Oots 4e?

[Alynn]

Anyone else wondering if Rich will upgrade the comic to 4E, or keep it 3.X for the duration?

Sure 4E is still a few months away, still a question that piques my curiosity.

[Ancalagon]

Has been discussed (several times before). Conclusion: We cannot know until it happens... if it happens at all. So, it comes down to "We cannot know". No matter what other people will speculate, if they do not post with the nick "The Giant", they also do and cannot know.

[Vargtass]

The general discussion from previous threads (most recent on page 4) on this topic seems to state the following opinions (slight speculations, therefore spoiler):

1. The Giant already did an upgrade strip (#1) and was not happy about it (Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, introduction).
2. It is not clear whether the OOTS will be finished or not when 4e is finally issued (although it seems unlikely that it should have).
3. If there's mention of the 4e, many seem to favour comments on how the OOTS keeps to an "old-school" version rather than adopting the new version.
4. The 4e seems to imply such drastic changes to many concepts, so it would be very difficult to maintain consistency if a conversion was done.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Although the folks at Wizards are trying to present 4.0 as more of an update than a complete revision.

To me it's the step up from Windows 95 to Windows 98, rather than the much larger leap of Windows 3.1 to Windows 95...

Original D&D (1974)=Machine Code
Advanced D&D (1979ish)=FORTRAN/COBOL
Basic D&D=BASIC/DOS
2nd Edition=Windows 3.1/Macintosh
3rd Edition=Windows 95
4th Edition=?= Windows 98/ME/XP

So I don't think Rich will even mention it in the strip, except maybe revisiting the grapple rules. Roy took quite a beating from a Chuul in one of the Dragon strips due to arguments over grapple and aiding a companion that had been grappled.

[Alfryd]

2nd Edition=Windows 3.1/Macintosh
As a regular Mac user, I take grave exception to comparisons between the ungodly bastard spawn of DOS that was Windows 3.1 and the elegant, aesthetic expression of human creativity that was the first Macintosh.
Not to mention that the Mac went through it's own sequence of successively refined operating systems and hardware configurations, right up to switch to a Unix-based OS and porting to the Intel chipset.
Which makes OS X, what- 7th Edition?

[truemane]

As a regular Mac user, I take grave exception to comparisons between the ungodly bastard spawn of DOS that was Windows 3.1 and the elegant, aesthetic expression of human creativity that was the first Macintosh.

Quoted for entertainment value. That was one of the funniest rants I've heard on any topic in many a day.

ROFLOLMAO

[Surfing HalfOrc]

As a regular Mac user, I take grave exception to comparisons between the ungodly bastard spawn of DOS that was Windows 3.1 and the elegant, aesthetic expression of human creativity that was the first Macintosh.
Not to mention that the Mac went through it's own sequence of successively refined operating systems and hardware configurations, right up to switch to a Unix-based OS and porting to the Intel chipset.
Which makes OS X, what- 7th Edition?

You would. I remember the early Macs... In fact my step-mother might still have one. In a box. In the basement. Covered in dust. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, GUI, even the semi-crappy one that was Windows 3.1, was MUCH easier to use than looking up DOS commands. Even using "Help"

[Kurald Galain]

Original D&D (1974)=Machine Code
Advanced D&D (1979ish)=FORTRAN/COBOL
Basic D&D=BASIC/DOS
You're confusing programming languages with operating systems.
You're also missing the point that Win98 is an update of Win95, whereas WinXP is an update of Windows NT which has in essence rewritten the kernel mostly from scratch.

[Ancalagon]

Original D&D (1974)=Machine Code
Advanced D&D (1979ish)=FORTRAN/COBOL
Basic D&D=BASIC/DOS
2nd Edition=Windows 3.1/Macintosh
3rd Edition=Windows 95
4th Edition=?= Windows 98/ME/XP

Oh man... please, stop making those comparisons. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Basic being more "advanced" or "powerful" than machine code? You surely can argue about that!

