PDA

View Full Version : 4e General Discussion



Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 06:40 AM
I have to admit, when I first heard about 4e I began the 5 stages of grief.

Denial: No, no... Wizards won't release 4e anytime soon!

Anger: This is BS! I wasted so much cash on 3.5 books!

Bargaining: I'll play it if they have some sort of rebate program or the ability to convert 3.5 to 4.0 easily.

Depression: Screw it. When 4e comes out I think I am just giving up on D&D entirely. What's the point?

At last I have arrived at Acceptance: Well, it's going to happen and some of the changes sound a bit exciting.

At any rate I have been reading over a lot of the material this morning and while I cannot say I am entirely pleased with it, a lot of the changes do sound good and will speed up gameplay and overall enjoyment.

So I was hoping to have a general discussion on 4e, what do we know, handy links for some of the more obscure sites that require a high google-fu rating, as well as general opinions, flames, praises or whatever.

For me, I am not quite sure what it was that I read that changed my mind, maybe it was just the overall effect. I suppose in the back of mind I have known for a while something wasn't right with 3.5 and this seems to be on the track to fixing it.

Artemician
2007-10-12, 06:50 AM
Other than what you have posted, all other general discussion about 4E can be summed in one post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3266991&postcount=52)

It's in my signature, but here you go anyway.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-12, 06:52 AM
I'd wait. I'm optimistic, but we only have official gossip for now, and it be not good. Heck, if you wanna now why I want to wait for facts, it's because I was there when WotC released Magic: The Gathering expansion Homelands. It was the worst expansion ever, but they made it look like the best. So wait till we can do number crunching, and THEN, decide on 4e.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 06:59 AM
Something I am wondering about is what the event will be in Faerun. 1e to 2e was the Time of Troubles, and this looks to be an aeven greater overhauling than ever before.

Xefas
2007-10-12, 07:00 AM
1b followed by 3 followed by 5

Anyway, I spent a boatload of money on 3.5 books (and some 3.0), because I DM a lot. However, if 4e turns out to be good, I'm hoping I can just buy one or two, and then be a player for once =/

Also, I'm hoping there'll at least be some semblance of Tome of Battle left, 'cause I love me some maneuverin'

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 07:11 AM
It sounds like, form what I have read, that they are incorporating ToB maneuver elements into all the classes.

Matthew
2007-10-12, 07:13 AM
Something I am wondering about is what the event will be in Faerun. 1e to 2e was the Time of Troubles, and this looks to be an aeven greater overhauling than ever before.

Haven't you heard? Faerun's time line has jumped forward one hundred years or so and a magical plague has swept the world. The fans have been up in arms and even Greenwood has been less than enthusiastic about this new direction.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 07:16 AM
What makes that so hilarious is that I am currently running an FR campaign and the players keep failing to stop the bad guys, who eventually are unleashing a magical plague...

Matthew
2007-10-12, 07:20 AM
Heh. Apparently, one of the things that sticks in the craw of a lot of fans is that there are some 'peace loving farmer Orcs' in the north.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 07:29 AM
Heh. Apparently, one of the things that sticks in the craw of a lot of fans is that there are some 'peace loving farmer Orcs' in the north.

That makes sense though. Honestly I have had various humanoid communities from time to time that were just peace loving simple farmers and the like. Have done that since 1e. It just makes sense that it would have to happen sometimes.

SoD
2007-10-12, 07:46 AM
Good, if humans can be farmers, why not orcs?

Dode
2007-10-12, 07:57 AM
Because Only Humans Eat Food You Stupid-

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 08:18 AM
#5!

Well, mostly. Bits of #4, though I understand how important some of the stuff I don't like is to other people.

I hope it stays good through my first reading!

Artemician
2007-10-12, 08:21 AM
Personally, I'm a "Bargaining" person myself, who goes with #3 and #5.

Heh. I love that post. Makes discussion about 4E so much simpler and less flame-baitory.

KIDS
2007-10-12, 08:22 AM
Yesssir, from the very first second I thought that 3.5 was (as of, right now) a fairly good system with most of its mistakes covered up and a positive trend firmly set, and am optimistic about 4E. Whether I will buy and play it, I don't know, but I look forward to good things.

Matthew
2007-10-12, 09:17 AM
That makes sense though. Honestly I have had various humanoid communities from time to time that were just peace loving simple farmers and the like. Have done that since 1e. It just makes sense that it would have to happen sometimes.



Good, if humans can be farmers, why not orcs?

