PDA

View Full Version : Will you adopt 4e?



Zeb The Troll
2007-12-25, 12:30 AM
My GM had this to say in the Yahoo group set up for our tabletop game. I'm curious to see the responses from the erudite here.


I'm ready to say definitively - I will never play 4e. Here is why:


1. In Fourth Edition, we've totally revamped the math behind the system ... Characters no longer have different rates of progression for attack bonuses, armor class, and saving throws based on their class—these all progress at the same rate now. Every 10th level character will have a +5 bonus to AC, to hit, and all three saves,

2. More options ... easier for characters to swap out abilities much easier and try different things out. Each level from 1 – 30 each character will have interesting character development options to choose.

The core of the 4e system is the four basic types of character classes, with access to specific feats determining the differences between the classes.

First, Hasbro's D&D "brand manager" explained element #1 that they were making D&D more like an MMO. In (most) MMOs, character build is basically a shell game - you can make (very modest) improvements in your character by getting the best equipment, but 90% or more of your "combat prowess" is based on your level alone. In such games as LOTR or WoW level is almost the sole modifier. Your hit, damage, and armor class are all tied immutably to your level. This is how MMOs make sure you know which level monster to fight - it is not a delicate balancing game. They simply tie everything to level and if you fight something five levels higher than you you can barely hit it all and it eats you for lunch. Conversely, if you fight someything five levels lower, it can't hit you at all and you wipe the floor with it.

From a "balance perspective" this is a developers dream (and to a certain extent a GM's). But from a "fun" perspective - IMO "teh suck" is not nearly strong enough.

You see, conceptually, this moves the game one (or more) steps closer to a "coin toss". Strategy, surprise, and planning all take a serious back seat to the numbers, and the only number that really affects the outcome on a "well built" character is character level.

Once this notion is implemented, all you need is a rainbow colorcoding for each encounter (darker shades of blue = easier to kill while brighter shades of red = harder, with white being equally matched) and we will have successfully replicated the mindless button-mashing experience of the average MMO).

Bleh!

Second, Hasbro's manager ALSO explained #2 thus. He said that their market tests revealed that "players like feats" - in particular, they noticed with 3e that a splat book that had a bunch of new and interesting feats in it would sell very nicely, while one with few or none seemed to generate no interest at all. He (once again - Tweet, who wrote 3e said this all the time) invoked MTG in the notion that a feat was like a rare card that modified an action. So "EVERY CHARACTER LEVEL" will have some sort of feat option. This puts us right back in the same hole where we have lately been overwhelmed in the character generation and advancement process, and where anybody who knows HOW to play knows that you have to take feats x, y, z, a, b, and c, in that order, otherwise your character will be gimped.

Maybe its just me, but personally I hate feats.

I also hate rogues who can go toe-to-toe with power-hitting monsters and dish out more damage than the fighters round after round.

I also hate priests with beefy selections of AOE damage spells.

I also hate mages that get multiple attacks per round because they spent enough years studying spells.

I also hate spellcasters that cast spell after spell with 18 enemies standing in a circle around them and never have to bat an eye about whether the spell is going to go off.

I am seriously hating (with a passion) the type of mind-numbed idiot who natters on about how much he LOVES d&d when all "D&D" is is a trademark that is being put on a succession of unconnected and inferior role-playing products.

And .. finally, I hate Hasbro for their arrogance. Two reasons:
1.) They have announced they are rescinding the D20 license.
2) THIS AD:

Page 7, Issue #14-2008, Games for Windows Magazine
Full Page, White Text on Black Background

"Some companies offer dungeons.
Some companies offer dragons.
But since 1974, we've been the ONLY company,
To offer BOTH Dungeons & Dragons

Our Competitive Advantage Continues With These Fine Products"

[small picture of "3.5 Dungeon Survival Guide" and "3.5 Rules Compendium"]

Ironic arrogance? Arrogant irony? Competetive advantage?

COMPETETIVE ADVANTAGE - IN AN *AD*???

What kind of company writes and ad that says "We own the trademark - nyah nyah!"????

No ... I'll write my own gaming system before I play anything with the D&D "brand" on it again.

I've modified some of the language in the stronger opinions to make it postable here, but I've left it mostly intact.

Dhavaer
2007-12-25, 12:33 AM
I'm definately going to take a look at it.

SadisticFishing
2007-12-25, 12:33 AM
Have faith in Wizards and Blizzard. They've earned it.

The game is not going to be 3e anymore, that's for sure, but... I'd have thought that was obvious. Wizards knows what they're doing, look at the way their 3.5 stuff has progressed. Let them design what they want, and let's hear all the details before we start mouthing off at them.

So to answer your question, maybe. Depends how they do it, though chances are very high I'm going to be picking up the three core books.

JMobius
2007-12-25, 12:36 AM
I'll likely download a ripped PDF, survey it, and decide whether or not to buy it from there.

If the Star Wars SAGA edition is any indication of how 4E will be different, probably not, but I'll at least give it a shot.

Xefas
2007-12-25, 12:39 AM
I think it's a bit ironic to chastise someone for "arrogance" while simultaneously denouncing a product that hasn't even been released yet.

Sure, they've given us bits and pieces, but we don't know how it'll all come together yet.

It'll be hilarious if the Player's Handbook has:

"Characters no longer have different rates of progression for attack bonuses, armor class, and saving throws based on their class—these all progress at the same rate now."

-followed by a page of the best damn mechanics any living creature has even lain their eyes upon, completely justifying the above mechanic and making 4e the greatest game since bumping uglies.

I'm not saying it'll happen, but the probability is greater than 0, even if not by much.

Emperor Tippy
2007-12-25, 12:39 AM
I'll look at it but I have no idea whether or not I will adopt it.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-12-25, 12:41 AM
It's too early to say.

SadisticFishing
2007-12-25, 12:43 AM
Heh, so the clear answer is a resounding:

"Maybe!"

Mojo_Rat
2007-12-25, 12:45 AM
Generaly speaking I think your DM is confusing elements of modern game design. With things referencing MMO's. Its a comon derogatory reference that gets thrown around Which Honestly has no basis.

For one alot of the game mechanics that are in 4e are already in the SW Saga game And no one has claimed that it feels like your playing Wow. The fact is we really know nothing of the game having a hissy fit and worrying about it /until the game comes out/ is a waste of emotions.

Lastly, The post seems to address several things to a Hasbro representative. While i cannot say for sure this is likely blatantly /wrong/ companies dont work like That. It could have been a Wotc represenative. but the fact that Hasbro owns Wotcs is irelevant for this. If Im wrong there appologies.