And putting Win 95 (some ten years old) in the same category as 4thedition (appearing soon; also more a D&D 3.5.5?) and XP? And...

I could go on... but please get a clue about the stuff you use as comparisons.

Apart from that... we do not know what Rich will do.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

You're confusing programming languages with operating systems.
You're also missing the point that Win98 is an update of Win95, whereas WinXP is an update of Windows NT which has in essence rewritten the kernel mostly from scratch.

No, I think people are missing MY point. D&D 4.0 is an update to 3.X, not the complete rewrite that 3.0 was over 2.X or any of the earlier iterations.

The original rules (I've seen them, once. At a distance) were almost completely unplayable. Most people who played were friends of Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Rob Kuntz and the other "greats" of the early days. Actually, I had the rules as a PFD file, and lets just say they were as hard to figure out as FORTRAN was to my Junior High self.

Advanced D&D wasn't a great deal better (Yes, I have all of them, that's where I got my start.) I tried reading the rules recently to teach my kids, and was amazed that I was able to figure things out back then. Information was scattered all over the place, Gary suffered from "Shiny Object Syndrome" while writing them, but they were better than the original "Tan" Booklets and searching through old Dragon Magazines.

Basic D&D was the first real effort (IMHO) to make the game playable not by geek kids, but "the whole family!" I remember the ad copy... Mom as DM, Dad, Jr. and Sis all sitting around a 1970's den, having quality family bonding time. While slaughtering orcs. Mercilessly.

2nd Ed. rewrote everything, mostly to boot Gary out of the loop. 2nd Ed. also invented the "Rulebook of the Month" sales model.

3rd. Ed. brought D&D back from the brink of a Lorainne Williams self-destruction. A rewrite that actually made sense, an R&D Division that actually took input from the players? My God! Why didn't people think of that before?

3.5 was the application of the lessons learned in 3.0, and so far, 4.0 is a further smoothing of the D20 rules, plus "On-Line" support.

The core "Engine" might change a from little to a lot, but the basic interface is more or less the same.

[Zifna]

I don't know... they seem to be billing this as an "upgrade" mostly not to scare people. If they're serious--and they seem to be--about making this game more approachable, making when you go to sleep a more real decision etc, I expect some fairly extensive changes.


On the simplification route...
Grapple's gone... we know that. But what about the whole "roll to penetrate spell resist/roll your touch attack/okay now roll your damage" thing? Lotta rolling going on there, and everything but "roll your damage" requires some sort of situational knowledge to know the result. I'd be surprised if they don't simplify the character statistics... There's very little that relies on knowing if you have "12 charisma" that couldn't rely on knowing that you have a "+1 charisma bonus." I won't say nothing, I'm sure there's some things, but in the main it's just needless complication.

On their desire to make the "sweet spot" extend to all levels rather than 10-14 or whatever they said it was, as well as make when to stop a more real decision...
I anticipate them giving spell-casters some at-will spell-like abilities. Not fantastically powerful ones, but something so that a wizard without his spellbook for a week is more dangerous than a high-hitpoint commoner.


I also expect them to do something about some currently failing portions of the game.
Bards are one. Everyone loves the idea of the Bard, but their advantages in diplomacy don't quite make up for the fact that they have very little that is unique or worthwhile to contribute to combat. Some reasonably minor tweaks to the class could make them a lot more fun in that regard. Familiars, also, could use a re-work, though I can't say I've really thought of what's needed in that regard.

[Alex Warlorn]

Hopefully the Dungeon Master will abide by the laws of common sense and ignore 4E. One, it's a gratuitous upgrade, second, they say you won't be able to translate your old characters over.
So effective, while updating to 3.5 just altered some laws of reality, 4E would be the end of time and space...
HECK! What if the Snarl IS the in game avatar of 4E?

[DeadmanXI]

Hopefully the Dungeon Master will abide by the laws of common sense and ignore 4E. One, it's a gratuitous upgrade, second, they say you won't be able to translate your old characters over.
So effective, while updating to 3.5 just altered some laws of reality, 4E would be the end of time and space...
HECK! What if the Snarl IS the in game avatar of 4E?

