My reservations about 4e

[Crow]

Reading through the many threads around here which are raging on about 4e, I think I may have stumbled upon the previously intangible "it" that has been bugging me about 4e.

The manner in which they are revealing it feels more like a new campaign setting, rather than a new system. Surely it will be a new system, or at least contain considerable changes, which I am fine with, provided these changes improve the game. But what seems to be lost is that "generic" feeling. Flipping through the 2e Player's handbook, you got mechanics and fluff that could be easily applied to most non-exotic campaigns. This feeling was preserved somewhat in the 3.0 and 3.5 handbooks as well. But much of what has been leaked so far by wizards seems to be moving away from that style, and almost seems as if it is being developed alongside a new campaign setting which is intended to be the default, and which is very different from the "generic" Greyhawk-style flavor.

I just hope that the new edition retains some of the "non-flavor" of previous editions. People draw their inspiration from such a wide variety of sources. I remember reading in the 2nd Edition handbook in the section for each class they would list historical figures, mythological heros, etc...All from very different cultures, that could be played in very different ways, but could still be represented quite well by the classes in the books.

[Neon Knight]

But much of what has been leaked so far by wizards seems to be moving away from that style, and almost seems as if it is being developed alongside a new campaign setting which is intended to be the default, and which is very different from the "generic" Greyhawk-style flavor.



Does Greyhawk's "generic" flavor stem from an inherently generic quality, or from the fact that it is the accepted "generic"?

[Rachel Lorelei]

Exactly--the setting default we've seen so far doesn't seem any less generic than Greyhawk (with its artifacts and powerful beings, like Vecna and Kas and the hand/eye and sword of each respectively; its NPCs, like Mordenkainen; its people, like the Suel and their goddess (which is why the default pantheon has Wee Jas and Boccob as gods of magic).

[kamikasei]

I agree somewhat - they do seem to be developing a whole new "campaign setting" complete with a history, the role of this god or that in the development of this race or that, past empires etc. But it doesn't feel all that un-generic. While they've messed around with the cosmology, the new cosmology is in many ways more generic and modular. The history is a fairly malleable thing that amounts to "ancient empires now fallen, scattered settlements in a hostile world, go adventure". The stuff about the races and gods isn't that different from the histories given in 3.5.

I think what's really happening is that they're making things more coherent. They're trying to construct a world which answers questions like "why haven't the elves taken over everything" while keeping the answers as generic as possible.

It remains to see how much the specific fluff of the default setting will influence the mechanics of the races, which I foresee being the biggest potential pitfall. If all the fluff about gods and empires and rebellion amounts to little more than "elves are wise and perceptive and good shots; eladrin have innate ties to the Feywild" it won't matter much. My real concerns will be the Tieflings and Dragonborn, who may get over-specified.

[Kurald Galain]

While Greyhawk may have been the "default" setting in earlier editions, it was not in fact part of the Player's Handbook.

Unlike any earlier edition of D&D, 4th ed is putting an actual setting in the PHB (with, among others, half a dozen "fallen empires" as a mandatory part of its history). This means that now, a DM who wants to use his own campaign setting has to explicitly specify which parts of the player's handbook are applicable - unlike in any earlier edition, where it was simply "all of it".

[Doglord]

What angers me about 4ed is that I have 15 3.5 books and its a bit of a waste for them to become redundant.

[Rachel Lorelei]

While Greyhawk may have been the "default" setting in earlier editions, it was not in fact part of the Player's Handbook.

Unlike any earlier edition of D&D, 4th ed is putting an actual setting in the PHB (with, among others, half a dozen "fallen empires" as a mandatory part of its history). This means that now, a DM who wants to use his own campaign setting has to explicitly specify which parts of the player's handbook are applicable - unlike in any earlier edition, where it was simply "all of it".

That's just plain untrue--what about the 3.x pantheon, for example? "All of it" was very rarely true.

[ghost_warlock]

What angers me about 4ed is that I have 15 3.5 books and its a bit of a waste for them to become redundant.

LOL What about all of us who also have OD&D, 1st ed., and/or 2nd ed books jammed in closets somewhere?

[Mr. Friendly]

What angers me about 4ed is that I have 15 3.5 books and its a bit of a waste for them to become redundant.

I at least understand that arguement more than the various 4e = WoW/Anime/Evil arguements.

[kamikasei]

Unlike any earlier edition of D&D, 4th ed is putting an actual setting in the PHB (with, among others, half a dozen "fallen empires" as a mandatory part of its history). This means that now, a DM who wants to use his own campaign setting has to explicitly specify which parts of the player's handbook are applicable - unlike in any earlier edition, where it was simply "all of it".

As Rachael says, what about, say, Vecna and Kas, or Corellon and Grummsh, or various other imported Greyhawkisms?

