmen shooting one good arrow instead of multiple ones.

Falconsflight
2007-08-31, 03:46 PM
Or they were simply playing in Eberron or homebrew setting with those races.


Well, that would piss me off a little. I mean, these articles are supposed to give us insight into the 4th edition. But if they start adding homebrew and different campaign settings, how are we to know if thats what they are doing for some of the rules, or for classes and the like. It just seems like it's defeating the purpose of the articles to add in homebrew stuff.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-31, 03:47 PM
Out of curiosity - how can something predate Creation?Simple. Have multiple Creations, with Destructions in between.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-31, 04:04 PM
PC Roles
4 PC roles: every class is going to fit into at least one.
Leader: Buff and heal (Definitly Cleric and Bard's are leaders.)

Leaders: they can do stuff and also do other stuff at same time.

Leaders can multi-task: Example was Cleric that Crit vs Dragon healed someone. Bards can sing (give bonus) and do something else at same time.

So being a band-aid won't cost you to not do whatever you feel like (whether cast another spell or fight).

Here isw the text:
Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly.

I like that.

Also this is cool:
We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths. That’s the type of experiment you’ll be running in eight months. Before then, we’ll have more to say about the other roles.

So the 4 roles aren't neccesary, but are really a good idea.

Foolosophy
2007-08-31, 04:13 PM
there is also a hint at a "second wind" option for each character, maybe similar to the system used in Freedom Force or like the renewal domain with a different trigger.

Yeril
2007-08-31, 04:16 PM
Simple. Have multiple Creations, with Destructions in between.


..1,532,541 years and 2 months into the 3rd creation.

The Creator: Well... This has lost my intrest now, Time to try out some new ideas!
The Creators Roomate: What "Dwarfs" seriosly man that idea is stupider than the time you made the Vixaye.. I mean come on!
The Creator: Hey the Vixaye weren't That bad! Anyway Im getting rid of them this time...

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!!!!!

The Creator: Okay I think thats everyting... lets get to work..

*tiny spec of dust near his left elbow, a very very small rock floats past*

on rock...

White Dragon: Woah...
Blue Dragon: Well aren't you glad we went to the outer planes after all.
Red Dragon: The whole universe is gone! This Isn't a time to gloat!
Green Dragon: Oh shut up Ted.
Blue Dragon: Yeah Shut up Ted!
Red Dragon: I hate you guys...
Black dragon: Fo'shizzle Homies!

Zherog
2007-08-31, 08:09 PM
Here isw the text:
Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly.

I like that.

Also this is cool:
We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths. That’s the type of experiment you’ll be running in eight months. Before then, we’ll have more to say about the other roles.

Source for those quotes, please?

Matthew
2007-08-31, 09:24 PM
Source for those quotes, please?

They are from the Wizards Website Party Role Article.

These are the roles, as James Wyatt presented them:

Leader: Cleric, Warlord,
Defender: Fighter, Paladin,
Controller: Wizard, Unnamed Class,
Striker: Ranger, Rogue,

Gralamin
2007-08-31, 09:28 PM
They are from the Wizards Website Party Role Article.

These are the roles, as James Wyatt presented them:

Leader: Cleric, Warlord,
Defender: Fighter, Paladin,
Controller: Wizard, Unnamed Class,
Striker: Ranger, Rogue,

Bard is also a leader.

Matthew
2007-08-31, 09:51 PM
I haven't really heard anything official about Bard, Barbarian or Druid. Is there a source for any of these three? Also, has the Monk been confirmed as 'out' of the Core Books?

DSCrankshaw
2007-08-31, 10:26 PM
Well, the article on PC Roles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a) suggests the bard will be appearing:

When the bard enters the 4th Edition stage, she’ll have class features and powers that help her fill what we call the Leader role. As a character whose songs help allies fight better and recover hit points, the bard is most likely to fit into a player character group that doesn’t have a cleric, the quintessential divine leader.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be appearing in the core books. In fact, you could read that as saying that they won't be appearing until later PHB editions.

It's possible that the warlord left the bard for dead and took his stuff. He may have done in the knight and/or the marshal too.

illathid
2007-09-01, 12:00 AM
Rich Baker on Devils:

- Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
- The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.
- We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
- Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.

Source (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13619017#post13619017)

Kurald Galain
2007-09-01, 03:28 AM
I find it funny that the "Points of Light" concept is going to be the D&D primary campaign world, because that's precisely the kind of setting I've been using for years.

Maybe I should sue WOTC :smalltongue:

Zincorium
2007-09-01, 03:59 AM
I find it funny that the "Points of Light" concept is going to be the D&D primary campaign world, because that's precisely the kind of setting I've been using for years.

Maybe I should sue WOTC :smalltongue:

I'm finding that the majority of changes I've made for my main homebrew setting are becoming standard for 4th edition, so much so that I've decided to stop worrying about the mechanical aspects for now.

Really, I think it's just a matter of good ideas occurring to a lot of people when they look at 3.x and how it could be improved.

Serenity
2007-09-01, 07:13 AM
Succubi and erinyes were only similar in the superficial manner of being beautiful female evil outsiders. Succubi are temptresses, demonic embodiments of lust and illicit sex. Erinyes are fallen angels/avenging furies who drag the souls of the wicked to Hell.

illathid
2007-09-01, 08:43 AM
Succubi and erinyes were only similar in the superficial manner of being beautiful female evil outsiders. Succubi are temptresses, demonic embodiments of lust and illicit sex. Erinyes are fallen angels/avenging furies who drag the souls of the wicked to Hell.

I'm not too happy about that decision myself, but I'm wiling to see what they do with it. With the only info being a tiny blurb in a blog, I'm going to wait and see how they spin this whole thing.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-01, 09:11 AM
I too think the Points of Light idea is a good one. The "budding nationstates" idea implied by official campaign settings and the general 14th century level of technology is great for political campaigns, but it really makes it hard to justify lots of dungeons and monsters living in the hills. Once you've drawn the borders of all your countries, where do the monsters live? and why don't the countries' armies do something about it?

The Points of Light idea seems to better represent tenth century Europe:

...medieval settlements were thickly populated, with large zones of unpopulated wilderness in between. To be alone in the Middle Ages, and not part of a community, carried great risks. Crowded communities existed as islands in a sea of uncultivated wilderness. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography))

It also seems more old-school swords and sorcery. Increased proportions of dangerous wilderness and barbarian hordes, and if you get in trouble you can't call in the cavalry.

Matthew
2007-09-01, 09:28 AM
Well, don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, but yeah, they appear to be going for a much more Warhammer feel, which was itself simply a D&D spin off with 'grittier' intentions. I won't hold my breath as to the execution, though.

Aximili
2007-09-01, 10:36 AM
Bard is also a leader.