Hey, I never gave judgement it one way or another. what I am saying is that many Forgotten Realms fans feel that it is inappropriate for the Campaign Setting. If you want my opinion, then I will say that I actually do agree with them, but that's tied directly to my conception of Orcs. If the only difference between Humans and Orcs is that they look different, then there's no reason they shouldn't be farmers, but I don't subscribe to the 'Humans in funny suits' view of the various humanoid races. I've no problem with people who like that view, it just isn't for me and, presumably, those who dislike this change to the Realms share that particular preference.

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-12, 09:20 AM
Hey, I never judged it one way or another. However, many Forgotten Realms fans feel that it is inappropriate for the Campaign Setting. If you want my opinion, then I will say that I actually do agree with them, but that's tied directly to my conception of Orcs. If the only difference between Humans and Orcs is that they look different, then there's no reason they shouldn't be farmers, but I don't subscribe to the 'Humans in funny suits' view of the various humanoid races. I've no beef with people who like that view, it just isn't for me and, presumably, those who dislike this change to the Realms share that particular preference.

No, I do understand and while I think the majority of Orcs should in fact be their usual bloodthirsty selves, I see no reason why *some* orcs might choose to do something else.

After all, in FR canon, pre-3e even, orcs were used as slave labor farmers by drow and mind flayers. No reason to think a group of them might have taken those skills with them after rebelling/escaping.

Matthew
2007-10-12, 09:24 AM
No, I do understand and while I think the majority of Orcs should in fact be their usual bloodthirsty selves, I see no reason why *some* orcs might choose to do something else.

After all, in FR canon, pre-3e even, orcs were used as slave labor farmers by drow and mind flayers. No reason to think a group of them might have taken those skills with them after rebelling/escaping.

Well, that's to understand them in human terms. There's certainly no reason to suppose it could not happen, but I prefer to think that Orcs would return to their inherently evil nature and habits as a matter of course, rather than use any of the skills they were forced to acquire as slaves. As I say, though, that's just my preference with regard to how I want Orcs to be.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-12, 09:29 AM
Hey, the d20 Modern book had a picture of a Gnoll Pimp, so I'm all for Orc Farmers, just on that long stretch of logic.

I'm still at #6.

Matthew
2007-10-12, 09:45 AM
That would be Urban Arcana, I think?

leperkhaun
2007-10-12, 09:50 AM
Ill get the PHB when it comes out. if i like it, ill get the MM and the DMG. After that who knows.

the only thing that pisses me off, is why the are realeasing those three books at 1 a month.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-12, 10:16 AM
the only thing that pisses me off, is why the are realeasing those three books at 1 a month.

Why does that piss you off? It makes perfect sense to do it that way. People are more likely to buy the DMG if they have the PHB already, and less likely to buy an expensive three-books-together package.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-12, 10:36 AM
Also, I think that's standard practice, although in 1e the books came out a year apart! Must have been a rough year with just the PHB and some OD&D books.

Of course, RPGers back then were hardier stock, more able to make their own rules decisions, uphill both ways, etc...

horseboy
2007-10-12, 10:40 AM
I'd wait. I'm optimistic, but we only have official gossip for now, and it be not good. Heck, if you wanna now why I want to wait for facts, it's because I was there when WotC released Magic: The Gathering expansion Homelands. It was the worst expansion ever, but they made it look like the best. So wait till we can do number crunching, and THEN, decide on 4e.
Homelands still wasn't as bad as The Dark. woo, I got a +0/+2 shield for my rare.:smallannoyed:

I'd be more interested in 4th if they posted an example of competent play testing.

hamlet
2007-10-12, 10:42 AM
Also, I think that's standard practice, although in 1e the books came out a year apart! Must have been a rough year with just the PHB and some OD&D books.

Of course, RPGers back then were hardier stock, more able to make their own rules decisions, uphill both ways, etc...

Forgot outdoor plumbing.

Typically, the 1 a month release schedule is done for a number of reasons.

1) Lowers the price for the "on-the-fence" shopper who doesn't know for sure if they want it or not rather than soaking them for $150 right up front.

2) Helps out the distributors and FLGS's by decreasing the amount of junk they have to put up on their shelves. Yes, this is an actual concern since not everybody plays nothing but what the WOTC masters tell us to.

3) Cuts down on printing costs to print three smaller runs than one huge one.

4) Cuts down on shipping costs.

4) Whets the appetites of the fanboys who are, even now, drooling on their keyboards.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-12, 10:46 AM
I also recall that third edition books came out once a month, so the 4e books coming out one a month is no real surprise. Last time it was PHB, DMG, then finally MM. This time it's PHB, MM, then finally DMG. It's a switcheroo!!!