Let's review what we know about the default setting of 4e so far:


The cosmology has been greatly simplified into one Elemental Chaos containing The Abyss, an Astral Sea containing the gods' abodes, the Shadowfell, and the Feywild. Only the Feywild is truly "new" here, and it's basically a fluffed-up fey-inhabited Ethereal Plane.
There will be elves and drow, just like before, separated by a rebellion involving Lolth.
"Elves" will be subdivided into elves and eladrin, one in the world and one in the Feywild, which is still quite generic assuming your home setting keeps the revised cosmology, and to my eyes makes more sense than one uber-race of hyper-competent long-lived elves who manage to live in the normal world without ever achieving real power.
The default setting is one of powerful past empires of various races and present diaspora. Makes sense from a setting point of view. The "points of light" idea is about as malleable as you can get, and the past empires shouldn't have any reason to be rigid or inflexible in their arrangment.
New races are Tieflings and Dragonborn. Both had past empires. Both are what in 3ed would be half-somethings or something-touched members of other races, but are now their own race which breeds true.


Really, this last is the only one that's going to make it less generic. An entire race of demon-folk or dragon-kin, both supposed to have empires in the past? It's a departure, yeah. But how hard it'll be to drop will depend on the mechanics of the races, of which we haven't seen much yet. If the new races get some sort of bonuses that only make sense fluff-wise as "holdovers from their former empire" (and who knows what those might be) then they could be run more or less like regular 3ed Tieflings and Half-Dragons.

The point is, while the fluff being described is quite different to Greyhawk, it is in many ways more generic.

[Kurald Galain]

The cosmology
That's not in the player's handbook.



There will be elves and drow, just like before, separated by a rebellion involving Lolth.
Drow are not in the player's handbook either.



The default setting is one of powerful past empires of various races and present diaspora.
And that wasn't in the player's handbook either.

Now you are talking about "does it make sense", which is a whole diffferent cup of tea, as we were talking about fluff vs. crunch. Yes, there are some things that didn't make sense in 3E, and appear to be better now. But, there are also some things that did make sense in 3E, and do not make sense in fourth. So the argument "4E makes more sense than 3E" is inherently flawed.

[Morty]

What I'm really inerested in is how are they going to fit new elves, tieflings and dragonborn into existing settings. Will they pop in, or will they reflavor them? New elves & eladrin don't fit Faerunian "elven subrace for every occasion" very well.

[Reel On, Love]

What I'm really inerested in is how are they going to fit new elves, tieflings and dragonborn into existing settings. Will they pop in, or will they reflavor them? New elves & eladrin don't fit Faerunian "elven subrace for every occasion" very well.

The subraces are going to become just flavor in 4E. I'm guessing the Eladrin are just "high elves" and Faerun's high elves become Eladrin while the wild/wood elves become, well, Elves.

Tieflings already exist in FR, and Dragonborn shouldn't be too hard to introduce.

[kamikasei]

That's not in the player's handbook.
Drow are not in the player's handbook either.
And that wasn't in the player's handbook either.

Now you are talking about "does it make sense", which is a whole diffferent cup of tea, as we were talking about fluff vs. crunch. Yes, there are some things that didn't make sense in 3E, and appear to be better now. But, there are also some things that did make sense in 3E, and do not make sense in fourth. So the argument "4E makes more sense than 3E" is inherently flawed.

Okay, let me see if I can summarize your position correctly: the PHB should be an interface and the DMG, MM, and the DM's homebrew in the setting should be the implementation, so a player can pick up the PHB and create a character sight unseen of the setting, then bring it to the DM who'll say "well, you want to play an elf ranger who grew up in the woodlands, that means you should be from place X because that's where the sylvan elves hang out..." and so on.

Is that correct? Close?

But I don't think that works well, and I don't think it exists in 3.5 anyway. The PHB has assumptions about the cosmology, default setting, etc. embedded in the races, pantheon, magic etc. Spells talk about the Ethereal Plane, the Plane of Shadow, and so on. The pantheon has actual history between the gods and races. The races are described as they appear in the default setting.

If in your home setting Elves abhor arcane magic and Dwarves are the lorekeepers and wizards, you'll need to tell your players that that overrides the assumptions in the PHB. If there's no Plane of Shadow, they'll probably want to know that too. If there's only one god and a handful of demon lords with deity-like power, that's gonna affect how a cleric plays his character.

My point is that the descriptions in the PHB don't exist in a vacuum. They describe the races and other player-end game elements as they exist in the default setting. To the extent that a DM's game diverges from the default setting, he has to inform the players of that.

I'm not suggesting that 4e makes more sense than 3e overall. I'm saying that it looks to me like the default setting will be simultaneously generic enough and coherent/consistent enough that you can create a setting which preserves almost all its assumptions without having "this doesn't make sense" issues crop up and force you to diverge to address them.

[TheOOB]

Introducing dragonborn or tieflings into a world isn't hard, you just say they are a rare thing that happens via magic and there aren't enough of them to significantly affect world history and politics, done.