I believe the bard will be inside the warlord. Since their roles sound roughly the same.

illathid
2007-09-01, 06:43 PM
I believe the bard will be inside the warlord. Since their roles sound roughly the same.

Must... Resist... Sexual... Innuendo....

:smallwink:

Aximili
2007-09-02, 04:50 PM
Must... Resist... Sexual... Innuendo....

:smallwink:
:smallbiggrin: oops

Serenity
2007-09-03, 09:36 AM
Alternately, the warlord not only killed the bard and took his stuff, but feasted on the carcass as well.

Venatius
2007-09-07, 01:34 PM
Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster.
(Source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)

That is more or less exactly the declaration I was worried about. I had hoped that the removal of ECL would facilitate greater variety of player options, but instead, it sounds like we will be able to play only what WOTC descends from on high to tell us we can play (unless we labor out house rules for it, which may or may not be a torturous process).
The level adjustment system annoyed me, but it was better than what it sounds like this will be. If I found something interesting in the books and went, "This being really interests me. I'd rather make a functional character out of it than drop it in a dungeon for people to roll d20s at," then the worst I'd have to do is determine a level adjustment for it. Annoying and a bit arbitrary, but ultimately pretty short on time and labor requirements. Now if the idea of actually fleshing out some strange race as a playable creature crosses my mind, it sounds like I'll either need to completely write out a custom house ruleset for it or wait for the Powers That Be to tell me what I can and cannot do in my game. The fact that they cite the PC minotaur "draws on and evokes the feel of" the minotaur monster seems to imply that PCs will indeed have a completely seperate rule set from "monsters", which really doesn't lay to rest my concerns about having to totally rewrite a "monster" to make it playable.

And what IS the magical difference between a PC and a "monster" anyway? Why govern a player controlled minotaur differently than the entire rest of their species?

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 02:09 PM
And what IS the magical difference between a PC and a "monster" anyway? Why govern a player controlled minotaur differently than the entire rest of their species?

Probably, to make it more balanced roughly with party.
Currently, DMs forget use ECL not Level is for joining party and let in Minotuars in 4th level adventures or worse.
So PC versions, mean versions more in line with PC power (not as powerful), but makes you think Minotaur while playing.

Indon
2007-09-07, 02:12 PM
(Source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)

That is more or less exactly the declaration I was worried about. I had hoped that the removal of ECL would facilitate greater variety of player options, but instead, it sounds like we will be able to play only what WOTC descends from on high to tell us we can play (unless we labor out house rules for it, which may or may not be a torturous process).

Well, hopefully, instead of just tossing a monster an LA and being done with it, playable monsters will be given racial progressions, which the players would use, in the same place the monster was published.

If they do that, they can maintain a lot of the potency of getting rid of ECL's for racial progressions.

Serenity
2007-09-07, 02:15 PM
What I don't understand is why LA and ECL were ever seperate concepts. If they tell you that a monster has a level adjustment of +3, then that should mean that it is functionally as powerful of a non-level adjusted 3rd level character.

Nota Biene
2007-09-07, 08:24 PM
New fact, from the September podcast: action points will be core, but will be substantially different then Eberron action points or Saga Edition force points.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-07, 11:12 PM
Also, an interesting implication from the podcast:


In 3rd edition, a lot of the starting numbers are arbitrary: characters get one hit die per level. Fighter's base attack bonus goes up by one per level...

My guess: 1st level characters will start with 3 hit dice.

TheOOB
2007-09-07, 11:17 PM
Also, an interesting implication from the podcast:



My guess: 1st level characters will start with 3 hit dice.

That sounds about right. In Star Wars SAGA edition characters start with three hit dice worth of hp plus their con mod (thus a soldier starts with 30 + con mod hp), this increases their survivability at level one, and makes it so level 2 isn't literally doubling their hp.

Jothki
2007-09-08, 12:04 AM
What I don't understand is why LA and ECL were ever seperate concepts. If they tell you that a monster has a level adjustment of +3, then that should mean that it is functionally as powerful of a non-level adjusted 3rd level character.

That's already (ideally) the case, though as far as I'm aware you can't have a level 0 character, which is what a character with a LA of 3 and an ECL of 3 would be. ECL is equal to the normal level plus any level adjustments.

Were you thinking of CR?

TSGames
2007-09-08, 12:25 AM
New fact, from the September podcast: action points will be core, but will be substantially different then Eberron action points or Saga Edition force points.

I was just going to have a few qualms about switching over, but now...now I may jump in with people sticking to 3.x.

knightsaline
2007-09-08, 02:26 AM
Not to insult those who like gnomes, but so what? In my homebrew, the gnomes are too busy trying to invent something to go adventuring and the halflings are either too lazy, too scared or sailing across the seas, looking for new countries to do "land based" adventures. Just because you can't play as gnomes does not mean that they don't exist in the new edition.

Hopefully, the warlock survives and gets more love than he did in 3.5 . If they are getting rid of prepared magic, I hope they put in a spell points system. The quote that says "Wizards won't run out of spells, but they can run out of mordenkainens sword" means that a wizard has a limit on how many times they can spam a single spell a day. lower level spells would have a higher limit, while higher level spells have a lower limit.

Matthew
2007-09-08, 06:24 AM
That sounds about right. In Star Wars SAGA edition characters start with three hit dice worth of hp plus their con mod (thus a soldier starts with 30 + con mod hp), this increases their survivability at level one, and makes it so level 2 isn't literally doubling their hp.

Heh, only if you roll maximum Hit Points. Oh well, this sounds convention busting.

Mike_G
2007-09-08, 09:18 AM
(Source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)

That is more or less exactly the declaration I was worried about. I had hoped that the removal of ECL would facilitate greater variety of player options, but instead, it sounds like we will be able to play only what WOTC descends from on high to tell us we can play (unless we labor out house rules for it, which may or may not be a torturous process).
The level adjustment system annoyed me, but it was better than what it sounds like this will be. If I found something interesting in the books and went, "This being really interests me. I'd rather make a functional character out of it than drop it in a dungeon for people to roll d20s at," then the worst I'd have to do is determine a level adjustment for it. Annoying and a bit arbitrary, but ultimately pretty short on time and labor requirements. Now if the idea of actually fleshing out some strange race as a playable creature crosses my mind, it sounds like I'll either need to completely write out a custom house ruleset for it or wait for the Powers That Be to tell me what I can and cannot do in my game. The fact that they cite the PC minotaur "draws on and evokes the feel of" the minotaur monster seems to imply that PCs will indeed have a completely seperate rule set from "monsters", which really doesn't lay to rest my concerns about having to totally rewrite a "monster" to make it playable.

And what IS the magical difference between a PC and a "monster" anyway? Why govern a player controlled minotaur differently than the entire rest of their species?