That all Said I do have some persnal issue with the game but to be honest I had the same issues with 3rd edition. One element of the new introduction is that The game will functionall ybe a different game in alot of ways Its Simply the D&D brand but will it be the D&D game? who knows. As i said im not going to get into a tizzy over it. It hardly affects your life I have a friend whos managed to coninue playing 1st ed D&d just fine now for the last 20 years .

Dausuul
2007-12-25, 12:46 AM
To answer the question posed in the thread title: Yes, I will adopt 4E. If it turns out to utterly and completely suck, I'll go back to 3.5E, but I very much doubt that will be the case.

Now, to your friend's points:

First, I would like to register how utterly sick and tired I am of people saying "D&D is turning into an MMO!" as if this were any kind of coherent criticism of 4E. It's not. It's the equivalent of saying the game designers have cooties.

Second--yes, this is a "forced balance" approach. However, the idea that this reduces the game to a coin toss is preposterous. Good tactics and planning remain every bit as important as they were before. What's changed is that the importance of your character's "build" diminishes drastically. Your performance in combat is no longer dominated by your ability to pile up just the right mix of prestige classes, feats, and magic items. I fail to see why this is a problem. Just because MMOs do the same thing doesn't make it bad.

Third, as for the feats thing, this is a fairly sweeping conclusion to draw from a small bit of data.

Fourth, regarding the ad... um, dude. It's a joke. Chill.

And fifth, rescinding the d20 license--evidence please. I have seen no indication of any such thing.


My GM had this to say in the Yahoo group set up for our tabletop game. I'm curious to see the responses from the erudite here.



I've modified some of the language in the stronger opinions to make it postable here, but I've left it mostly intact.

Thinker
2007-12-25, 12:54 AM
I pretty much agree with Dausuul. I will probably buy it when it comes out and read through it. I will try it out with my gaming group and if we don't like it, give it up. I would like to see proof of rescinding the license. Tactics remain important, I have seen no evidence where this is not the case. Further, in MMOs, once you have slowed down in level progression gear becomes all important. In WoW a character in all level appropriate blue gear is far and above better than a character in all level appropriate green gear. I'm thrilled that DnD is moving further from requiring gear for characters to be effective.

Xuincherguixe
2007-12-25, 12:54 AM
I'd have to see it first to make any judgements, but the thing is that I don't want to spend a fortune on books.

graymachine
2007-12-25, 01:01 AM
Depends; will I get a check from the state every month for its cost of living?

I think that I'll pick up the books and probably play in a game at some point, but it seems that 4e and 3.5e are simply different enough to be considered seperate games, so I don't think 4e will be replacing any of my current D&D games any time soon.

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-25, 01:08 AM
Have faith in Wizards and Blizzard. They've earned it.

The game is not going to be 3e anymore, that's for sure, but... I'd have thought that was obvious. Wizards knows what they're doing, look at the way their 3.5 stuff has progressed. Let them design what they want, and let's hear all the details before we start mouthing off at them.

So to answer your question, maybe. Depends how they do it, though chances are very high I'm going to be picking up the three core books.See, that's my concern. Even before my GM posted that message, I did not like the direction "D&D" has been taking. I don't like that in 3e there are 48 thousand books on how to tweak your character and six on settings. I don't like having to throw away all of my books every 3-5 years in order to buy new ones. (I was grumpy at my 2ed collection suddenly becoming useless too, but at least it lasted me ten years.)

Of course the game isn't going to be 3e. But what I don't want is for my pen and paper to be my MMO. These things occupy seperate locations in my brain. That may be the reason I hated DDO when I played it during the beta, too.

I've not been tracking the release stuff about 4e because I was so appalled at the unveiling at GenCon last year (though getting a picture of me grappling the life sized troll statue was fun, but I digress). At that point I mentioned to those Playgrounders with me that it sounded like it was going to be "Magic: The RPG". I'm horrified at the way they're taking the roleplay out of my roleplay. At first they were just stripping the RP aspects and making it a numbers crunch. Now it sounds like they're taking the number crunch out of it too. What's next? Eliminating the stat rolls? All Human Fighters start with 18|12|14|10|8|10?

Perhaps my thread title is misleading, but I wasn't sure how to title it. More pointedly, for those of you following things more closely than I am, is there merit to what he's saying, whether you agree with the overall sentiment or not?

For all if it's complication, I miss 2ed.

@Mojo_Rat - I don't know his source, I'll ask, but I've known the guy long enough to believe that the MMO comment was not his and was actually used by someone in the decision making process. Whether the comparison is good or bad is a personal preference.
@Xefas - the arrogance comment was strictly directed at the advert.
@Dasuul - they announced at the unveiling at GenCon that they were no longer going to support the d20 licensing structure. I don't know if this is the same thing or not, but I heard that with my own ears. And the feats thing is definitely one man's opinion. We players like the feats too. What we don't like is having 700 to choose from with 30 more coming out each month. For that reason we've been strictly core for years now.
@Thinker - I think the point of his rant is that it will boil down to gear to get that last 10% of character effectiveness. A naked level 10 rogue will bear an insigificant difference to a level 10 fighter or a level 10 caster. Tactics will go by the wayside because the only really important thing is that you are faced with a 'level appropriate' encounter, blue to orange, if you will.

Finally - wow, this got a much faster response than I expected.

SadisticFishing
2007-12-25, 01:15 AM
How is this like an MMO?

There's still all the RP to it, and that's really the only thing that seperates the two, in my opinion.

Thinker
2007-12-25, 01:20 AM
@Thinker - I think the point of his rant is that it will boil down to gear to get that last 10% of character effectiveness. A naked level 10 rogue will bear an insigificant difference to a level 10 fighter or a level 10 caster. Tactics will go by the wayside because the only really important thing is that you are faced with a 'level appropriate' encounter, blue to orange, if you will.

So because everyone has the same base to-hit and defense tactics go by the wayside? There are still going to be modifiers to accuracy and defense and there are multiple defenses. Targeting an opponent's strong defense will yield crappier results than the weak defense. Also, how does this change that some opponents may be better off against hit & run tactics versus stand and fight tactics? What tactics are lost by this change?

Caewil
2007-12-25, 01:21 AM
I think you're a bunch of obnoxious 3.5 fanboys for knocking a product that hasn't even come out yet. Save your angst for when it arrives on shelves, then decide whether you want to buy it or not. But please, please don't pollute the internet with your whining.