While I will miss greyhawk as the default setting, as greyhawk is my favorite setting, I see no problem with what they are mentioning thus far. All I'm seeing is a bunch of mentions of generic flavor and backstory that seem to have little to nothing to do with the acual game mechanics, and seem to serve up the purpose of a)setting up a campaign setting they will eventually sell, and b)giving you advice on how to role play those races/classes/gods/ect. I see no evidence that they are shoehorning you into some exotic overly specific campaign setting.

Also, there is one key point here, no one has seen the player's handbook yet, so no one knows what it's going to be like, we're operating on pure speculation here, and beings most of us are D&D fanboys/girls we are being a little overcautious about what WotC is doing to our beloved D&D franchise.

[Talya]

My issues with 4e:

"Fluff" changes
The boxed campaign worlds such as Faerun and Eberron, and to a lesser extent, Greyhawk, and the defunct settings such as Krynn, have already come to rely on existing "fluff." You do not change demons to devils, rewrite all the races, and rearrange cosmology in core books--you do that in new campaign settings. The proper way to do this is translate all the existing fluff to a new rule system. You don't rewrite it all from scratch.

Min-maxing/"munchkin" reduction
Saga edition of star wars is irritating this way...you really can't do the same level of outrageous stacking of abilities the way you could in previous incarnations of d20. Why? If people didn't like the min-maxing, it never would have happened in 3.x edition. Seems to me they're dumbing it down to make every possible choice equally viable (which will never work. Ayn Rand reigns supreme.) Most of us liked to come up with a character concept in advance, then build to match it. This limited outrageous min-maxing, but still allowed us to optimize the best way to match that design. I forsee all this going the way of Saga Edition, with the changes I've seen.

"Balancing" things
"Yay! My half orc is now just as good as that pansy elf!" Why should they be balanced? Seriously...why should an ugly, stupid, sub-human bastard peice of cannon-fodder trash be as good as a near-immortal, wise and graceful elder-race? If your father was a pathetic orc, expect to share traits with a pathetic orc! They were never meant to be balanced. Don't forget, these games all draw from Tolkien as their source. Balancing Elrond with even an Uruk'hai would be idiocy. Now, if you are coming up with a new campaign setting...say, for instance, d20 Warcraft (which already exists), balancing orcs and elves is more appropriate. But once again, they are creating the rules first and foremost for existing settings, not any new ones.



I have always had "issues" with d20 rules, but the 4e stuff I've seen hasn't addressed the problems I see, and instead tries to fix a whole lot of stuff that wasn't broken to start with.

[kamikasei]

"Balancing" things
"Yay! My half orc is now just as good as that pansy elf!" Why should they be balanced? Seriously...why should an ugly, stupid, sub-human bastard peice of cannon-fodder trash be as good as a near-immortal, wise and graceful elder-race? If your father was a pathetic orc, expect to share traits with a pathetic orc! They were never meant to be balanced. Don't forget, these games all draw from Tolkien as their source. Balancing Elrond with even an Uruk'hai would be idiocy. Now, if you are coming up with a new campaign setting...say, for instance, d20 Warcraft (which already exists), balancing orcs and elves is more appropriate. But once again, they are creating the rules first and foremost for existing settings, not any new ones.

Well, geez. What are you after? Elves forbidden to PCs? Half-orcs forbidden to PCs? Both available, but if you play a half-orc, you're just screwed?

You're actually arguing that of two characters, one an elf and one a half-orc, both built to be effective whatevers - fighters, I guess - one should simply be crap at it, because you like elves more?

[Talya]

Well, geez. What are you after? Elves forbidden to PCs? Half-orcs forbidden to PCs? Both available, but if you play a half-orc, you're just screwed?

You're actually arguing that of two characters, one an elf and one a half-orc, both built to be effective whatevers - fighters, I guess - one should simply be crap at it, because you like elves more?



I'm arguing that 3.x already does elves and halforcs appropriately for the fluff behind them. Not everything needs to be balanced perfectly. If the difference becomes too great (Say, Averiel elves or the like) you add a level adjustment to account for the bonuses.

For the record, I tend to play humans. But note that Orcs are supposed to be "subhuman."

[Morty]

I'm arguing that 3.x already does elves and halforcs appropriately for the fluff behind them. Not everything needs to be balanced perfectly.


If two races are PC races, they're supposed to be balanced. If designer wanted to create a race that's pathetic, weak etc. to make players who play elves feel better, it shouldn't be player race. It's already like that in 3.x- orcs and goblinoid are weaker than PHB races, but they aren't PC races. Now, if it were up to me, I'd drop the whole "PC or NPC race" crap and create all races equal.

[Logos7]

sounds like your issues isn't with 4e its with non tolkien lit.

and why should trash orcs balance with elves and fighters with wizards ?

Because as a play if i'm presented an option it should be an option. If your like you can do A, but A is completely underpowered, inferior, and generally sucks compared to B what your really saying is You can do A, but dont. I don't think its fun to play samwise to B's Frodo so your left with a whole bunch of Frodo's

This both breaks versimiltude and good fiction or something like that which is the only way I can concieve to justify that elfs must be good at everything cause they rock. Thats the story and your sticking to it, great really good for you.