As a DM I've always hated players who want to play a Troll or whatever.

The problem is that a lot of monster abilities are fine when you face them in one encounter that lasts maybe five rounds, but disastrous when in the hands of a PC who uses them every single round for an entire campaign. I think that's what they mean when they say monsters were designed to function as monsters.

As far as trying to balance monsters as PCs, LA is a trap. If you give the monster PC all the monster abilities out of the gate, then the LA is necessary, and the PC can be comparible to a character of slightly higher level, but soon the lack of those class levels will start to hurt, and that Darkvision and Sleep immunity won't make up for those missing caster levels. In the case of the Troll PC, how many levels are Regeneration and Rend worth? They're overpowered as hell in a low level game, but just plain useless at high level.

I like the concept of racial progression, if you want to do monsters right, so their special abilities will trickle in as they advance in class levels, rather that having bunch of overpowerd stuff early that never gets any better.

Golthur
2007-09-10, 09:27 PM
Another snippet of new info:

Character advancement rate will be increased, so that 1-30 takes the same speed as 1-20 does now, averaging a level every 2 or 3 sessions.

Source: Christopher Perkins, Story Manager for RPGs and Minis (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html)

Dausuul
2007-09-11, 12:38 AM
Another snippet of new info:

Character advancement rate will be increased, so that 1-30 takes the same speed as 1-20 does now, averaging a level every 2 or 3 sessions.

Source: Christopher Perkins, Story Manager for RPGs and Minis (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html)

Note, however, that "the jury's still out" on the XP system/advancement rate. This is specifically pegged as something that's apt to be tweaked before release.

Arlanthe
2007-09-11, 05:39 AM
Another snippet of new info:

Character advancement rate will be increased, so that 1-30 takes the same speed as 1-20 does now, averaging a level every 2 or 3 sessions.

Source: Christopher Perkins, Story Manager for RPGs and Minis (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html)

Ding 26! I am almost at leval cap!!! They bettar raise level cap to 40 next Xpac. I mean edition.

/sarcasm

Zherog
2007-09-11, 09:06 AM
Another snippet of new info:

Character advancement rate will be increased, so that 1-30 takes the same speed as 1-20 does now, averaging a level every 2 or 3 sessions.

Source: Christopher Perkins, Story Manager for RPGs and Minis (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html)

Gamespy.com is blocked by my employer. Could somebody quote the relevant text, please?

Golthur
2007-09-11, 09:10 AM
GameSpy: Do you feel that players who enjoy the current generation of MMOs and computer RPGs have gotten used to their large level caps with more frequent reward plateaus? How has this impacted the way you're now breaking up character progression? If the intent is to reward players more frequently, like in an MMO, why not go with fifty levels or more?

Christopher Perkins: We know that players enjoy the experience of "leveling up," provided it's not onerous, and so we've built a system that allows them to level up more often. We didn't want players to have to "level up" their characters every session because that would get onerous; doing so every two or three sessions seemed more appropriate and palatable, and that's how the new system is currently built.

GameSpy: Has the road to the endgame been lengthened, level-wise, or is there a new upper limit to how powerful D&D characters will get? For example, will a level 30 character in 4th Edition be as strong as a level 20 in 3.5, or is a level 20 character in 4th Edition about as strong as an epic-level character in previous editions?

Christopher Perkins: The way character advancement works now, it takes fewer encounters to gain a level, but it takes roughly the same length of time to reach 30 levels in 4th Edition as it takes to reach 20 levels in 3rd Edition. The rate of level advancement is still being playtested, however, so the jury's still out on whether the final game will work this way.

Yes, the "jury's still out", but it's pretty clear that this is their intent because "players enjoy the experience of 'levelling up'". :sigh:

While true, I already find the lower levels in 3E go by much, much, too quickly. Also, from the same article, 4E 20th is approximately the same power as 3E 20th, so this basically means you'll go from 1-20 in 2/3 the time you currently do.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-11, 09:20 AM
I found that interview annoying, because Mr. Perkins is dodging a lot of the questions. Of course he can't reveal everything yet, but still.

I notice that they said that leveling to 30 in 4E takes about as much time as leveling to 20 in 3E, and that a level 20 in 4E character is about a strong as a level 20 in 4E. In other words, characters will grow in power faster than previously. Not a bad thing per se, but worth noting.

Zherog
2007-09-11, 09:41 AM
Thanks for the quote, Golthur. http://forums.gleemax.com/images/smilies/Tiphat.gif

Pokemaster
2007-09-11, 10:00 AM
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that the Gamespy interviewer never actually played D&D?

Anyway, whether or not the new level cap and advancement system work will probably depend on how classes and monsters scale. If encounters maintain the same level of difficulty throughout the tiers, it'll probably work out fine. If not, nothing stops the DM from handing out less experience to stretch out the sweet spots.

Person_Man
2007-09-11, 10:34 AM
New fact, from the September podcast: action points will be core, but will be substantially different then Eberron action points or Saga Edition force points.

I hate action points. Just more annoying bookkeeping. But perhaps they'll make your action points = your level + your Cha mod, which would make Cha a useful stat for the first time in D&D.

Matthew
2007-09-11, 11:48 AM
The more I read about 4e, the more grateful I am for the SRD and the people who used it to create OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) and Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm) as allternative outlets. Whilst, I will reserve final judgement until May 2008, I suspect I will be playing 4e even less than I do 3e. That is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with them, just that it is increasingly looking as though 4e is not going to be for me (I am fairly sure it is not even aimed at me).

Person_Man
2007-09-11, 12:50 PM
The more I read about 4e, the more grateful I am for the SRD and the people who used it to create OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) and Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm) as allternative outlets. Whilst, I will reserve final judgement until May 2008, I suspect I will be playing 4e even less than I do 3e. That is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with them, just that it is increasingly looking as though 4e is not going to be for me (I am fairly sure it is not even aimed at me).

I'm starting to share your sentiment.

When 4th ed comes out, it seems as if they have to compete with:

1) 3.5 - tons of gamers might stick with it just because they've invested so much time, effort, and money learning the rules. Plus, its a good game. I enjoy playing 3.5 D&D. With the right group, it's a great balance between roleplaying and combat. If 4th ed is fundamentally a different game, then I'll stick with 3.5.

2) MMORPGs - which has the benefit of being constantly and easily available to play, superior graphics, gameplay that works well with the interface, etc.

3) Wizkids and Games Workshop: Superior miniature combat games.

4) White Wolf and a million basement publishers: Games with a much clearer focus on roleplaying.

Knowing this, I'm not sure how they are going to design 4th ed to keep the same balance between roleplaying and combat, while expanding into the online world, but without losing any of the tabletop character that has defined the genre.