*sight*


I've not been tracking the release stuff about 4e because I was so appalled at the unveiling at GenCon last year
So you haven't been following the development of 4E, but you somehow know enough to throw out unwarranted assumptions based on what... Hearsay? What your friend's friend told you?


I'm horrified at the way they're taking the roleplay out of my roleplay
What? New mechanics mean you can't roleplay your character the way you want? huh.


@Thinker - I think the point of his rant is that it will boil down to gear to get that last 10% of character effectiveness. A naked level 10 rogue will bear an insigificant difference to a level 10 fighter or a level 10 caster. Tactics will go by the wayside because the only really important thing is that you are faced with a 'level appropriate' encounter, blue to orange, if you will.
Why don't you wait for the game to come out before complaining? Seriously, unwarranted assumptions about gameplay here.

Solo
2007-12-25, 01:22 AM
I don't like what I have heard about 4e, but I shall prudently reserve my final judgment of the product until it has come out and I have had a chance to review it.

For all I know, it could come out different. Not good, not bad, not better, not worse, just different.

And that's just fine. If I like it, I'll have something new to play. If I don't I can continue with 3.5e.

I see no issues here.

Conjurer
2007-12-25, 01:41 AM
I'm also waiting to see the books before deciding whether to switch or not. Too early to tell, but I will say that of all the material previewed, I've only disliked the elven "perception aura"... and that's more of a minor annoyance than anything else.

Still, MoO3 looked really good right until the moment I started playing it on my computer, so who knows.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-12-25, 01:55 AM
First off, I haven't played enough D&D lately to make it worth the switch from 3.5 to 4th ed. I really would like to play more and once I get settled with a job (when I get it), I'll looking into seriously playing again. Besides I haven't gotten a book in a few years and there are a bunch of 3.5 books I'd like to get.

Now after reading Zeb's spoilered thingy, my first impression is that Hasbro is trying to make D&D more appealing to a wider audience, and not just the hard core gamers that is has been. My guess is they're trying to make it more like an MMO to get the computer players that don't play table top games to take a stab at it and see if they like it. Personally, I hate MMO's because there's virtually no roleplaying aspect at all, and just turns into a lame hack 'n' slash. Which, consequently, looks like it will ruin D&D for the rest of us, who already play. Maybe it's time for me to go out and get Promethean. The premise intrigues me, and I've played little White Wolf as it is, but what I have played, I have enjoyed.

ghost_warlock
2007-12-25, 02:09 AM
First, I'll believe D&D is turning into an MMO when the DM describes NPCs with yellow exclamation marks floating above their heads. And, probably, not even then because I realize that there's at least a small percentage of DMs out there who will read this, laugh, and then do it to their players in their OD&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, or 3e game as a joke.

Pen and paper D&D cannot, in any edition, turn into an MMO until
1) you need a computer + internet connection to play it.
2) WotC dictates all fluff and forces players to play in exactly the world/setting that was released with the product.
3) WotC removes all aspects of improvistion, be they RP or mechanical - that means no homebrewing and no "winging it" if you don't know the rule but don't want to slow down game play.
4) WotC start calling new supplements and errata "patches" and forces players to abide by them in order to play the game.
5) Blizzard (etc.) buys out WotC/Hasbro.

Note that many of the above are simply ludicrous because there's no way to actually enforce them. WotC simply doesn't have the political clout, finances, or manpower to bust down your door and force you to play the game their way. Blizzard can force players to download the latest patch before they can play WoW, but WotC can't force players to buy the latest book in order to play their on-going campaign - even if it'd make D&D a more balanced and fair system.

The arguement that WotC is turning pen & paper D&D into an MMO is simply daffy. Quack!

As for whether or not I'll switch to 4e, I'll have to wait and decide later. Really, it'll probably come down to the human factor: if the other humans I game with are playing 3e, I'll likely stick with 3e; if they switch to 4e, I'll probably do the same. For at least a while, I'll probably stick with 3e because it has published support for some of my favorite gaming themes that aren't likely to be present immediatly as the 4e books roll off the presses (e.g., psionics, shadow magic, gnomes, et al). In any case, I'll at least take a look at the 4e PHB before I freak out and jump on either the fanboy or hater bandwagon.

Jayngfet
2007-12-25, 02:11 AM
I barley got enough 3.5 stuff, no way in hell I'm going to spend multiple hundreds all over again, I'm just not willing to spend more money, re-reading time, wait for my friends to re-read, and somehow convert my current campane stuff for an optional upgrade, in a few years when I've dog eared every book, ran my fill of 3.5 and DM'ed a little more then maybe ill convert to whatever edition their up to, but this id from someone who's just started gaming.

JackMage666
2007-12-25, 02:13 AM
Ugg... It's $90 that I'm gonna have to throw away to do so... What's more, I've got no group here to play with... But, yeah, I probably will end up so.... It'll just be a shame when I can't find a group.

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-25, 02:14 AM
Arachnid - maybe my point was misconstrued here. I pointed out that I've not been following the developments so I can't personally speak to the accuracy of someone else's claims. I only know that, in the years I've known the guy, the information he passes on to us has never been manufactured by him. He has his own opinions, yes, but if he tells me that a brand manager said "we're modeling this to be like an MMO", I'm inclined to believe him.

To be clear, I didn't post this to say "D&D sucks and you should all just agree with me because my friend said so!" I posted it to get opinions from more than one source. I posted it here because I believe this to be a good source of likewise knowledgeable and informed people. I meant to query "is it really going to be like this?"

No, I'm not implying that I can't roleplay because of a new mechanic, I'm saying that the mechanic removes the need for roleplay and so the larger number of new players won't be inclined to do so. They'll be expecting a tabletop MMO-style game.

And I'm definitely not a 3.5 fanboy. I stated previously that I was bothered by 3.x but adapted because I wanted to play.

No, I'm not saying that because everyone has the same base to hit and defense that tactics go out. I'm saying that, from appearances, the encounters created will be such that if it's not within one or two levels of the party, there will be no chance for one side or the other to win. Either the party will be so outmatched that no amount of tactics will overcome it or they will so overpower the encounter that no degree of bad decisions will thwart it. If it is the 'right level' then tactics will not be important. They will randomly win or lose regardless of how they go about it because the numbers say so.

Thrythlind
2007-12-25, 02:20 AM
There is no real difference between an MMO system and a Table Top pen and paper system.

The difference lies in the administration.

MMOs are, save for player and GM hosted events, administered by computers.

Computers that have no imagination, no concept of improvisation and no knowledge of anything other than what is in front of it.