The rest of us will be playing a game, that is fair to all players and only hopefully emphasises options , not lack thereof.

And people wonder where Elf Hate comes from, I mean for real.

[kamikasei]

I'm arguing that 3.x already does elves and halforcs appropriately for the fluff behind them. Not everything needs to be balanced perfectly. If the difference becomes too great (Say, Averiel elves or the like) you add a level adjustment to account for the bonuses.

For the record, I tend to play humans. But note that Orcs are supposed to be "subhuman."

Elves are supposed to be "better" than humans, in Tolkien; how come humans aren't worthless trash by comparison in D&D?

Where is it said that Orcs are meant to be "subhuman" in the sense of physically inferior or less capable as warriors? In Tolkien they were ugly, brutish, unpleasant, and generally "subhuman" in a moral, spiritual, etc. sense. There was no suggestion that your average Man of Rohan should be able to fight and defeat your average orc.

[Mr. Friendly]

Oh thank the grab-bag of Gods of 4e. Someone looking for a fight.


My issues with 4e:

Your issues with a game that hasn't been released and have already set your mind against, as evidenced in the rest of your post...


"Fluff" changes
The boxed campaign worlds such as Faerun and Eberron, and to a lesser extent, Greyhawk, and the defunct settings such as Krynn, have already come to rely on existing "fluff." You do not change demons to devils, rewrite all the races, and rearrange cosmology in core books--you do that in new campaign settings. The proper way to do this is translate all the existing fluff to a new rule system. You don't rewrite it all from scratch.

They changed *a* demon to a devil, the succubus. Which was already the same thing as an Erinyes. Now tll me, how exactly can there be two identical creatures, who use the same tactics and the same agenda accurately depict opposing creatures that are (supposedly) virtual opposites of each other? One is supposed to be the pure incarnation of Chaos and Evil, the other Law and Evil. Succubi, as Devils, makes infinite more sense, since the plans they carry out require far too much planning and methodology to warrent them being the embodiment of Chaos and Destruction that Demons are supposed to represent.

As for the changes to Cosmology... you are sooooo right on this one. They shouldn't include a default Cosmology in Core, everyone knows nobody ever travels the planes. Plus, I think we all know that not a single Campaign setting has a different Cosmology. In fact, I think they are all 100% exactly the same. Except Faerun. And Eberron. And Krynn. And Dark Sun. But Greyhawk... now it is exactly like the default Cosmology of, umm, Greyhawk.


Min-maxing/"munchkin" reduction
Saga edition of star wars is irritating this way...you really can't do the same level of outrageous stacking of abilities the way you could in previous incarnations of d20. Why? If people didn't like the min-maxing, it never would have happened in 3.x edition. Seems to me they're dumbing it down to make every possible choice equally viable (which will never work. Ayn Rand reigns supreme.) Most of us liked to come up with a character concept in advance, then build to match it. This limited outrageous min-maxing, but still allowed us to optimize the best way to match that design. I forsee all this going the way of Saga Edition, with the changes I've seen.

Translation: I'm a powergaming munchkin and I don't want my characters nerfed?

And what's the Ayn Rand thing supposed to mean? That there should only be one strong race/class and all others should suck, no matter how incompetant the player? I think Ayn Rand would rather like a game system where everyone is given the same starting tools and it is up to the individual players talents and skill to create the 'better' character. Of course given that D&D is a non-competative game, this sounds like non-starting non-sequitor to me.


"Balancing" things
"Yay! My half orc is now just as good as that pansy elf!" Why should they be balanced? Seriously...why should an ugly, stupid, sub-human bastard peice of cannon-fodder trash be as good as a near-immortal, wise and graceful elder-race? If your father was a pathetic orc, expect to share traits with a pathetic orc! They were never meant to be balanced. Don't forget, these games all draw from Tolkien as their source. Balancing Elrond with even an Uruk'hai would be idiocy. Now, if you are coming up with a new campaign setting...say, for instance, d20 Warcraft (which already exists), balancing orcs and elves is more appropriate. But once again, they are creating the rules first and foremost for existing settings, not any new ones.

Yes, because I am quite certain that not a single orc, in the whole of Tolkien ever killed an elf. Yep, not like the heroes of Middle-Earth were ever shielded by plot...


I have always had "issues" with d20 rules, but the 4e stuff I've seen hasn't addressed the problems I see, and instead tries to fix a whole lot of stuff that wasn't broken to start with.

Yeah, fixing CoDzilla and Batman are pretyy low-priority.

[Talya]

sounds like your issues isn't with 4e its with non tolkien lit.


Not at all. I referenced the Warcraft setting as a setting where it's specifically appropriate for orcs (which, in Warcraft, are a very noble and proud warrior race) to be every bit the equal of elves.