My guess is that the online support will suck (as witnessed by their server crashing on the day of their announcement, and by the cruddy graphics in their demonstration). Because their online support will suck, any aspect of the tabletop game which relies on the online support will suck. They've said that the online support will be fully optional - but will it truly be so? Will they modify combat so that it makes more sense online but less sense at the table? Will they modify Skills so that everything is directly relevant to combat, with no support for interesting roleplaying, scouting, diplomacy, etc?

We'll just have to wait and see.

nagora
2007-09-11, 12:57 PM
Christopher Perkins: We know that players enjoy the experience of "leveling up," provided it's not onerous, and so we've built a system that allows them to level up more often. We didn't want players to have to "level up" their characters every session because that would get onerous; doing so every two or three sessions seemed more appropriate and palatable, and that's how the new system is currently built.

In other words: it's a kiddie's game.

I'd give it another 5 years tops before Hasbro flogs the name off to anyone that wants it. Any RPG which is designed around reducing the challenge for the players is in a death-spiral.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 01:16 PM
In other words: it's a kiddie's game.

I'd give it another 5 years tops before Hasbro flogs the name off to anyone that wants it. Any RPG which is designed around reducing the challenge for the players is in a death-spiral.

Leveling up does not inherently reduce challenge, it changes it. As long as players are still being challenged at higher levels, the level increase doesn't matter. All it means is that the swarm of goblins becomes a swarm of orcs which becomes a swarm of demons which becomes a swarm of tarrasques. It's only if WotC fails to keep higher levels a challenge that leveling up faster become a problem.

Zherog
2007-09-11, 01:17 PM
Will they modify Skills so that everything is directly relevant to combat, with no support for interesting roleplaying, scouting, diplomacy, etc?

I can't provide a quote, because it was something said at GenCon. But this might be close to the truth, at least in part. One thing they said, and I'll paraphrase:


You want to be a cook? Then write it down on your character sheet. You shouldn't have to burn skill points on the Profession skill just to support something that should, really, be part of your character's background.

Oeryn
2007-09-11, 01:18 PM
Whilst, I will reserve final judgement until May 2008, I suspect I will be playing 4e even less than I do 3e. That is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with them, just that it is increasingly looking as though 4e is not going to be for me (I am fairly sure it is not even aimed at me).

I know exactly what you mean, Matthew. As a guy who grew up playin' 1st Edition, I feel like the game's kinda leavin' me behind. Not that I'm not good enough, or smart enough to embrace the new rules. I actually like some of the mechanics they've come up with for 3rd Edition, and I imagine I'll like some of the mechanics for 4th as well. But I just don't feel like the direction of the overall game is going in the right direction. I feel like it's being influenced more and more by videogames and anime. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a lot of people, but it just doesn't feel like D&D to me, anymore.

It blows my mind to join a game, and get berated for not maximizing my "build" to within an inch of its life. There just don't seem to be many players these days who understand that I have a vision in my head of a character who wields two daggers, even though he'll do a statistically significant lesser amount of damage, amortized over 20 levels, than if he had a oversized two-handed sword with Monkey Grip, Power Attack and Shock Trooper.

I know that was a bit of a digression, but my point is this: I'm much more concerned about the direction they take the game, than I am with any additions or subtractions they could possibly make to the rules.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 01:19 PM
I can't provide a quote, because it was something said at GenCon. But this might be close to the truth, at least in part. One thing they said, and I'll paraphrase:

But that's just profession, what about Appraise and other non-combat skills?

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 01:20 PM
In other words: it's a kiddie's game.

I'd give it another 5 years tops before Hasbro flogs the name off to anyone that wants it. Any RPG which is designed around reducing the challenge for the players is in a death-spiral.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the link between leveling up faster and being a 'kiddie' game, nor how it would reduce the challenge.

Kyle
2007-09-11, 01:24 PM
Leveling up does not inherently reduce challenge, it changes it. As long as players are still being challenged at higher levels, the level increase doesn't matter. All it means is that the swarm of goblins becomes a swarm of orcs which becomes a swarm of demons which becomes a swarm of tarrasques. It's only if WotC fails to keep higher levels a challenge that leveling up faster become a problem.
Swarm of tarrasques you say? Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

nagora
2007-09-11, 01:28 PM
Leveling up does not inherently reduce challenge, it changes it. As long as players are still being challenged at higher levels, the level increase doesn't matter. All it means is that the swarm of goblins becomes a swarm of orcs which becomes a swarm of demons which becomes a swarm of tarrasques. It's only if WotC fails to keep higher levels a challenge that leveling up faster become a problem.

Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.

internerdj
2007-09-11, 01:35 PM
Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.

However if at 60 sessions in game 2 they reach level 15 and the cap is 30, but in game 1 the cap is 20. There is really no difference in the challenge of the game, only a difference in the amount of bookkeeping/frequency of rewards. The only problem is if Wizards looses sight of the people who aren't in it for instant gratification and just make it easier to survive 60 encounters between game 1 and game 2.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 01:36 PM
Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.

I don't understand your logic there in bold... let's say I play two games of monopoly in the same night. If I win the first game (Which we'll say is Millenium Edition) in an hour, but it takes me 3 hours the second time (Which we'll say is X-men Monopoly), does that mean that the first monopoly game was played with children?

Besides, Children have more free time than adults to spend 60 sessions getting to level 10. But if Bob has to work 60 hours a week, and plays D&D to unwind, what's wrong with him wanting to level up more often since he enjoys leveling?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 01:39 PM
GameSpy: Has the road to the endgame been lengthened, level-wise, or is there a new upper limit to how powerful D&D characters will get? For example, will a level 30 character in 4th Edition be as strong as a level 20 in 3.5, or is a level 20 character in 4th Edition about as strong as an epic-level character in previous editions?

Christopher Perkins: The way character advancement works now, it takes fewer encounters to gain a level, but it takes roughly the same length of time to reach 30 levels in 4th Edition as it takes to reach 20 levels in 3rd Edition. The rate of level advancement is still being playtested, however, so the jury's still out on whether the final game will work this way.

This annoys me cuz Mr. Perkins doesn't actually even answer the power question, he just talks about time, which is irrelevant to the question given.

Zherog
2007-09-11, 01:40 PM
But that's just profession, what about Appraise and other non-combat skills?

Dunno. I could speculate, but that isn't really what this thread is for.

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 01:42 PM
This annoys me cuz Mr. Perkins doesn't actually even answer the power question, he just talks about time, which is irrelevant to the question given.

That's because he didn't quote the entire thing.


GameSpy: Has the road to the endgame been lengthened, level-wise, or is there a new upper limit to how powerful D&D characters will get? For example, will a level 30 character in 4th Edition be as strong as a level 20 in 3.5, or is a level 20 character in 4th Edition about as strong as an epic-level character in previous editions?