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-10-12, 10:50 AM
That actually is an expressed concern of mine as well. When the play testers are bypassing encounters instead of putting their characters through the hell spawned stress test they were made for... Well I have my doubts that they are going to do much better this time around in terms of balance. What really WOULD ease my mind though, is if they nabbed folks like Logic, Fax, and Vorpal as well as a few good folks at the TheoCharOp area of the WotC site and had them look over everything/playtest for a few months.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-12, 10:59 AM
That actually is an expressed concern of mine as well. When the play testers are bypassing encounters instead of putting their characters through the hell spawned stress test they were made for... Well I have my doubts that they are going to do much better this time around in terms of balance. What really WOULD ease my mind though, is if they nabbed folks like Logic, Fax, and Vorpal as well as a few good folks at the TheoCharOp area of the WotC site and had them look over everything/playtest for a few months.

They did that for the Rules Compendium. I dunno if they'll do that for later material.

Also, chances of myself being picked for such an endeavor are slim-to-none due to my complete lack of presence on the WotC fora. I spend all my forum-time here. Others, such as the departed BwL, VT, and a few others from this form do have larger presences on the WotC fora.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-10-12, 11:02 AM
:belkar: :"The sky's the limit ears."

Charity
2007-10-12, 11:02 AM
*stuff*
3) Cuts down on printing costs to print three smaller runs than one huge one.

4) Cuts down on shipping costs.


No it doesn't work this way, per unit print costs and carriage are reduced in bulk not increased.

Sorry but this is plain ole not the case.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-12, 11:16 AM
It wouldn't be one huge run as i understand it anyway - we're talking about printing 3 separate books here.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-12, 11:39 AM
Regardless, I'm still gonna hold out for the "Scratch and Sniff" edition. I'm curious as to the scent of a Black Pudding. Failing that, I'd totally go for Pop-Up. "Look! When I pull the tab, the dragon sears the unsuspecting populace with fire! RAR!"

horseboy
2007-10-12, 11:45 AM
Regardless, I'm still gonna hold out for the "Scratch and Sniff" edition. I'm curious as to the scent of a Black Pudding. Failing that, I'd totally go for Pop-Up. "Look! When I pull the tab, the dragon sears the unsuspecting populace with fire! RAR!"

That is pure win!

hamlet
2007-10-12, 01:27 PM
No it doesn't work this way, per unit print costs and carriage are reduced in bulk not increased.

Sorry but this is plain ole not the case.

No, you're incorrect.

In printing three separate books in short succession, you increase the printer's cost for having to rush retooling of machinery for each print run instead of doing it at a normal rate. Essentially, you're talking about taking over the print shop entirely, forcing him to print nothing but your stuff, for quite a while which cuts down on his other business.

Dausuul
2007-10-12, 09:39 PM
No it doesn't work this way, per unit print costs and carriage are reduced in bulk not increased.

Sorry but this is plain ole not the case.

It's a common mistake in business to assume that it's better to produce goods in one gigantic batch rather than a series of smaller batches. The result of doing things that way is that you build up enormous, expensive production capacity to make and store that one batch, and then all that capacity sits idle while you sell off what you've produced. It's far better to calculate how much you can actually sell, then buy just enough capacity that you can keep a little ahead of demand.

Let's say WotC figures ten million people will switch to 4E in the first three months. For simplicity, assume they will all buy a PHB, a DMG, and a Monster Manual. So WotC needs to produce thirty million books in the first three months. They can produce all thirty million in the first month, then let their presses sit idle for the remaining two--but then they need three times as many presses, and three times the warehouse space, as if they simply produced ten million per month.

Of course, they could simply go with mixed batches, with 3.3 million PHBs, 3.3 million DMGs, and 3.3 million Monster Manuals in each monthly batch. But then they run into the retooling issue Hamlet pointed out.

WotC's approach is annoying from our perspective, but makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Economy of scale is not the only factor in play here.

de-trick
2007-10-12, 11:44 PM
I hate what they did to helm my favorite god dies by tempus, his own son couldn't help him, or the rest of the triad, or Ao the god helm protected during the time of troubles just let him die.

For the orcs in the north if i ever play 4.0 with my gaming group will be to get ride of the orcs in the north, even if we start in chult and march to the north

Somebloke
2007-10-13, 06:22 AM
Well, that's to understand them in human terms. There's certainly no reason to suppose it could not happen, but I prefer to think that Orcs would return to their inherently evil nature and habits as a matter of course, rather than use any of the skills they were forced to acquire as slaves. As I say, though, that's just my preference with regard to how I want Orcs to be.
As John Keegan points out in one of his books, some of the most vicious and war-effective societies in history were nomadic herders- these were people who endured harsh conditions (much worse than say, settled farmers) and were raised from an early age to herd animals for slaughter, which would have helped to deaden the instinctive constraints against killing. I can see Orc Goats as very, very nasty creatures indeed...