That is not the case in the campaign settings they are building 4e for. These worlds are already fleshed out. If you were building a middle-earth game and made orcs and goblins a match for elves, people would think you were on crack.

Likewise, with Faerun and the other established settings that 4e is being designed for, Orcs are subhuman. If you want to play a half orc, be prepared, on average, to be a stupid, ugly lummox who has only one useful trait; the ability to bash things "real gud."

I have no issues with new campaign settings that change this. My issues are when you change the rules for an existing campaign setting in ways that violate the "fluff" for the setting.

[Morty]

Likewise, with Faerun and the other established settings that 4e is being designed for, Orcs are subhuman. If you want to play a half orc, be prepared, on average, to be a stupid, ugly lummox who has only one useful trait; the ability to bash things "real gud."


Orcs are "subhuman" because they're savage, brutal and uncivilized. But they're in no way psychically weaker than elves or humans. Their subhuman status is based on their culture, but it doesn't mean half-orc is supposed to have worse abilities than elf. Also, as much as I like FR, Eberron's treatment of orcs and goblinoids is ten times better anyway.
And it's not like it's relevant here- there are no half-orcs in 4ed, and "monster" races may very well not get stats at all.

[kamikasei]

That is not the case in the campaign settings they are building 4e for. These worlds are already fleshed out. If you were building a middle-earth game and made orcs and goblins a match for elves, people would think you were on crack.

Neither half-orc nor orcs are even in the 4e PHB. I haven't heard anything about changes being made to them for 4e, and under the new monster system, they'll likely be either "standard" or "mook" monsters, designed to be thrown one-on-one (ie, four per encounter) or in higher numbers against the party and be defeated handily. So where the hell are you getting this from?


Likewise, with Faerun and the other established settings that 4e is being designed for, Orcs are subhuman. If you want to play a half orc, be prepared, on average, to be a stupid, ugly lummox who has only one useful trait; the ability to bash things "real gud."

Tell that to the natives of the Eldeen Reaches, you bigot. Faerun isn't the only established campaign setting.


I have no issues with new campaign settings that change this. My issues are when you change the rules for an existing campaign setting in ways that violate the "fluff" for the setting.

Forgotten Realms already changes features of the races that inhabit it from their 3.5 PHB incarnations. So what if it has to make different changes to different races for 4e?

[Talya]

They changed *a* demon to a devil, the succubus.

They changed the most important type of demon...the very epitome of chaos itself, a demon of of that most chaotic emotion, Lust, into a devil.

Demons represent the eternal chaos of the abyss, devils are those lawful celestial beings assigned to battle the abyss that were corrupted. You can't change the most useful and chaotic of demons to a devil with any sense of logic.


Translation: I'm a powergaming munchkin and I don't want my characters nerfed?


Yeah, fixing CoDzilla and Batman are pretyy low-priority.

I think they are pretty low-priority. I've never been able to stomach playing any of those three classes. The closest I've come is sorceress. I usually play bards or light dexterity-based melee types. I've never felt useless or overmatched because of it. (Although it should come as no surprise that my main issues with the d20 system are related to the mechanics of melee combat.)



And what's the Ayn Rand thing supposed to mean?
It means no matter how you try to "balance" things so there are no superior choices, players will end up finding a way to optimize. And at first, it will be ugly...until they release new rules to further customize different builds into optimized characters thanks to the outcry of having only a few decent builds able to be well optimized, etc. Excellence cannot be contained.



Yes, because I am quite certain that not a single orc, in the whole of Tolkien ever killed an elf.

"The mightiest of men may be slain by a single arrow. Boromir was peirced by many."

Of course many individuals of the good races fell to orcs. That didn't make orcs their equal, in any way. An average orc may have been a superior soldier to the average human simply because all orcs were combatants while most humans were not, but that's more a factor of, in 3.x game terms, all orcs being warriors, while most humans were commoners.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

World-setting fluff isn't an argument for disliking a rules system, really.

I joined 3.x from a game that repeatedly told me to make up my own settings. I find the default setting of 3.x stifling (I've never liked using pre-published settings: your players can end up better informed than you if you don't keep spending on the latest books), and I've largely by-passed it to use my OD&D setting with the 3.x rules.

Whatever 4th Ed does, the setting will not deter me from trying it out. If I like it, I may start the process of editing my own setting to fit the new rules - again...

It seems to me that aside from a bunch of changes to the crunch (simplifying the skills and feats, changing some classes, adding or deleting races, changing the spell casting system...) - which WotC aren't going to tell us all about in detail ('cause then who'd need to buy their books in July?) - all they actually have left to tell us is the new fluff.
New fluff makes for interesting articles without telling the reverse-engineering crew how to write their own copy of the 4th Ed PHB.

[Starsinger]

They changed the most important type of demon...the very epitome of chaos itself, a demon of of that most chaotic emotion, Lust, into a devil.

Demons represent the eternal chaos of the abyss, devils are those lawful celestial beings assigned to battle the abyss that were corrupted. You can't change the most useful and chaotic of demons to a devil with any sense of logic.