Christopher Perkins: The way character advancement works now, it takes fewer encounters to gain a level, but it takes roughly the same length of time to reach 30 levels in 4th Edition as it takes to reach 20 levels in 3rd Edition. The rate of level advancement is still being playtested, however, so the jury's still out on whether the final game will work this way.

One of the goals of 4th Edition is to make high-level play as fun, balanced, and manageable as low-level play, and to make high-level characters as easy to create and run as low-level ones. Comparing high-level 4th Edition characters to high-level 3rd Edition characters is not an apples-to-apples comparison because they're built very differently. However, there isn't a startling increase in overall power level from a 20th-level 3rd Edition character to a 20th-level 4th Edition character.

Kyle
2007-09-11, 01:44 PM
Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.
I don't think that logic necessarily follows.

Leveling up is only a mechanisim by which the game is played. Even when running pre-fab games, the challange is determined by the GM. I know that if I was GMing and in a surely mood, I could get a TPK using nothing but a group of stock MM kobolds equal in number to the party.

I could enable a group of first level characters to slay a dragon, and then throw magic items at them in reward as though it if they were candy.

Further leveling isn't the only reward in the game. Let's not forget the allure of treasure--which most campaigns dole out on a fairly regular basis--to say nothing of the enjoyment derived from role-playing and hanging out with friends.

Person_Man
2007-09-11, 02:02 PM
I can't provide a quote, because it was something said at GenCon. But this might be close to the truth, at least in part. One thing they said, and I'll paraphrase:

Your quote from Andy is accurate, as far as I know. Everything I've heard has said implies or flat out says that they're going to eliminate Profession and drastically consolidate the other Skills.

This is a mistake, I think. Crunch should support roleplaying, not just resolve combat and a few common out of combat situations (Diplomacy, Spot, etc).

Perhaps they should simplify Skills, but also make a Talent section. Every single class would get a number of Talent points or feats or whatnot to varying degrees. These could be used to support a profession (like cook), add occasionally useful abilities (like languages), or just add depth to the PC.

I think its important for PCs to think through this sort of thing in order for the roleplaying experience to be more then just a plot hook to get you to the next dungeon. And while we're all fully capable of doing this on our own, it'd be helpful (especially to new players) if there was a process to help facilitate it.

DrummingDM
2007-09-11, 02:03 PM
Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.
I take severe umbrage with this mentality. I DM a thoroughly mature game, but us being adults, we only have 1 session a month to play, for 4-6 hours.

That's 1 adventure per month. That means over the course of 60 sessions, we'd have spanned 5 years in real time. Methinks my players would be a little bit pissed off if they only reached level 10 after 5 years of gameplay.

As it stands now...it's been about 1.5 years, and they're all level 9 or 10. They're averaging a level roughly every 1.8 sessions. I know that's fast. But I want to advance my storyline, and I don't think my players would appreciate being level 5 and being called upon to perform heroic deeds beyond their abilities.

Level-up rate has no correlation to game "difficulty" or whether a game is for "kiddies" or not. If you sincerely believe otherwise, I challenge you to sit at my table and say that out loud when 2 PCs die in one session, as happened a few months back.

Mike_G
2007-09-11, 02:06 PM
It blows my mind to join a game, and get berated for not maximizing my "build" to within an inch of its life. There just don't seem to be many players these days who understand that I have a vision in my head of a character who wields two daggers, even though he'll do a statistically significant lesser amount of damage, amortized over 20 levels, than if he had a oversized two-handed sword with Monkey Grip, Power Attack and Shock Trooper.


Preach it, brother!!

I build the character I want to play. If that's a Rapier and Dagger fighter, that's what I'm making up, and screw anybody who doesn't like it.

Of course, my group is a bunch of veterans of 1st ed, so we just like the nice clean mechanics of 3e, but play like it was an old game, not InuYasha.

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 02:13 PM
Your quote from Andy is accurate, as far as I know. Everything I've heard has said implies or flat out says that they're going to eliminate Profession and drastically consolidate the other Skills.

This is a mistake, I think. Crunch should support roleplaying, not just resolve combat and a few common out of combat situations (Diplomacy, Spot, etc).

Perhaps they should simplify Skills, but also make a Talent section. Every single class would get a number of Talent points or feats or whatnot to varying degrees. These could be used to support a profession (like cook), add occasionally useful abilities (like languages), or just add depth to the PC.

I think its important for PCs to think through this sort of thing in order for the roleplaying experience to be more then just a plot hook to get you to the next dungeon. And while we're all fully capable of doing this on our own, it'd be helpful (especially to new players) if there was a process to help facilitate it.

I can understand the reasoning behind it, though. Not everything a player can do should be subject to rolling. For instance, if I say my ugly barbarian has a good singing voice because he was the son of a storyteller of a tribe that recorded their history in song, I shouldn't have to dump half my skill points into Perform: Song for what was supposed to be a minor point in my backstory.

I agree that a separate 'talent' system sounds like it would be the best solution. I guess the tricky part comes down to putting down clear guidelines as to what you need to build into your character, and what you shouldn't have to.

Machete
2007-09-11, 02:17 PM
Big deal.

So characters level up more and too fast?

Only give players 75% of the normal XP and also give them a small Craft XP Pool each time they level up.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 02:20 PM
Swarm of tarrasques you say? Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Haha.. well of course they all have the swarm fighting feat, a hive mind.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 02:21 PM
Big deal.

So characters level up more and too fast?

Only give players 75% of the normal XP and also give them a small Craft XP Pool each time they level up.

Crafting isn't fueled by XP anymore. Wizards rightly decided that XP is not a resource that you can spend.

internerdj
2007-09-11, 02:28 PM
I agree that a separate 'talent' system sounds like it would be the best solution. I guess the tricky part comes down to putting down clear guidelines as to what you need to build into your character, and what you shouldn't have to.
That further complicates things after having already split combat skills from non-combat skills in previous editions. Will a talent have a mechanic that is useful in the game?

If your barb is a master singer couldn't he make quite a bit of money from a performance or influence a great lord with his rousing performance. Could breaking out in song throw off your opponents in the middle of battle?

What does that mean for the guy whose father was a general? Or whose mother was a single minded mage?

Matthew
2007-09-11, 02:30 PM
That's 1 adventure per month. That means over the course of 60 sessions, we'd have spanned 5 years in real time. Methinks my players would be a little bit pissed off if they only reached level 10 after 5 years of gameplay.

My players weren't. After 90+ sessions over three years they finally reached the heady heights of Level 6. One of the best AD&D campaigns I ever ran.

The 6th Side
2007-09-11, 02:39 PM
Please, go to the "4th Edition!" thread to discuss. This thread is meant only for facts.