Nope. While I, too, think they'll stick with 3.5, the worldhas explicitly already gone through the change between 1E, 2E, and 3.0, which was, IMO, AT LEAST as big a change.

[The 6th Side]

Anyone else wondering if Rich will upgrade the comic to 4E, or keep it 3.X for the duration?

Sure 4E is still a few months away, still a question that piques my curiosity.

No, of course not. Nobody on the WHOLE of these forums is even the slightest bit interested in the release of a new version of the rules, which not only effects the game that the whole of these forums are based on, but also the comic which everyone comes here for. Not at all

[Alynn]

From what I've collected from the D&D insider stuff, and others that have seen bits and pieces of it this is what I've come to understand.

1) CR system has been done away with, encounters are now determined by XP value of the monsters, this means you can fit more monsters in an encounter. An example given is that where 3.5 1CR monster is for a level 1 party, in the new edition it will be more like 4 CR 1 monsters.

2) Skills are similar to the New d20 Star wars

3) Wizards still have magic, but they use things like wands, staves, and orbs to focus their craft to make them more powerful. So while a fighter has his trusty sword, a wizard will have his trusty staff.

4) Fighter abilities will be based on what weapons they focus on. A polearm wielder will have different attack options than an axe wielder, or a sword and board user.

5) Races now mean more than what stat bonuses you get at level 1, they continue to affect your players development throughout their career (which is now 30 levels instead of 20). This means that a dwarven fighter and a human fighter will be different, even if they chose the same development path.

6) The Priest, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard "standard party" has been abolished. The new arctypes (or roles) are Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller. The idea is, if you don't want to play a Cleric (a leader) you can play a bard instead and have that role covered.


All in all, it seems a great deal much more than 3.5.5, and thats just with the small amount of info that is out there.

[silvadel]

I still think it would be very odd to see say Belkar start fading away and saying "I will get you WOTC -- Somehow I will get you for getting rid of halfling rangers" poof...

[DreadSpoon]

No, I think people are missing MY point. D&D 4.0 is an update to 3.X, not the complete rewrite that 3.0 was over 2.X or any of the earlier iterations.

What orrifice are you pulling this from? There are huge, massive changes going into 4th edition, many of which are going well beyond minor tweaks. They're changing the entire set of dynamics and the focus of the game. Some things might seem familiar and many rules might stay the same, but according to the official design & development releases from WotC, 4th edition is going to be a completely different type of game than any prior D&D. It's changing from a medieval fantasy tactical role-playing game into a medieval mission impossible. You're not going to play fighters anymore. You're going to play ninjas in plate armor. The magic system is being wholly revamped (not a bad thing, haven't seen the new system yet). The entire class/race/feat/skill system is being redone, and will be as different from 3rd edition as 3rd edition was from 2nd edition. The way characters are built is changing. The way various core mechanis work are changing drastically from 3rd edition.

And don't even get me started on how they're changing the core _story_ elements of D&D, like what elves are and such, which for any campaign that tries to stick to the pure D&Disms is going to result in huge continuity breaks (like you can find when you compare newer Forgotten Realms books with older ones).

4th edition is NOT going to be a simple ugprade by any measure. It would be simpler to convert from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, because the core game was still largely the same. A lot of mechanics changed, but they didn't change how the game was played. They just changed the math you used to do things and gave characters a little wider rang eof options. 4th edition is not a simple alteration of mechanics - it's a wholesale replacement of mechanics and a change in style.

[Morty]

On a side note, there will be clearer apperance distincion between demons and devils, which means that Sabine's "what fiend is she" joke won't work in 4ed. Yet another reason not to convert OoTS.


No, I think people are missing MY point. D&D 4.0 is an update to 3.X, not the complete rewrite that 3.0 was over 2.X or any of the earlier iterations.