Given the rules system that governs EQ, WoW or CoH, a human GM could still allow a character to grab chunks of terrain to hurl at the enemy, or try to bluff a combat. However, a computer cannot do that.

MMOs have poor roleplaying elements not because of the system, but because of the fact the enemy is controlled by a computer.

You can get good roleplaying from ANY system.

Heck, you can get good roleplaying without a system.

The system only exists as collection of shared assumptions and rules so that there is some degree of balance and, of course, so that we can all get the OMG feeling that comes with a natural 20 (or natural 3 if you play HERO System).

What MMOs DO lack however, is much in the way of customization (at least they used to). This is, again, because of the question of administration.

The more customization a GM allows, the closer he has to look at each and every character. Template systems, such as are used with MMOs, mean that the GMs have a much clearer idea of what will or will not be used in a given situation. And to have a better hope that individual characters are balanced against each other and the enemies.


That said, I've heard good and bad things about 4e, admittedly mostly, imo, good things. I have a friend that runs demos for WotC and among other things, I understand that a lot of the 3.5 stuff was geared toward playtesting for 4e.

For example, Tome of Nine Swords might have been an idea for how to do fighters. Still, again, I'll wait to see what comes.

However, I'm very glad to hear that apparently a lot of alignment related spells and abilities are gone.

Xuincherguixe
2007-12-25, 02:23 AM
No, 4th edition is an ugly kid. I'm going for the blonde one.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-12-25, 02:24 AM
@ Thrythlind
I disagree with you about computers not being able to roleplay. I've played plenty of PC games (SW:KOTOR and VTM:Bloodlines to name two) that have very good roleplaying aspects to them, that do indeed influence the game.

I haven't done really any looking into of 4e yet, but if the whole 4 basic class thing is true, that would definitely turn me off. I'm one of those people who enjoys playing the more usual classes/builds at times, and it seems to me in doing what they plan would take some of the fun out of the game for me.

Wordmiser
2007-12-25, 02:26 AM
Your buddy's message is little more than gibberish.

In order to argue that 4.0 combat is exactly like MMORPG "run up to the thing and wait for it to die" combat, he states that 4.0 will make character level important in determining a character's abilities. This has been true in every level-based RPG ever printed... it's the basis of the level system. Holding it against 4.0 specifically is absurd.

Then he rants about what all he hates about the 3.X Player's Handbooks in order to state that 4.0 is going to be crap.

The books haven't even been printed; they're not even completely written from the sounds of the 12-21 "ampersand" article. Making any judgements of the overall game system is ridiculous because the end result still isn't set in stone.

Thrythlind
2007-12-25, 02:38 AM
I've played both of those, as well as Jade Empire which is similarly well down.

However, that's not a matter of roleplaying so much as providing alternate storylines to follow.

Computer games are, essentially, movies where you push buttons. The story can be very well written and engaging, but it is still a story that is told to you and where your control is basically in the form of choreographing action sequences.

Games like Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and the like are a step up, but they are still just the same story being fed to you, only now, you are able to make a choice about what story thread you follow out of numerous potential story threads in the game.

What you cannot do is create a storyline and ending that the writers of the game did not account for.

The intricacies and large amount of options for how the story develops creates the illusion of true roleplaying, but they've still got a long way to go.

For example, I once made the mistake of misunderstanding a sequence of challenges as tests of trust and thought that the only way I, my party and the child my character was responsible for would survive was to do something that seemed totally stupid immediately upon retrospect, which was to hand a spirit my character's baby.

The DM had not accounted for this and it rewrote his game from a predominantly military and sneaky one to one that involved the spirit world a tremendous amount as we had to quest to get the child back. In a computer game, it would not have even been an option as the developer (GM) had not considered it and we would not have had the story that we did.

Likewise, you cannot, in Bloodlines, Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire, while the bad guy jumps around, cut down a tree so that it falls on him. You cannot pick up a desk that's lying around to throw at the martial artist so that he has more trouble dodging. You cannot zap a stream of water in order to electrocute a bad guy standing in it. You cannot choose to teleport into the enemy mentalists' hotel room at night and feed him to an extradimensional nasty while your friendly AI keeps the security cameras off you (not that I've ever taken part in such behavior - innocent whistle)


********

To OP

Personally, I welcomed 3.0 with the huzzah of a player that has a copy of the original Fiend Folio and has long felt really annoyed at such concepts as level limits and the idea that humans couldn't multi-class.

I'll never go back to 2nd Ed if I can help it.

as for 4.0, sounds like they're lessening the impact of another of my pet peeves: Alignment (always hated it). Huzzah again!

and the addition of Aasimar and Tiefling (hopefully with race name changes) is another huzzah moment. After all, check the myths, normal humans aren't all that common:

Heracles: demi-god (start aasimar and build from there)
Theseus: either human or demi-god (Poseidon)
Merlin: half-fae or half-demon (tiefling)
Perseus: demi-god
Aragorn: Aasimar (Dunedain are part elven and maiar, not totally human)
Achilles: demi-god
Celtic heroes: mostly demi-gods or even full-out gods
Japanese heroes: all descended from gods (aasimar/tiefling)

and so on

most mythical heroes, with the exception of one or two, boast non-human ancestors, I even threw in one of the core examples out of fiction

the only thing that would be better would be to make a shapechanger race (or a feat path) for all the heroic and villainous shapechangers in myth and legend down through the years.

I like that D&D has a variety of werecreatures, and I don't mind the need-silver-infectious-bite werecreatures. But I wish they'd put in a race or feat path for heroes that were born shapechangers. Hengeyokai was good, for example, and could be used as a base.

anyway, while most of what I've heard is very good, I will, definitely wait for a final determination.

Again, I started with the Red Box D&D 1st Ed, when the alignments were Chaotic Neutral and Lawful and Elf was a class, not a race. (to be truthful, I started with 1st edition Champions aka HERO system, but eh), and moved on to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and then AD&D 2nd ed.

3.0 was an improvement. 3.5 I was mixed on, but still more like it than disliked it. I am eager to see 4.0, though suspect my funds will mean I will be limited to SRD for a while.

Dausuul
2007-12-25, 02:55 AM
No, I'm not saying that because everyone has the same base to hit and defense that tactics go out. I'm saying that, from appearances, the encounters created will be such that if it's not within one or two levels of the party, there will be no chance for one side or the other to win. Either the party will be so outmatched that no amount of tactics will overcome it or they will so overpower the encounter that no degree of bad decisions will thwart it. If it is the 'right level' then tactics will not be important. They will randomly win or lose regardless of how they go about it because the numbers say so.