You're fighting a loosing battle :smalltongue:

hamlet
2007-09-11, 02:40 PM
My players weren't. After 90+ sessions over three years they finally reached the heady heights of Level 6. One of the best AD&D campaigns I ever ran.

While I agree with you about 100% on the issue, you do have to realize that 3rd edition (and apparantely 4th edition as well) are designed for a different mind-set and audience.

The idea of spending years at a time developing characters and enjoying campaigns simply does not appeal to "modern" gamers. It became abundantly clear to me in a discussion on another board that many people today view an RPG as something with a beginning, middle, and end, a lot like a basic game of monopoly.

To me, and to you and your group it seems, the concept of "finishing the game" is all but abhorent.

It's the same thing that creates the mentality that leadership is a feat you take at 6th level instead of something your character does.

Indon
2007-09-11, 02:54 PM
Yes, the "jury's still out", but it's pretty clear that this is their intent because "players enjoy the experience of 'levelling up'". :sigh:


Yeah, this worries me because it seems to me that people enjoy leveling up because it's _not something they do all the time_.

bugsysservant
2007-09-11, 02:56 PM
My players weren't. After 90+ sessions over three years they finally reached the heady heights of Level 6. One of the best AD&D campaigns I ever ran.

Sir, you have my uttmost respect. The day I discovered Labyrinth Lord was the day I realized what D&D should be. While I can admire the efforts wizards have made to bring about cohesive rules and options, I think that basing every new edition on the old, instead of modifying the original with the best changes of the last has reduced to D&D to something that can no longer be called by that name.

Matthew
2007-09-11, 03:28 PM
While I agree with you about 100% on the issue, you do have to realize that 3rd edition (and apparantely 4th edition as well) are designed for a different mind-set and audience.

Sure, I recognise that. Interestingly, though, about half of my six regular players in that above mentioned campaign were completely new to D&D and all of them were in the 18-25 Age Range. I think its definitely designer mentality and not necessarily anything to do with the potential audience.


The idea of spending years at a time developing characters and enjoying campaigns simply does not appeal to "modern" gamers. It became abundantly clear to me in a discussion on another board that many people today view an RPG as something with a beginning, middle, and end, a lot like a basic game of monopoly.

I think that this is probably true, but I also think that it is not really 'modern gamers', but 'casual gamers' that this applies to [sometimes referred to as 'Part Timers' in the working world (or even in my local pub)]. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, but just literally people who are looking for a 'quick fix', rather than a long term commitment.


To me, and to you and your group it seems, the concept of "finishing the game" is all but abhorent.

In the sense of going from 1-20, I would tend to agree. I do happily finish campaigns, though. Usually somewhere between Level 7 and 9.


It's the same thing that creates the mentality that leadership is a feat you take at 6th level instead of something your character does.

Yeah, I hate that.


Sir, you have my uttmost respect. The day I discovered Labyrinth Lord was the day I realized what D&D should be. While I can admire the efforts wizards have made to bring about cohesive rules and options, I think that basing every new edition on the old, instead of modifying the original with the best changes of the last has reduced to D&D to something that can no longer be called by that name.

OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord have been great steps forward. I hear Goblinoid Games have a trademark on Advanced Labyrinth Lord as well as Labyrinth Lord, so we might see OSRIC repackaged with some nicer interior artwork in the future.
Dungeons & Dragons is just a trademark (which is very important to companies), but the content is ultimately what matters for gamers, which is why I don't mind what Wizards do with it. They have released almost all the old stuff as PDFs at very reasonable prices and the SRD has made it possible for others to legally recreate the old rules to support previous editions with new product. On the other hand, I can understand the anger expressed by The Great Fane (http://greatfane.blogspot.com/).

nagora
2007-09-11, 03:55 PM
That's 1 adventure per month. That means over the course of 60 sessions, we'd have spanned 5 years in real time. Methinks my players would be a little bit pissed off if they only reached level 10 after 5 years of gameplay.


As a player, I would be pissed off at a DM or a game company that thought the only way to keep me interested is to throw more and more levels at me as if I were suffering from ADD (pun intended).

Certainly, it has always been easier to balance scenarios above 2nd or 3rd level when there's a bit of spare HP knocking about to absorb the odd unlucky roll, but after that the game should move into a character-driven mode where gaining a new level is a bonus. If the only thing that marks the player characters' progress is the number in the top corner of their character sheet then you're writing very dull adventures indeed.

As a point of fact, I took about 10 years of real-time to reach 13th level (my highest level in D&D so far and not a record I expect to beat). Along the way many many things happened to my character that had nothing whatsoever to do with his level - magic items, treasure, children, wars, castle building, travel to alternate realities (specifically, Denver), assassination attempts, two sex changes, a vendetta, an ill-adviced genocide attempt, a magic zeppelin, and many affairs with the members of the opposite sex, to name a few.

At no point did I ever think "This would be much more fun if I was 20th level".

Progression of levels is part of the fun, sure, just as sugar is a nice thing to add to your diet. But once you're eating candyfloss for every meal, it's time to ask where it all went wrong.

3rd edition was already well on its way to that point, and if 4th continues the trend then very soon it will be "game over" as DMs discover that after throwing "swarms of tarrasques" at them, the players are so jaded that nothing will keep their attention and they will move on to something that actually challenges them.

This is not entirely a theory. Back in the days of 1st edition there was a phenomenon which we called "first time gods".

New DMs very, very often gave away XP and levels at the sort of speed WotC are talking about for 4th - usually in response to discovering that players "like to level up". Give them more levels, and your campaign becomes more popular - what could possibly go wrong?

About level 30 (in 1st edition), the system runs out of absolutely anything to challenge the characters, including the gods. At that point the game ends. If the DM was lucky, the players would all file away their character sheets under "wastepaper" and roll up 1st level PCs and start again properly.

But, in reality, the vast majority of such players simply walked away. They felt that they had "finished D&D" - they'd played it to the end. They had of course only played a kiddie's version (most of them were kids, so that's perhaps to be expected) and had absolutely no notion of how rich and fun a game they had bulldozed.

As far as they were concerned there was nothing more to the game than gaining experience, increasing levels and casting higher level spells or wielding bigger and bigger weapons. Why would anyone play that game twice, really? Once you've seen all the magic items and killed all the monsters twice (I remember an XP sheet in my group's First-Time Gods phase which read "2xOrcus"), what is there to entice you back?

If WotC make levelling up such a primary method of rewarding players - for exactly the same reasons, I notice, as those newbie DMs did when we were starting with 1ed - then they are setting up a time bomb which will destroy their company and, more importantly, the game. I've been there, I've seen it.

This is not purely an issue of playing style, it is human nature. Players WILL get bored with this because it is shallow and the rewards are too uncomplicated and linear to make anyone come back for more after playing through it once or maybe twice. If they didn't come back in 1980, why will they in 2008?