Umm... not at all? 4ed is going to be completely different than 3ed, probably just as 3ed was different than 2ed or more so. The very style of the game is going to be changed. It was obvious since first articles about it. The worst thing so far is getting rid of Vancian casting, the best... I don't know. There were quite a few good news, but I don't know which were the best.

[Alynn]

Also, there will be clearer apperance distincion between demons and devils, which means that Sabine's "what fiend is she" joke won't work in 4ed. Yet another reason not to convert OoTS.

I dunno...

*off camera conversion sounds*
Nale: "Oh, so that's what you are!

[Seerow]

From what I've collected from the D&D insider stuff, and others that have seen bits and pieces of it this is what I've come to understand.

1) CR system has been done away with, encounters are now determined by XP value of the monsters, this means you can fit more monsters in an encounter. An example given is that where 3.5 1CR monster is for a level 1 party, in the new edition it will be more like 4 CR 1 monsters.

This is something already done for dramatic value in the strip. The encounters we see the party facing regularly are many many low/equal level monsters, that in 3.5 are considered extremely high level encounters.


2) Skills are similar to the New d20 Star wars

This is a back end mechanics change that doesn't affect the interface (ie continuity, the strip, etc) at all.


3) Wizards still have magic, but they use things like wands, staves, and orbs to focus their craft to make them more powerful. So while a fighter has his trusty sword, a wizard will have his trusty staff.

This is probably the single greatest change, and is something I'm happy to hear about. Who would complain about V getting a new staff though?


4) Fighter abilities will be based on what weapons they focus on. A polearm wielder will have different attack options than an axe wielder, or a sword and board user.

You mean like what we already sort of got in PHB2? And from what I've heard probably closer aligned to Tome of Battle? Again, this isn't a new concept, just old concepts being made core.


5) Races now mean more than what stat bonuses you get at level 1, they continue to affect your players development throughout their career (which is now 30 levels instead of 20). This means that a dwarven fighter and a human fighter will be different, even if they chose the same development path.

From what i hear, the initial idea of races developing automatically was scrapped, and instead replaced with the core equivalent of racial substitution levels and racial feats. Again, something already in D&D, just being made core.


6) The Priest, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard "standard party" has been abolished. The new arctypes (or roles) are Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller. The idea is, if you don't want to play a Cleric (a leader) you can play a bard instead and have that role covered.

Again, this doesn't really interfere with standard gameplay at all. The OoTS party fits these roles pretty well, as well as the more traditional roles.


All in all, it seems a great deal much more than 3.5.5, and thats just with the small amount of info that is out there.

Not really. It's bringing a lot of concepts that have been floating around, particularly on the WotC forums, from being just a concept to being a core part of the rules, which is really neat, but it's nothing that wasn't possible under 3.5, just makes it easier to integrate.



Also, none of these arguments say anything about why OotS would suffer from an upgrade to 4e.

[Alex Warlorn]

From what I've collected from the D&D insider stuff, and others that have seen bits and pieces of it this is what I've come to understand.

1) CR system has been done away with, encounters are now determined by XP value of the monsters, this means you can fit more monsters in an encounter. An example given is that where 3.5 1CR monster is for a level 1 party, in the new edition it will be more like 4 CR 1 monsters.

2) Skills are similar to the New d20 Star wars

3) Wizards still have magic, but they use things like wands, staves, and orbs to focus their craft to make them more powerful. So while a fighter has his trusty sword, a wizard will have his trusty staff.

4) Fighter abilities will be based on what weapons they focus on. A polearm wielder will have different attack options than an axe wielder, or a sword and board user.

5) Races now mean more than what stat bonuses you get at level 1, they continue to affect your players development throughout their career (which is now 30 levels instead of 20). This means that a dwarven fighter and a human fighter will be different, even if they chose the same development path.

6) The Priest, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard "standard party" has been abolished. The new arctypes (or roles) are Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller. The idea is, if you don't want to play a Cleric (a leader) you can play a bard instead and have that role covered.


All in all, it seems a great deal much more than 3.5.5, and thats just with the small amount of info that is out there.

Okay. Now I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO SWITCH OVER!!!