Matthew
2007-10-13, 08:22 AM
As John Keegan points out in one of his books, some of the most vicious and war-effective societies in history were nomadic herders- these were people who endured harsh conditions (much worse than say, settled farmers) and were raised from an early age to herd animals for slaughter, which would have helped to deaden the instinctive constraints against killing. I can see Orc Goats as very, very nasty creatures indeed...

Uh yeah, but you appear to be equating Orcs with human society and culture, which is exactly what I want avoid doing. I prefer them to be presented as a corruption and mockery of human society, not a direct analogue (i.e. not humans in funny suits). As a result, I am no more willing to adopt the idea of fierce nomads than peaceful farmers as a model for Orc society (such as it might be).

I guess it's a result of the story telling conventions of shows like Star Trek, which humanise just about every alien they ever encounter and seem to reject the notion of a wholly alien other. I like my Orcs to be more like the Alien (in Alien) than the Romulans (which is to say more monstrous and demonic), but that's just my preference.

Mike_G
2007-10-13, 08:49 AM
Uh yeah, but you are here equating Orcs with human society and culture, which is exactly what I want avoid doing. I prefer them to be a corruption and mockery of human society, not a direct analogue (i.e. not humans in funny suits). I am no more willing to adopt the idea of fierce nomads than peaceful farmers as a model for Orc society.

I think I blame the story telling conventions of shows like Star Trek, which humanise just about every alien they ever encounter and seem to reject the notion of a wholly alien other. I like my Orcs to be more like the Alien (in Alien) than the Romulans or whatever.

It's not just modern storytelling.

The original Orcs that Tolkien wrote, at least the better , more disciplined ones, like the Uruk Hai or Shagrat and Gorbag's bands are very much modled on lower class soldiers or mercenaries. They're harldy worse than the roving bands that raped and pillaged their way through central Europe in the Thrity Years War, they're much, much, much nicer than Cromwell's soldiers in Ireland.

At boot camp, I used to privately refer to Drill Instructor Seargeant Nichols as "Ugluk." I think he really wanted to knock the heads off erring recruits, and only regulations and careful oversight prevented him doing so.

I still feel some bond to the Fighting Uruk Hai when I read that chapter in Two Towers[, complete with the forced marching, the bragging about carrying the whole load, the sneering at the lesser orcs, and the griping about
the war and the stupid decisions of their masters.

Man, that was my platoon. Substitute the Army for the "rats of Lugburz," and the administration for the big bosses making mistakes that we, the Fighting Uruk Hai--er, Hard Charging US Marines-- pay for, and you pretty much have us. Sure, we satabbed one another a bit less, but it's not a far jump.

Actually, watch Platoon, the scene in the village, that starts with Staff Sergeant Barnes executing villagers, and ends with Barnes and Elias rolling around pummeling one another, and you have the best model ever for an Orc warband.

In a thankless fight, with no purpose that the grunts can see, and in the absence of discipline, human soldiers can rapidly degenerate to the level of any Orc in literature.

Matthew
2007-10-13, 08:54 AM
Absolutely, and Tolkien himself compares the Soldiers during the Great War to the Orcs. I think he says something to the effect of 'we were all Orcs'. However, the ability to sympathise and empathise with something is not the same as being like something. We do not hear much of what Orcs actually get up to and I would be unwilling to perceive them as incapable of the worst atrocities of warfare. War is terrible, but unlike Men, Orcs are always warlike, which is what makes them terrible or monstrous.

Just to be clear, Tolkien has a hard time 'fitting' Orcs into his mythology, so I'm not inclined to default to his presentation either.

Mike_G
2007-10-13, 10:06 AM
Absolutely, and Tolkien himself compares the Soldiers during the Great War to the Orcs. I think he says something to the effect of 'we were all Orcs'. However, the ability to sympathise and empathise with something is not the same as being like something. We do not hear much of what Orcs actually get up to and I would be unwilling to perceive them as incapable of the worst atrocities of warfare. War is terrible, but unlike Men, Orcs are always warlike, which is what makes them terrible or monstrous.

Just to be clear, Tolkien has a hard time 'fitting' Orcs into his mythology, so I'm not inclined to default to his presentation either.


I kinda like then being less one dimensional, mindless souless killing machines.