Once that happens, sales are dead. Stone dead. If I've won the lottery by then, I'll be bidding for the rights to D&D, and I'd expect to get them pretty cheap.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-11, 05:43 PM
As a player, I would be pissed off at a DM or a game company that thought the only way to keep me interested is to throw more and more levels at me as if I were suffering from ADD (pun intended).

Certainly, it has always been easier to balance scenarios above 2nd or 3rd level when there's a bit of spare HP knocking about to absorb the odd unlucky roll, but after that the game should move into a character-driven mode where gaining a new level is a bonus. If the only thing that marks the player characters' progress is the number in the top corner of their character sheet then you're writing very dull adventures indeed.

As a point of fact, I took about 10 years of real-time to reach 13th level (my highest level in D&D so far and not a record I expect to beat). Along the way many many things happened to my character that had nothing whatsoever to do with his level - magic items, treasure, children, wars, castle building, travel to alternate realities (specifically, Denver), assassination attempts, two sex changes, a vendetta, an ill-adviced genocide attempt, a magic zeppelin, and many affairs with the members of the opposite sex, to name a few.

At no point did I ever think "This would be much more fun if I was 20th level".
That's great, and I'm glad you had fun.
But, y'know, if I want to have that particular kind of fun? I am sure as hell not going to pick D&D, much less 1E D&D, to do it in. By now, there are probably at least dozens of better game systems for it. I don't want a D&D game lasting 10 years--I don't want ANY game lasting 10 years. My tastes change, new games come out, new character ideas come up, and plots roll up.
I can see spending ten years on an Amber DRPG game, if you're a crazy-intense roleplayer. D&D? No.

Here's the thing: some games have static characters. Spirit of the Century, for example, which is an absolutely brilliant pulp adventure game that's more fun than the best game of D&D I've ever been in (and I've had some good ones); Here's the SRD (http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html). SotC characters don't level up. At all. Ever. There's a minor option for advancement, but generally, characters stay like they were--much like pulp heroes don't really grow in power; they start out as pulp heroes and stay at the top of their game. This doesn't make the game any less fun. Why? Because the game isn't based on levelling up, nor is it mechanics-heavy. You have fun because you're playing (a real character, if not mine) FATHER STEEL: TWO-FISTED IRON MAN OF THE CLOTH, a robot priest who carries a little laminated card with an ex cathedra pronouncement from the Pope that yes, he has a soul. Like pulp itself, games are episodic. SotC has characters and a feel you could never replicate with D&D at any level: it's a different game, built to do different things. That's why I couldn't care less about lack of advancement--acquiring new Aspects might be a good idea, but that's just to help define your character further.
I said SotC is episodic: well, it is. Each session can be a little pulp adventure in and of itsel, The PC Group and/vs/in/against the noun of adjective noun. If someone isn't there, that's fine. If you want to run one group of characters one week and a different SotC game the other, that works fine. You can have long-term campaigns, but you can pick up the game, play it, and put it down. And, oh, yeah, the characters are pulp heroes--so they're supposed to win.
Either SotC is the ultimate adult game (advancement is *infinitely* slow, and slower advancement seems to make a game more adult in your mind) or it's the ultimate kiddy game (quick, exciting, sneak into the secret moon base, blow up the secret moon base, confront the foul Doctor Disaster and his Dastardly Death Ray, end session and potentially make entirely new characters the next one--definitely not something you do for ten years). Or the criteria you're applying just don't really work.

D&D is hack-and-slashy. Look at the actual system, not at your games; one can roleplay with, around, or in spite of any rules. The game is about Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. That's the kind of game it evolved from, and the rules support it. 4E is recognizing this, and moving to make the game good mechanically because of the already-existing focus on mechanics.
As the 4th edition of a mechanics-oriented, advancement-based game, 4E offers to make the mechanics more balanced and a lot more fun, regardless of where you are in the advancement... and offers faster advancement. Once every three sessions generally translates into once every three weeks. If people are playing your crunch-based game on a weekly basis, they'll want to see some movement.


Progression of levels is part of the fun, sure, just as sugar is a nice thing to add to your diet. But once you're eating candyfloss for every meal, it's time to ask where it all went wrong.

3rd edition was already well on its way to that point, and if 4th continues the trend then very soon it will be "game over" as DMs discover that after throwing "swarms of tarrasques" at them, the players are so jaded that nothing will keep their attention and they will move on to something that actually challenges them.
3E had a nice pace that most players were just fine with. Epic levels in 3E were broken for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with "jaded players".

Look at Exalted. New Solar Exalts are at the power level of high-level D&D characters, and they soon get a lot more powerful. The powerful characters of the setting can hold back "epic" D&D characters with one hand (and Charms like "Block anything" and "Dodge anything"). Does that stop the game from being fun? No, because the game is built to accommodate that. Such characters are often tragic (and, in fact, each kind of Exalt has a different Great Curse), have epic-power-appropriate challenges, and mechanically the system works at that level. Furthermore, things in Exalted promote roleplaying in general (the stunting mechanic) and in specific, theme- or mood-based ways.

Exalted characters have "Charm trees"--you learn the prerequisite Charms to learn the next one, and so on. There are Charm trees for every ability.
Take Socialize. Solars are reborn epic heroes, who will save the world or destroy it. Solar charms from the Socialize tree are about becoming impressive, supernaturally convincing, able to incite legions to lauhgter or tears with a handful of words, able to drive them to suicide or murder or peace. The Charms reflect this.

Now take Sidereals, who are beuraucrats, the kung-fu functionaries of Fate, and schemers and plotters on their own. The Sidereal book is great, in large part because it was written by Rebecca Borgstrom, including Charm designs, and the mechanics very much influence the roleplaying.
For example, the very first Charm in their Socialize tree (Shun the Smiling Lady) makes it so that someone will never be loved again (barring significant effort taken by someone or something of power similar to your own to change that). Their Appearance score drops to 1 for that sort of thing, people who currently love them just... stop, and new ones won't. Other Exalts have some defenses against that sort of thing, but it works without question on mortals, and regardless, it's easier to use than to counter.
And every Sidereal who wants to Socialize at Exalted levels (rather than at "Heroic Mortal" levels) will know that Charm, because he had to learn it to learn the rest of them. And he'll know that it's always an option... if very rarely the best option, in that hitting someone with it is a pretty vile thing to do and doesn't really benefit you in any way. And sometimes, he'll be tempted to use it...
That's mechanics affecting roleplaying, in a way that D&D just doesn't have.
Exalted isn't less crunchy than D&D, mind. You can play a numbers game with it, twink your character for combat or for Sorcery or for social interaction, and the mechanics aren't simpler than D&D. It's still a mechanics-heavy game. But it's not just a mechanics-*oriented* game.