It's those last two sentences where your argument totally disintegrates.

Yes--past a certain point, if the encounter level is too high, no amount of clever tactics will be sufficient for the PCs to beat it. And if the encounter level is too low, no amount of stupid tactics will be sufficient for the PCs to lose. This is an inevitable result of a level-based system and it was true in 3E as well, barring insane cheese like candles of invocation. (One of the changes to 4E is an effort to flatten out the power curve a bit, so that monsters remain viable over a wider span than they do in 3E.)

But you're claiming here that for encounters within the viable span, tactics will make no difference to the outcome, which is nonsense. That's not even true in MMOs, where good tactics and planning most certainly play a role in how well one fares against encounters of the "right" level. Unless the designers decide at the last minute to strip out every element of combat except "Roll to hit and damage," it won't be true in 4E either.

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-25, 03:08 AM
In order to argue that 4.0 combat is exactly like MMORPG "run up to the thing and wait for it to die" combat, he states that 4.0 will make character level important in determining a character's abilities. This has been true in every level-based RPG ever printed... it's the basis of the level system. Holding it against 4.0 specifically is absurd.Not quite. The point is that the wizard/warlock/fighter/rogue will all apparently have exactly the same chance to hit/be hit/be affected by the monster/encounter and that level is more important than class in determining what a character can and cannot do. This is exacerbated by this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14537842&postcount=1)..
Feats: Certain feats require a certain character level, race or skill, but none require a certain class. This makes it easier to expand characters beyond their intended role if desired.Granted, most feats now don't require a specific class but were clearly easier for some classes to get. Somehow a Wizard with Weapon Specialization and Extra Turning just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. In the same article is this blurb...
In addition, since characters can buy any kind of feats they want, it is mentioned that you could turn a Wizard into a 3E-style Warmage or Duskblade by buying weapon, armor and melee attack feats, as 4E Wizards no longer suffer from arcane spell failure in armor.


Then he rants about what all he hates about the 3.X Player's Handbooks in order to state that 4.0 is going to be crap.Okay, he's always hated those things about 3.x and I maybe should have stripped them from the post because they don't really relate to 4e so much as WotC's direction with the game in general over the last 8 years or so. They're not directed at 4e specifically.

@Dausuul - Ah, see, my impression was that the "viable span" was being narrowed, not widened. Thus my comment about "one or two levels" either way. Of course a CR20 encounter should always mop up a level 10 party. I was under the impression that a CR14 encounter would end up the same way, regardless of information gathering or any sort of combat plan.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-25, 03:19 AM
Not quite. The point is that the wizard/warlock/fighter/rogue will all apparently have exactly the same chance to hit/be hit/be affected by the monster/encounter and that level is more important than class in determining what a character can and cannot do. This is exacerbated by this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14537842&postcount=1)..Granted, most feats now don't require a specific class but were clearly easier for some classes to get. Somehow a Wizard with Weapon Specialization and Extra Turning just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. In the same article is this blurb...
Weapon Specialization and especially Extra Turning aren't what 4E's feats are going to look like--and they wouldn't benefit the wizard anyway.
The wizard/warlock/fighter/rogue will have *similar* chances to hit a monster with *their particular abilities*. They will have different abilities, that attack different defenses (AC, Fort, Reflex, Will) and do different things in different circumstances. Some Fighter abilities will penalize enemies in melee range who don't focus on them; Rogue abilities will be better whenever they have a flanking-type position, etc.


@Dausuul - Ah, see, my impression was that the "viable span" was being narrowed, not widened. Thus my comment about "one or two levels" either way. Of course a CR20 encounter should always mop up a level 10 party. I was under the impression that a CR14 encounter would end up the same way, regardless of information gathering or any sort of combat plan.
Oh, come on. With a half-level-based bonus like in SAGA, level 10 characters/monsters get +5 to AB/AC/saves. Level 14 characters/monsters get +7.
That +2 is hardly going to cause a TPK.

The things you're saying are misinformed and poorly thought through. It's almost like you *want* to hate 4E. Why not just stop caring about, play your games, and read the books when they've been edited, playtested, and released?

Solo
2007-12-25, 03:20 AM
Heracles: demi-god (start aasimar and build from there)
Theseus: either human or demi-god (Poseidon)
Merlin: half-fae or half-demon (tiefling)
Perseus: demi-god
Aragorn: Aasimar (Dunedain are part elven and maiar, not totally human)
Achilles: demi-god
Celtic heroes: mostly demi-gods or even full-out gods
Japanese heroes: all descended from gods (aasimar/tiefling)

Chinese heroes: Many are badass normals, but quite a few are reincarnations of someone important.

Pig and Friar Sand from "Journey to the West" are the reincarnated forms of Heavenly officials sent to earth as punishment, and in "The Water Margin", all 108 outlaws living in the marsh are reincarnations of something.

tyckspoon
2007-12-25, 03:25 AM
Not quite. The point is that the wizard/warlock/fighter/rogue will all apparently have exactly the same chance to hit/be hit/be affected by the monster/encounter and that level is more important than class in determining what a character can and cannot do.
I think this is less 'making everybody the same' and more part of how they hope to reduce dependence on magic items. In 3.5, in order to achieve the expected AC, saves, and attack bonuses, you need an array of standard magic items: A stat booster or three, a Cloak of Resistance, an amulet of Natural Armor, a ring of protection, etc.. in 4th, they're just folding all those baseline bonuses into the class levels instead so that even if your character is completely naked you still have the numerical bonuses appropriate to the level you're at. Variation between classes will still be achieved with basic class features and talents; expect the Fighter to have talents that will grant him extra bonuses for weapon and armor use, for example.


..Granted, most feats now don't require a specific class but were clearly easier for some classes to get. Somehow a Wizard with Weapon Specialization and Extra Turning just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. In the same article is this blurb...
I would expect Turning to be a class talent of the Cleric, which would make getting an Extra Turning feat quite useless to the Wizard. It is my perception that anything that is a defining class feature is going to be a class talent and be expanded with other talent choices now, instead of being a feat. If Wizards thinks Weapon Specialization should be a signature Fighter thing, then you'll only be able to get it by taking levels in Fighter; it won't be a feat. That doesn't rule out feats that improve your melee attacks, of course, but don't expect them to be as good as the Fighter's weapon-focused class talents.

Thrythlind
2007-12-25, 03:28 AM
agreed on the Chinese heroes, but they are still largely the exception until you start reaching more recent legends like King Arthur.