I portray them in my games more like the Uruks of Lord of the Rings than slope- foreheaded barbaric thugs or misunderstood Klingons. They're the brutal, violent, cynical footsoldiers of many an evil warlord, and their culture reflects that.

I think of them as just being more easily nudged into the worst and most violent of human behavior. Predisposed to follow Hitler or Cromwell and really get into it, but capable of reason and decision.

Statistically, most Orcs would rather hang out with Staff Sergeant Barnes than Socrates, but th possibility exists that some wouldn't.

Starsinger
2007-10-13, 11:03 AM
Uh yeah, but you appear to be equating Orcs with human society and culture, which is exactly what I want avoid doing. I prefer them to be presented as a corruption and mockery of human society, not a direct analogue (i.e. not humans in funny suits). As a result, I am no more willing to adopt the idea of fierce nomads than peaceful farmers as a model for Orc society (such as it might be).

Maybe they're evil orcs... that plant evil vegetables which eat unsuspecting herbivores and druids? :smallwink:

Somebloke
2007-10-13, 11:20 AM
Uh yeah, but you appear to be equating Orcs with human society and culture, which is exactly what I want avoid doing. I prefer them to be presented as a corruption and mockery of human society, not a direct analogue (i.e. not humans in funny suits). As a result, I am no more willing to adopt the idea of fierce nomads than peaceful farmers as a model for Orc society (such as it might be).

I guess it's a result of the story telling conventions of shows like Star Trek, which humanise just about every alien they ever encounter and seem to reject the notion of a wholly alien other. I like my Orcs to be more like the Alien (in Alien) than the Romulans (which is to say more monstrous and demonic), but that's just my preference.
I appreciate your perspective, and to be honest, that's how I run my campaigns- actually, I tend to abandon humanoids altogether and if I want a race of marauding barbarians, I use mongols or viking human societies (let's face it, the mongols were orcs to the people they attacked) or, for example, an ancient scholarly empire in decay instead of elves- sort of like the Conan d20 RPG. I'm just saying, that if you wanted to keep some 'human' elements, herding would be one of the best options- nothing like an orc emerging from the fields, bloody to the elbows after killing, eating and skinning a lamb for dinner, to explain orc society without making them look soft.

Matthew
2007-10-13, 12:44 PM
I kinda like then being less one dimensional, mindless souless killing machines.

I portray them in my games more like the Uruks of Lord of the Rings than slope- foreheaded barbaric thugs or misunderstood Klingons. They're the brutal, violent, cynical footsoldiers of many an evil warlord, and their culture reflects that.

I think of them as just being more easily nudged into the worst and most violent of human behavior. Predisposed to follow Hitler or Cromwell and really get into it, but capable of reason and decision.

Statistically, most Orcs would rather hang out with Staff Sergeant Barnes than Socrates, but th possibility exists that some wouldn't.

When I say more like the Alien than the Romulans, I don't mean actually the Alien, if you follow me. Orcs need to be rational incarnates, otherwise they lose part of what makes them terrible. Perhaps a better analogue would be Grendel, a monstrous rational incarnate, by his nature incapable of being more than a corruption and mockery of humanity, but at the same time being a reflection of the worst baseness of humanity.
That said, I have no problem with the validity of other representations as possibilities, they're just not to my taste.


I appreciate your perspective, and to be honest, that's how I run my campaigns- actually, I tend to abandon humanoids altogether and if I want a race of marauding barbarians, I use mongols or viking human societies (let's face it, the mongols were orcs to the people they attacked) or, for example, an ancient scholarly empire in decay instead of elves- sort of like the Conan d20 RPG. I'm just saying, that if you wanted to keep some 'human' elements, herding would be one of the best options- nothing like an orc emerging from the fields, bloody to the elbows after killing, eating and skinning a lamb for dinner, to explain orc society without making them look soft.

Yeah, I started work on a Campaign World with less Orcish Orcs about twelve years ago, but I found it not to my taste. As you say, I would rather have Humans fulfilling the diverse roles of Humans, rather than racial surrogates. Of course, there is room for overlap. Certainly, any domestic animals involved with Orcs would have to exhibit corrupted or enslaved traits.


Maybe they're evil orcs... that plant evil vegetables which eat unsuspecting herbivores and druids? :smallwink:

Maybe... Interestingly, one of the notions I have lately discarded was of Goblin Wolf Riders. I am looking for a Horse like replacement at the moment. So far, I am going with corrupted horses, but I'm not sure how far I'm going to run with that idea. The Orcs in my campaign world partly exist in the 'Land of Winter', as do most of their trappings (and indeed, most other Monstrous Humanoids).