Now, anything you can do with Exalted, you can probably approximate with D&D... except it'll take you a lot of effort, because the system you're using doesn't support it in any way. So what does the D&D system support? It supports the kind of playstyle its mechanics encourage. That is, killing things, and then taking their stuff (unless you're a Thief, in which case you take their stuff first, then Backstab them).

My point with all of this is, D&D 4E is, quite rightfully, not trying to compete with the roleplaying-oriented games. You can roleplay with it, or you can play it in a beer-and-pretzels manner. It's competing as a mechanics-oriented game. And you know what? That's a good thing. Because it's about time D&D start admitting that it *is* mechanics-oriented, that mechanics are a big part of the draw for most players (what else is there to draw people, given that you can roleplay with any game, some of which will be better for what you want to do, or without any game at all?) and that despite this, the mechanics need fixin' up.

I still play D&D because of the crunch. As much as I love games like Nobilis, Amber, even Vampire/Werewolf, heck, even Buffy, they take a lot more in terms of creative energy and effort investment. I could find enough non-D&D games online and in person to get me my fix. I still play D&D games, sometimes even over other options, because D&D is easy, light-hearted, crunchy fun.
And they're working on making D&D better at that.


This is not entirely a theory. Back in the days of 1st edition there was a phenomenon which we called "first time gods".

New DMs very, very often gave away XP and levels at the sort of speed WotC are talking about for 4th - usually in response to discovering that players "like to level up". Give them more levels, and your campaign becomes more popular - what could possibly go wrong?

About level 30 (in 1st edition), the system runs out of absolutely anything to challenge the characters, including the gods. At that point the game ends. If the DM was lucky, the players would all file away their character sheets under "wastepaper" and roll up 1st level PCs and start again properly.

But, in reality, the vast majority of such players simply walked away. They felt that they had "finished D&D" - they'd played it to the end. They had of course only played a kiddie's version (most of them were kids, so that's perhaps to be expected) and had absolutely no notion of how rich and fun a game they had bulldozed.
Eyeroll. And because Monty Haul games are bad, a new edition designed to keep the high levels as workable and interesting as the low levels is obviously gonna be bad, right?
Speaking as someone's who's played high-level characters and (heavily houseruled) Epic games, level advancement has never ruined a game for me, nor have high power levels, because I've played in groups that handled them well (something for which a system that handles them well would be a good replacement). I don't think a bunch of 14-year-olds would get the "rich and fun" experience you get out of D&D, because they aren't experienced roleplayers yet and the game does nothing to encourage that.


As far as they were concerned there was nothing more to the game than gaining experience, increasing levels and casting higher level spells or wielding bigger and bigger weapons. Why would anyone play that game twice, really? Once you've seen all the magic items and killed all the monsters twice (I remember an XP sheet in my group's First-Time Gods phase which read "2xOrcus"), what is there to entice you back?
With 1E's mechanics, nothing. With 4E's, probably a lot. D&D has always been a crunch-heavy game: it's now embracing it.


If WotC make levelling up such a primary method of rewarding players - for exactly the same reasons, I notice, as those newbie DMs did when we were starting with 1ed - then they are setting up a time bomb which will destroy their company and, more importantly, the game. I've been there, I've seen it.

This is not purely an issue of playing style, it is human nature. Players WILL get bored with this because it is shallow and the rewards are too uncomplicated and linear to make anyone come back for more after playing through it once or maybe twice. If they didn't come back in 1980, why will they in 2008?

Once that happens, sales are dead. Stone dead. If I've won the lottery by then, I'll be bidding for the rights to D&D, and I'd expect to get them pretty cheap.
Somehow, I bet you made this prediction when 3.0 came out, too. I think you'll find out otherwise, at any rate; they're intentionally building the game to be interesting at all levels, and fun to play mechanically, rather than the often tedious mechanics of previous editions (such as 2E's "Clerics Are Healbots"), specifically so players won't get bored with it--3.x was an improvement, but it had lots of problems; the original books suffered from a lack of design knowledge: for example, in core 3.x, you need a Rogue to find traps. Trapfinding sucks, because it's just search vs. a DC and Disable Device vs. a DC; fail and you trigger the trap and Bad Stuff happens... except that DCs scale with level, so every CR-appropriate trap at every level, you have a chance of failing. The more traps, the more failure. It's like a time bomb, and it's not a particularily interesting mechanic.

And, y'know what, sometimes a group might want a slower, longer campaign.
"One-half/third/fifth/tenth the XP" worked just fine in 3E, and it'll work just fine in 4E (and I'd bet they discuss options for slower advancement in the DMG). Rate of advancement is that easy to fix.

Matthew
2007-09-11, 06:26 PM
I dunno, that strikes me as an odd sort of view. From what I can tell, you are saying that D&D should occupy one specific subset of Roleplaying Game types and that's all it's good for. Kill the monster, take the treasure, Level up, repeat. That was indeed one of the central precepts of D&D, but the game moved on from there and so did the system.

I don't want D&D to be very Rules Heavy. I take issue with the idea that it always has been. AD&D 2e was pretty Rules Light, as far as I recall, and Basic D&D even moreso. I can think of at least one good article out there on the subject of the transformation of D&D from a relatively Rules Light game to a Rules Heavy game.

To be clear, I could not care less how other people play the game, but I don't think it's necessary to force D&D into any particular corner of the market, except for profitability. I have no problem with that, but it's not what I want from the game.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-11, 07:27 PM
It blows my mind to join a game, and get berated for not maximizing my "build" to within an inch of its life. There just don't seem to be many players these days who understand that I have a vision in my head of a character who wields two daggers, even though he'll do a statistically significant lesser amount of damage, amortized over 20 levels, than if he had a oversized two-handed sword with Monkey Grip, Power Attack and Shock Trooper.


Nort to get off topic:
That is a very optimal rogue. A poor Fighter though.
See, daggers do low damage: you can offset with extra damage (like sneak attack).
Class flavor is mutable: you can still think of yourself as just a warrior. Difference is you fighter better with help (flanking) or with intelligent tactics (feint, surprise round, etc).

bugsysservant
2007-09-11, 07:48 PM
Reel on, love: I'm not going to quote that monstrosity, but you have a very odd view of what D&D is. What you described is an MMORPG, or maybe a good FPS. D&D is a game of adventure, and killing mosters and taking their stuff is one aspect, yes, but to think that its the only one is just narrow minded. To be honest, D&D wasn't even as firmly based in that principle as it today. The original game didn't have optimizers, it had roleplayers because there wasn't much to optimize. You had a few classes, which are more akin to the NPC class of 3.x, and that was it. Only in the last edition has the "OMG, My wizard/ubercharger will own that monster and take his stuff!" ideology emerged.