Norse heroes are mostly gods, after all, though that might be because we have incomplete accounts of their myths and mostly only stories about the Asgardians and such.

still, the fact remains, that half-dieties make a large faction of the mythical heroes upon which many fantasy heroes are based. And aasimar and tiefling are a good balanced way of handling a half-diety type hero for before they've hit heracles level. Thus allowing a very large segment of character concepts to be done without overpowering bonuses.

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-25, 04:55 AM
Oh, come on. With a half-level-based bonus like in SAGA, level 10 characters/monsters get +5 to AB/AC/saves. Level 14 characters/monsters get +7.
That +2 is hardly going to cause a TPK.Except that the progression isn't level by level like that so it's not a fair comparison. As described, anyway, a level 9 party will have +5 bonuses, while a level 10 monster will have +10. In addition to that is that they specified that there will be a feat gained at every level. So instead of gaining a new feat every three levels and a level 10 character only having one more feat and a couple of hit dice over a level 7 (plus class abilities), he'll have 3 more feats, +5 to to-hit, AC, and saves (and those class abilities). Then again, because the improvement only comes every 10 levels, a level 17 would still have the same +10 bonuses as the level 10 party (but would still have an additional 7 feats instead of just two). So maybe it'll work out.


The things you're saying are misinformed and poorly thought through. It's almost like you *want* to hate 4E. Why not just stop caring about, play your games, and read the books when they've been edited, playtested, and released?Hmmm. I hadn't thought about that possibility, but I suppose it's conceivable that this is the case on some level. Meh. And the books are closer to being done, I think, than you seem to feel they are. We're only a couple of months away from DDXP (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/ddxp/highlights)where they're having 4e game sessions. Slot Zero sessions are being run up to a month prior to that. Those books have to be very close to being finished, I'd think.


I would expect Turning to be a class talent of the Cleric, which would make getting an Extra Turning feat quite useless to the Wizard. It is my perception that anything that is a defining class feature is going to be a class talent and be expanded with other talent choices now, instead of being a feat. If Wizards thinks Weapon Specialization should be a signature Fighter thing, then you'll only be able to get it by taking levels in Fighter; it won't be a feat. That doesn't rule out feats that improve your melee attacks, of course, but don't expect them to be as good as the Fighter's weapon-focused class talents.I'd be inclined to agree with you except for the specific comment that they're designing the system to allow a character class to be able to step out of it's traditional role. I'll concede that likely a Wizard with a couple of feats spent in Heavy Armor proficiency and melee feats won't be as effective at melee as the fighter, but he can still be a wizard in full plate that can effectively wield that sword if the spells aren't working. That, specifically, is a combination that was mentioned as being possible.

Thrythlind
2007-12-26, 02:43 AM
Pure and simple:

there is no way to add or remove "Roleplay aspects" from a game system.

Roleplay aspects are entirely player supplied.

The system exists only as a collection of mutually accepted rules for the purpose of avoiding arguments and to give an "ooooo" feeling when you roll good numbers.

any system that claims to be roleplay centric is feeding you bull, because a system can't force a player to be imaginative, or force a GM to support RP.

Let the systems handle the success and failure of actions and the level of ability.

Roleplay will always be the purview of the people at the table.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-26, 03:20 AM
any system that claims to be roleplay centric is feeding you bull, because a system can't force a player to be imaginative, or force a GM to support RP.

Let the systems handle the success and failure of actions and the level of ability.

Roleplay will always be the purview of the people at the table.

That's naive--or at least, showing a little ignorance about game design. A system can't *force* things--but it can definitely encourage them. Rules influence gameplay. Check out Spirit of the Century (SRD link) (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html) character creation if you doubt that--it definitely helps with that, and gives things a certain feel.

Thrythlind
2007-12-26, 03:33 AM
I've never considered content the equivalent to roleplaying.

It gives ideas on what to base your RP on, but it is not RP in and of itself.

Saying: "We're basing the world on this movie is probably just as much encouraging of RP."

I tend to just think its naive to think that roleplaying can come pre-packaged for your ease and convenience. Taking a few classes on improvisational drama would do more for learning how to RP than any game system's included content.

nolifeking
2007-12-26, 10:44 AM
Except that the progression isn't level by level like that so it's not a fair comparison. As described, anyway, a level 9 party will have +5 bonuses, while a level 10 monster will have +10. In addition to that is that they specified that there will be a feat gained at every level. So instead of gaining a new feat every three levels and a level 10 character only having one more feat and a couple of hit dice over a level 7 (plus class abilities), he'll have 3 more feats, +5 to to-hit, AC, and saves (and those class abilities). Then again, because the improvement only comes every 10 levels, a level 17 would still have the same +10 bonuses as the level 10 party (but would still have an additional 7 feats instead of just two). So maybe it'll work out.

You know, I see this every once in a while, and I really have to ask - where do you people get this idea from? I think it is pretty clear that every other level, every character gets a cumulative +1 to attack and all defenses. The original quote where a wizards person said for example a level 10 would have +5 to all those things was just that - an example. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that a character gets a flat +5 to those things once every 10 levels. That doesn't make any kind of sense.

Also, I think that you have not kept up with how they wish to run encounters in 4e. The plan is roughly 1 monster per PC. Obviously this can change, but since there are multiple monsters, you will be able to increase or decrease the power level of them without throwing the encounter way out of whack now. Also, they have versions of monsters, like an elite or solo version, that will have additional abilities and strategies to make them actually a challenge as a single monster for the PCs to face. This doesn't happen under 3.5 as written. For instance, my level 8/9 party in Ravenloft, which really only has 1 powergamer, could easily beat Strahd even before removing the fanes. They have already faced him and done very well. He gets one action, and can maybe kill one of them, but he is so limited by actions that he is a pushover. 4e seeks to remedy this, and I have actually rewritten him with 4e style in my mind - i gave him a lot of immediate action/swift action moves to simulate him having more actions so he won't suck.

If you read the words "elite" and "solo" there and thought MMO, you are partially right I suppose. Maybe thats even where they got the idea, but the point is to make combats that are MORE enjoyable and MORE strategic.

Please, go to the playtest archive in the Dragon online portion of wizards.com and read some of the playtests. The encounters they have sound like something I want to play.

I can't say for sure I will adopt 4e, but it addresses a lot of the concerns I've had with 3.5 so far, mainly
1)I can't run a campaign that feels fun if its not levels 5-12ish.
2)To make encounters that seem truly fun and challenging I have to make NPC's with class levels.
3)a melee character thats not TOB seems boring as hell to me.