Umm... not at all? 4ed is going to be completely different than 3ed, probably just as 3ed was different than 2ed or more so. The very style of the game is going to be changed. It was obvious since first articles about it. The worst thing so far is getting rid of Vancian casting, the best... I don't know. There were quite a few good news, but I don't know which were the best.

Exactly while I think 4E when I think Snarl.

[Kurald Galain]

6) The Priest, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard "standard party" has been abolished. The new arctypes (or roles) are Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller.

Which, by pure coincidence, correspond to priest, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Gee, how surprising. Almost looks like a management reorg (http://dilbert.com).

[Surfing HalfOrc]

What orrifice are you pulling this from? <snip>

Mostly, I'm going with the Introduction to 4th Ed. Video, where the two guys say that D&D will still be D20, and will be still recognisable as D&D. :smallsmile:

I don't hang out on the "Rumors and Speculation" board, and don't intend to start flopping and twitching and freaking out UNTIL the new books come out.

I don't see the "Basher, beater, meeter and defeater" or whatever name of the day is as "Recognisable D&D," so I suspect that it will be dropped LONG before 4th Ed comes out.

Same goes with "The Only Dice Rolls that will count are the ones from the Official WotC server, and they will be charging a nickle a throw!" or "Fighters are being eliminated to make room for the tiefling druid!" or any other goofy rumor that's been floated. :smalleek:

3rd. Ed. was a revitalization from a nearly dead system. 3.X is going strong; completely rewriting from the ground up makes no sense, either from a game perspective, or a business perspective. Especially since WotC/Hasbro has had a successful run with it so far.

I'd only expect a full rewrite from the ground up if another major company takes over, and then only if WotC/Hasbro manage to run D&D into the ground as thoroughly as Ms. Williams managed to.

[redzimmer]

A better comparison would be this:

Original D&D: a computer
Advanced D&D 1st Edition: A different computer
AD&D 2nd Edition: The first computer again, but with a flatscreen.
AD&D Revised Late 1990s: The same computer, only the spacebar doesn't stick anymore
3rd Edition: a Toaster
3.5: Salad with walnuts and dill
4th Edition: Spider-Man

I hope this will better illustrate the evolution of the game.

[filmore]

4th Edition=?= Windows 98/ME/XP


4th Edition will combine the powers of Windows CE/ME/NT to brick your machine.

Or maybe it'll be more like when Best Buy first started appearing on the scene. Everyone's like "what's this? new bargain store for electronics?" They tried it and it was kinda crappy but cheap. So people used it, even though they felt kinda dirty for doing so.

[RTGoodman]

And don't even get me started on how they're changing the core _story_ elements of D&D, like what elves are and such, which for any campaign that tries to stick to the pure D&Disms is going to result in huge continuity breaks (like you can find when you compare newer Forgotten Realms books with older ones).

I suggest anyone who has ever played in Forgotten Realms to check out the new Grand History of the Realms book that just came out.

I looked through it, and I'm a little horrified. It contains the "history" that hasn't taken place yet (i.e., that happens between the Year of Wild Magic or whatever it's called that you're supposed to base your campaign in and the beginning of the 4E time-setting). Some of the things that it talks about:


Several of the gods, including Helm and others are killed by the schemes of Cyric (Helm, in fact, I think is killed by Tyr or Torm in some sort of honor duel that was set up by Cyric, and they're both too lawful to refuse to fight); meanwhile the other gods I think try to find some way to stop Cyric and whatever other evil gods. It's almost like a new Time of Troubles. Not only that, there are like a billion world-changing events and catastrophes that take place - the entire city of Waterdeep is nearly decimated by a plague, the Dales start getting back together, and all other manner of crazy world-altering things.

Now, I'm not sure if that's how they transitioned the Realms from 2E to 3E (I think it must have been something similar), but it all just feels way too contrived for me to believe. I mean, this may be fantasy, but I think it breaks verisimilitude if you have to re-make an entire world just to cope with changes in a rulebook. Just my opinion.