Ahh, but a Succubus isn't the embodiment of lust. A Succubus is the embodiment of Seduction, which is applied lust. And application doesn't mesh very well with the 3.5 ideal of Chaos. Chaos in this case is "Things happen because I make waves." Law in this case is "Things happen because I made the specific incident happen to suit my goals."

Succubi are temptresses, they do not seduce via Girls Gone Wild antics. They approach someone, methodically, and flaunt their feminine (or masculine.. shapechange is nifty) wiles. Infact, their ability to change gender speaks more towards lawfulness, if at first you don't succeed, switch the bait.






I think they are pretty low-priority. I've never been able to stomach playing any of those three classes. The closest I've come is sorceress. I usually play bards or light dexterity-based melee types. I've never felt useless or overmatched because of it. (Although it should come as no surprise that my main issues with the d20 system are related to the mechanics of melee combat.) I mean no disrespect by this but.. so what? Because you don't play Wizards/Clerics/Druids they're low priority on the "FIX ME" list? That's awfully selfish.. although if you become president of Hasbro or WotC then you have my go ahead to demand that the things you personally want fixed are given highest priority, over what's actually broken.




It means no matter how you try to "balance" things so there are no superior choices, players will end up finding a way to optimize. And at first, it will be ugly...until they release new rules to further customize different builds into optimized characters thanks to the outcry of having only a few decent builds able to be well optimized, etc. Excellence cannot be contained.
Optimization is one thing. Munchkinism is another. There's a difference between two weapon fighting for double the sneak attack damage, and a ridiculously cheesy twink build that requires no less than 12 splat books to pull off. Noone said Optimization was dying.



"The mightiest of men may be slain by a single arrow. Boromir was peirced by many."

Of course many individuals of the good races fell to orcs. That didn't make orcs their equal, in any way. An average orc may have been a superior soldier to the average human simply because all orcs were combatants while most humans were not, but that's more a factor of, in 3.x game terms, all orcs being warriors, while most humans were commoners.
Talya, darling, this is not (Thank God) Tolkien d20. This is D&D 4E. Tolkien and his works may be inspiration, but they are not the be all end all. They have a game you might want to look into. It's the Lord of the Rings roleplaying game. Wherein Elves are much better than humans, and orcs are relegated to being monstrous brutes which "hit stuffz gud"

[Talya]

I mean no disrespect by this but.. so what? Because you don't play Wizards/Clerics/Druids they're low priority on the "FIX ME" list? That's awfully selfish.. although if you become president of Hasbro or WotC then you have my go ahead to demand that the things you personally want fixed are given highest priority, over what's actually broken.



I didn't say I don't play with them. I said I don't play them myself. They're low on the priority list because they do not break my parties. I'm just as useful as they are. For all the screaming here about Codzilla and Batman, it just never works out that way with a decent DM. The main reason, is vancian spellcasting is so limiting, that anyone who claims to be able to be "batman" is talking out their ass...whatever they have memorized will never be sufficient if the DM designs encounters with that in mind. Furthermore, while people are fond of explaining why clerics and druids can be such great melee types, in reality, they are never quite as good as an equivalently levelled fighter, and if they try to be, they are a crappy divine spellcaster because there are more important things for them to be doing. The reality of how it all plays out never matches the extremes of which people claim them to be imbalanced.



Optimization is one thing. Munchkinism is another. There's a difference between two weapon fighting for double the sneak attack damage, and a ridiculously cheesy twink build that requires no less than 12 splat books to pull off. Noone said Optimization was dying.

Based on Star Wars Saga as a model, if that's the feel they are going with, optimization will be far more limited. As a jedi, for example, your elective talents and feats are few and far between, it's going to take you 13+ levels just to get the many you absolutely need in order to be reasonably effective. There is precious little room for optimization.



Talya, darling, this is not (Thank God) Tolkien d20. This is D&D 4E. Tolkien and his works may be inspiration, but they are not the be all end all. They have a game you might want to look into. It's the Lord of the Rings roleplaying game. Wherein Elves are much better than humans, and orcs are relegated to being monstrous brutes which "hit stuffz gud"

Once again, as I've stated, i have no problems with alternate campaign settings. But like it or not, Forgotten Realms is the main campaign setting for D&D, and those tertiary ones like Greyhawk/Oerth, and Eberron are also already defined, and they have shared Tolkien's racial stylings in this regard, although elves are toned down to be equal to human. There's a reason why half-orcs in 3.x are a good choice for only fighters and barbarians.

[Attilargh]

What angers me about 4ed is that I have 15 3.5 books and its a bit of a waste for them to become redundant.
Oh crap, I just bought a copy of the Legend of the Five Rings, and now this! I hope the book won't spontaneously combust!

Seriously, is discontinuing an absurdly vast rule system really that bad? You've got fifteen books already, and the ones already published probably won't disappear from the shelves of your local gaming store anytime soon. It is not the end of cake, but merely the end of baking.