So, maybe it will suck, but I can't wait to try it.

ALOR
2007-12-26, 10:56 AM
I won't be changing to 4e unless the new rules are 100 times better than 3.x. From everything I have heard so far I don't think this will be the case.

Ichneumon
2007-12-26, 11:00 AM
I will only move to 4e if they do the gnomes well. My entire campaign is based around them and if they don't do them well, I am not changing.

Dausuul
2007-12-26, 12:13 PM
Except that the progression isn't level by level like that so it's not a fair comparison. As described, anyway, a level 9 party will have +5 bonuses, while a level 10 monster will have +10.

...As described where? What I've seen is a flat bonus of one-half your level, rounded down. Every other level you get +1. A level 9 party will have +4 bonuses, a level 10 monster will have +5.


I'd be inclined to agree with you except for the specific comment that they're designing the system to allow a character class to be able to step out of it's traditional role. I'll concede that likely a Wizard with a couple of feats spent in Heavy Armor proficiency and melee feats won't be as effective at melee as the fighter, but he can still be a wizard in full plate that can effectively wield that sword if the spells aren't working. That, specifically, is a combination that was mentioned as being possible.

And so? What's wrong with that?

There is an implication that heavy armor will be a sub-optimal choice for most wizards. How they intend to work this, we don't yet know, but presumably it will have to do with encumbrance and maneuverability. Still, I've always found the "wizards can't wear armor" thing to be arbitrary and irritating.

For the more general situation of "stepping out of role," I regard that as a good thing. Wizards should be able to dabble in the fighting arts, fighters should be able to pick up a couple extra skills, and rogues should be able to learn a few magic tricks. You won't be able to compete on a level with a class specialized to that role, which is as it should be, but the ability to "dip" into another class for a trick or two will make for much more interesting characters.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-12-26, 01:14 PM
For the more general situation of "stepping out of role," I regard that as a good thing. Wizards should be able to dabble in the fighting arts, fighters should be able to pick up a couple extra skills, and rogues should be able to learn a few magic tricks. You won't be able to compete on a level with a class specialized to that role, which is as it should be, but the ability to "dip" into another class for a trick or two will make for much more interesting characters.

Indeed... for an exercise on why this is desirable, try to stat sword-and-sorcery heros like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser in D20 3.5... it becomes a mess

Fafhrd: Bard 3, Fighter 10, Rogue 8?

Grey Mouser: Sorc 2, Rogue 12, Duelist 6?

Whereas I hope that, in 4th edition you could possibly stat out a "Fighter with Bardic and Roguish training" and a "Rogue with a fast rapier thrust and some magic training" via Feats (and probably Paragon Paths)

Ichneumon
2007-12-26, 01:17 PM
What is this training thing I hear people talk about? Care to give me a link?:smallsmile:

Thrythlind
2007-12-26, 01:19 PM
I'm eagerly hoping for shapeshifting feat paths myself.

Not all the shapeshifters of myth were spellcasters, a lot were just warriors with a little magical weirdness.

******************

Also, look at Conan the barbarian:

Barbarian 3, Fighter 10, Rogue 5?

or Aragorn, Ranger 10, Paladin 10?

Frodo? Bard 6, Cleric 3, Rogue 3?

Or, everybody's favorite, Drizzt, who, despite the hordes of copies, IS a good character:

Let's see, he wouldn't have been a ranger when he was getting fighter training in Menzo, so Fighter 10

Then came his survival/hunter period, adding a Barbarian 2 to the mix

He gets ranger training from the blind guy, enough to account for some of his lost drow abilities (he lost his levitation and such, but kept faerie fire, probably because its also a ranger spell). So at least Ranger 4

We also see him, in the first book he shows up in, craft a (weak) circle of protection based off of early classes from the sorcerery school, so Wizard 1

******

The majority of fictional characters do not fit comfortably into most pre-generated templates. Feats and multi-classing was a good attempt to fix this problem, since most fictional characters can fit into a general category and just be tweaked out. However, the fact that some classes got more feats than others made it difficult for the feats to be used to full use.


I am eagerly awaiting the chance to remake my Jhessail Crackenstone in 4th Ed.

Depending on the feat situation, I might even just make her a full class paladin, which would be ideal, since part of the concept for her is to play a paladin that fits the said role of a paladin, but breaks all of the stereotypes.

EvilJames
2007-12-26, 06:08 PM
Have faith in Wizards and Blizzard. They've earned it.



No they haven't, well Blizzard has but WotC definitely has long since rescinded it's right to expect people to "have faith" nor do I have any faith in the heinous entity that is Hasbro.

Edit: not sure what Blizzard has to do with it anyway:smallconfused:

Fatso
2007-12-26, 06:56 PM
I'm on welfare.
So, no.
Can't afford it.

Thrythlind
2007-12-26, 07:06 PM
I'm on welfare.
So, no.
Can't afford it.

do what I'm going to do, download the SRD until you can afford the full deal

skywalker
2007-12-26, 07:11 PM
EDIT:@ the person immediately above me: Supposedly, the SRD is going to be held off the internet for the first few months :-(

I am confused on the meaning of the word "adopt."

I will certainly play games using it, I'm sure one of my groups is converting completely, so in that sense, yes.

In the sense of: "sell off all my 3.5 material and forget about it," no. I still consider 3.5 a fun game, although admittedly, a lot of the fun for me comes from character creation, except for a few great sessions. I also think a lot of the 3.5 stuff will be useful in early 4.0, where there's not going to be the wealth of magic items there are for 3.5. I wish MIC had been designed to be 4.0 compatible, but c'est la vie.

I'm looking forward to 4th edition, primarily because most of my enjoyable moments playing the game involved Tome of Battle.

In regards to the arguing, I think it's also pretty clear that fighters will still be better at fighting, just because attack and defense bonuses are level based does not mean that there aren't other bonuses specifically for fighters.

Treguard
2007-12-26, 07:18 PM
You think this is bad? Come 6ed every skill will be boiled down to a generic "skills" check ("Why yes I do believe my character has skills" *roll*) and for every monster slain you get a chance at rolling the d20 "win" die- roll a 20 and you've beaten the game! :smalltongue:

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-26, 08:04 PM
...As described where? What I've seen is a flat bonus of one-half your level, rounded down. Every other level you get +1. A level 9 party will have +4 bonuses, a level 10 monster will have +5.Ah, that was a misinterpretation on my part. I read "Every 10th level character will have a +5 bonus" as "Every 10th level, characters will gain a +5 bonus". Disregard.