[kamikasei]

But like it or not, Forgotten Realms is the main campaign setting for D&D

Well, this looks like being one of the major foundations of this disagreement, because I don't consider that true and I suspect others arguing against you here don't, either.

FR may be the largest or most popular setting, but it is not the "main" setting in any sense. It differs in many ways from core D&D, and will do so again in 4e, so what matter if 4e core contradicts it?

And quite aside from all that: what information about 4e orcs or half-orcs do you even have?

[Sleet]

As Rachael says, what about, say, Vecna and Kas, or Corellon and Grummsh, or various other imported Greyhawkisms?

Those serial numbers are easily filed off. When I need to take a feat called "Golden Wyvern Adept," - despite a) my campaign setting doesn't have an organization like that, and b) I have no idea what in the nine layers of the abyss a Golden Wyvern Adept is (as opposed to "Shape Spell," which while I might still need to look up details once in a while still tells me "This feat allows you to shape spells") - when that's a feat on my character sheet, my other campaign setting is now a lot more work to use. (Edit: Not to mention the barrier to entering the game for casual players is much higher.)

I'm a Dragonlance fan. (I know, not popular 'round these parts, but it works for me.) It doesn't use Mordenkainen. It doesn't use the Great Wheel. It doesn't use the PHB pantheon. 3.5 works just fine, because when I file off the 3.5 PHB serial numbers there's enough left to be useful (Mordenkainen's disjunction[i] becomes just [i]disjunction, etc.)

I think 4e will introduce a lot of positive changes. 3.5 is far from perfect. But I'm worried that any setting other than the default, the Realms, and Eberron will be difficult to use, and that even those settings will all start to look the same.

[Attilargh]

Based on Star Wars Saga as a model, if that's the feel they are going with, optimization will be far more limited. As a jedi, for example, your elective talents and feats are few and far between, it's going to take you 13+ levels just to get the many you absolutely need in order to be reasonably effective. There is precious little room for optimization.
What? By level 13, you've got seven talents and eleven feats. You're not reasonably effective, you're running out of decent options already! If you pay any attention when building the character, you can go Yoda on any given unfortunates who happen to cross your path.

[Talya]

What? By level 13, you've got seven talents and eleven feats. You're not reasonably effective, you're running out of decent options already! If you pay any attention when building the character, you can go Yoda on any given unfortunates who happen to cross your path.



i'm saying, by level 13, you haven't taken much elective yet, without intentionally "gimping" your character. (And for the record, you've only got 8 feats--Jedi Knight and Jedi Master don't give bonus feats.)

Absolutely required talents: Block, Deflect, Weapon Specialization (for Juyo)Soresu, Juyo
Absolutely required feats: Skill Focus (Use the Force), Force Training x2 Weapon Focus (for Juyo), Rapid Strike, Running Attack
Highly Recommended: Redirect, Shii-Cho, Melee Defense, Improved Defenses

And, assuming you didn't have a crapload of trained skills to start with, you're likely to also need either Force Perception or Force Initiative...either that or take some Skill Training feats. It's going to vary somewhat depending on your starting ability scores. You might need Finesse and Ataru if you're primarily dexterity based (but in that case might be able to skip melee defense)

That's just for basic combat, and a jedi should be about far more than basic combat.

(And even then, they had to stick the equalizer in there: the stun grenade in the hands of a CR2 goon will still make a jedi's life miserable.)

[Deepblue706]

I wish 4ed would be more "generic" - but that's okay, I can still always play GURPS.

Plus, when playing D&D, I rarely use default background material in the first place, unless it's absolutely meaningless to change. I'm guessing that using 4ed will actually be no different to me than using earlier editions, except I'll probably have to make a few tiny name adjustments... (I just hate "Gold Wyvern Adept", or whatever-the-crap it's called)

[Dausuul]

My issues with 4e:"Fluff" changes
The boxed campaign worlds such as Faerun and Eberron, and to a lesser extent, Greyhawk, and the defunct settings such as Krynn, have already come to rely on existing "fluff." You do not change demons to devils, rewrite all the races, and rearrange cosmology in core books--you do that in new campaign settings. The proper way to do this is translate all the existing fluff to a new rule system. You don't rewrite it all from scratch.

I don't see a lot of rewriting of the races going on. Dwarves and halflings are staying essentially the same. Elves are also staying essentially the same; it's just a shift in emphasis. Previously we had five major elf subraces--high, grey, wild, wood, dark--distinguished only by slight stat tweaks. 4E is recognizing that there aren't really enough differences between the high elf and the grey elf to justify separate stats, nor between the wild elf and the wood elf (I never could figure out what the difference between those two was supposed to be, anyway). On the other hand, there are wide conceptual gulfs between the high/grey elves and the wild/wood elves, and between both of those and the drow. So the high/grey elves are now eladrin, the wild/wood elves are now elves, and the drow get their own race. Gnomes are no longer being statted out as a PC race, but that's not the same as rewriting them.

As far as the monsters go, we haven't seen that many changes. About the only major one is the elimination of erinyes and succubi being changed to devils. I fail to see how either of these will have a big impact on the standard campaign settings.

And cosmology--wha? Forgotten Realms and Eberron both use radically different cosmologies from the standard "Great Wheel." That being the case, I don't see how the 4E cosmology changes are going to affect them in the slightest. They had their own cosmologies to begin with. Likewise Dragonlance. Greyhawk will probably undergo some tweaking, true.


"Balancing" things
"Yay! My half orc is now just as good as that pansy elf!" Why should they be balanced? Seriously...why should an ugly, stupid, sub-human bastard peice of cannon-fodder trash be as good as a near-immortal, wise and graceful elder-race? If your father was a pathetic orc, expect to share traits with a pathetic orc! They were never meant to be balanced. Don't forget, these games all draw from Tolkien as their source. Balancing Elrond with even an Uruk'hai would be idiocy. Now, if you are coming up with a new campaign setting...say, for instance, d20 Warcraft (which already exists), balancing orcs and elves is more appropriate. But once again, they are creating the rules first and foremost for existing settings, not any new ones.

D&D is not and has never been primarily based on Tolkien. Robert E. Howard, Jack Vance, and Michael Moorcock had far more influence on the game. The only places where there's significant Tolkien influence are some of the races/monsters, and the existence of the ranger class; and even those have diverged significantly from their roots. Elves, for example, were consistently been described as shorter than humans in the first three editions, which does not square at all with Tolkien, and they have always had limited lifespans. Halflings and rangers pretty much cut all their ties with Tolkien in 3E. Tolkien's orcs were shorter than humans, but D&D orcs are big and brawny, much more like Warcraft orcs. And so on, and on.

Existing settings follow the D&D fluff for the most part, not Tolkien. Forgotten Realms elves are not Tolkien-style super-elves, nor are Dragonlance elves, nor Greyhawk elves. They're D&D elves. Same with orcs. Since elves are generally more intelligent than orcs, better organized, and have more high-level casters on their side, and since elf/orc conflicts usually take place on the elves' home ground, orc casualties are usually pretty high. But I've never seen anything in the standard D&D settings to suggest that a typical elf ought to consistently win a one-on-one battle with a typical orc on open ground.

[Talya]

Succubi are demons, not devils!
Eladrin are chaotic good celestials, not arcane elves!

Those are major changes that have a huge effect on cosmology all by themselves.

[Starsinger]

Succubi are demons, not devils!
Eladrin are chaotic good celestials, not arcane elves!

Those are major changes that have a huge effect on cosmology all by themselves.

Uhh.. no? The Law-Chaos axis is a joke, Eladrin in 3.5 are very elfy. Look through the book of Ed. And specifically as to whether the Succubus is a demon or devil, what's in a name?

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

"Balancing" things
"Yay! My half orc is now just as good as that pansy elf!" Why should they be balanced? Seriously...why should an ugly, stupid, sub-human bastard peice of cannon-fodder trash be as good as a near-immortal, wise and graceful elder-race? If your father was a pathetic orc, expect to share traits with a pathetic orc! They were never meant to be balanced. Don't forget, these games all draw from Tolkien as their source. Balancing Elrond with even an Uruk'hai would be idiocy. Now, if you are coming up with a new campaign setting...say, for instance, d20 Warcraft (which already exists), balancing orcs and elves is more appropriate. But once again, they are creating the rules first and foremost for existing settings, not any new ones.

Racism is okay because it's fantasy!
Honestly, though, this is a crock of poorly thought-out ****; the reason that pathetic orc is pathetic is because he has no class levels. Balancing the King of the Elves with some orc foot soldier is dumb. By the same token, balancing the most powerful of the orc with some pointy-eared, frail, sub-human bastard piece of cannon fodder is dumb, too. Thinking elves should be outright better for players because you prefer their flavour is egocentric, non-sensical, and limiting.

EDIT: Ah, I now see that you follow Ayn Rand. Your mistake.

[Illeveun]

Ahh, but a Succubus isn't the embodiment of lust.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that Succubus are an embodiment of lust. It says so in the Monster Manual, and in most real world books about demons and devils, Succubi seem to be about both seduction and lust.

Anyways, I don't see what this is really about. If something doesn't work for you, change it, or ask your DM to change it. This rule, that race, just change it. If they don't have half orcs, and you like half orcs, then add them in.

[Dausuul]

Succubi are demons, not devils!
Eladrin are chaotic good celestials, not arcane elves!

Those are major changes that have a huge effect on cosmology all by themselves.

Um... no they're not. And no they don't.

The succubus is one monster. One. And not a particularly important one, either. Please name the campaign setting that will be significantly affected by moving her to the Nine Hells, and explain how exactly the move will affect that setting.

As for the eladrin, all of them together probably see even less use than the succubus. Again--what campaign setting is going to be affected by changes to the eladrin, and how?