And so? What's wrong with that?It may seem arbitrary, but there's something to be said about the counterbalance of the nuker being that she's a bit squishy. It sounds like you'll be able to have your batman caster still, only he'll be armored as well. Even at low levels you'll have a character who can drop a fireball on the enemy and then tank down whoever lives. Maybe there will be enough of a disadvantage to wearing the armor that it would be a bad choice.

As for stepping out of the role, why not just eliminate roles to begin with and make the system classless? You want unlimited character building options? That's the way you go.

As to "how do you stat/class mythological characters?" That's a total non sequitur. They aren't D&D characters. That's like asking how you'd stat out Darth Vader. You can take your shots and get close, maybe, but he isn't intended to be a D&D character. Doing so is an exercise in mental aerobics. It may be fun and even useful if you're intending to have your party meet Aragorn, but in the end it's just an exercise.

@Treguard - yes, this is my fear.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-12-26, 11:38 PM
As to "how do you stat/class mythological characters?" That's a total non sequitur. They aren't D&D characters. That's like asking how you'd stat out Darth Vader. You can take your shots and get close, maybe, but he isn't intended to be a D&D character. Doing so is an exercise in mental aerobics. It may be fun and even useful if you're intending to have your party meet Aragorn, but in the end it's just an exercise.


It is not a non-sequitur.

Drizzt is a D&D character, for crying out loud, and you cannot even model it in 3.5 D&D convincingly.

And I know quite a few people that want to play Conan-types, or Grey Mouser-types, or Legolas-types, especially rpg novices.

These are Fantasy characters that people could expect to want to play in a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, just like people would expect to be able to play hackers/deckers/runners in a Cyberpunk game.

Zeb The Troll
2007-12-27, 12:20 AM
It is not a non-sequitur.

Drizzt is a D&D character, for crying out loud, and you cannot even model it in 3.5 D&D convincingly.

And I know quite a few people that want to play Conan-types, or Grey Mouser-types, or Legolas-types, especially rpg novices.

These are Fantasy characters that people could expect to want to play in a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, just like people would expect to be able to play hackers/deckers/runners in a Cyberpunk game.It is a non sequitur. It does not follow, or make any logical sense, that a non-branded character should have to fit a ruleset that may not even have existed when the myth was born or the fiction was written. Nor is it feasible to think that any one ruleset should or could be designed to be able to accurately replicate any and all fictional or mythical characters.

Drizz't is a D&D character and his build flaws are the fault of the author. He is not a mythological character, which I specified in that statement. If you want to play Legolas, then you do your best to approximate it, but you have to bear in mind that Legolas was never intended to be fit into a gaming ruleset, wasn't designed to be a part of Forgotten Realms or Eberron. And while D&D has always had Tolkien as an inspiration, it was never intended to be Middle Earth, the RPG. The same applies to any non-D&D branded character or caricature. For the branded ones even, it's not the fault of the ruleset that authors like Salvatore didn't bother to follow it. I would likewise not fault the Cyberpunk ruleset for not being able to recreate Neo a la Revolutions. The Matrix isn't "Cyberpunk, The Movie" and even if it was you can't blame Cyberpunk for Neo not following it's character generation rules.

And no matter what system you make, there are still going to be fictional fanatsy characters that just won't be able to be done within the ruleset. I'd love to play a character based on The Beastmaster, from my childhood, but it would take a lot of houseruling and homebrewing to make that possible, even with 4E, I predict.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-12-27, 12:29 AM
Probably not.

Cuddly
2007-12-27, 12:35 AM
Re: Mechanics
The system isn't released yet. The assumption that a wizard, fighter, rogue of the same level would all have the same chance of hitting in melee based on their base attacks, is, frankly, absurd. It's a non-argument. The only reason you CAN argue about it, is because you guys don't have enough information.

Re: Modeling non-D&D characters w/ D&D
The D&D mechanic has certainly led to the creation of a bunch of archetypes that haven't existed anywhere else. Modeling non-D&D archetypes is clunky at best, and often impossible. The assumption that arcane casters (a phrase of purely D&D origin) don't weat armor is largely a D&D construct. If I want to play a gish, it's difficult to make a functionable one. Many gish end up being worse than either a pure fighter or pure caster of equal level, UNLESS YOU BOUGHT A HALF DOZEN SPLATBOOKS.

If playing a handful of unimaginative and overplayed archetypes is fun for you, keep playing them. But if you want to make functional, yet different characters (raging mystical woodsmen? an arcane knight?), D&D isn't really the system to do it in, unless you want to spend 4 hours in character creation, and several hundred dollars on books.

As it is, the rigidity of the 3x system inhibits playing a character. Instead, we play a D&D character. If this appeals to you, then continue to make your blasters in clothe.

I, on the other hand, look forward to the day when I don't have to ask the internets how to make a caster in fullplate on horseback that doesn't fall off a lot, or die.

Athanatos
2007-12-27, 12:39 AM
File me in the "Maybe yes, maybe not, I don't like to make a fool of myself by judging things prematurely" pile.

And really, that ad you described made me lol. Tell your GM to grow a sense of humor and stop going out of his way to find fault with everything.

Flubadubdub
2007-12-27, 01:11 AM
First, I have to ask

You actually thought that they'd make a jump of double from level 9 to 10?

If that we're the case, I would do a full reading of that area to make sure I hadn't lost my mind, then do a quick skim of the rest of the book and chuck it.

As for role playing dying, rules certainly help, but its up to the Dm and players to establish role playing. I've heard of bad players, I've heard of worse Dm's. The rules aren't going to kill that.

As for strategy going out the window, I imagine they will likely try to surpress the making of codzilla's or batman's, but honestly, so what. I try to do that as much as I can, so that EVERYONE contributes, and the wizard or cleric doesn't tell the fighter to sit down and shut up.

And Finally, we simply don't have the books. How can you possibly bash it?
If you thought 2nd edition was fine, great, thats your choice, I'm glad D&D has something to offer you. Just because they come out with a different set of rules, which to me is a 100x better than them coming out with endless arcana's and other books, doesn't mean they should be torched for it. I personally don't like 2nd edition, heck, I'm not a huge fan of first, yet I've played it for quite some time. I'm glad now that I can play a halfling, and be a ranger, and although the -2 strength sucks, its not the end of the world. I'm glad I can be a fighter who has 15 strength and not worry about it giving absolutely NO bonus whatsoever.

If you read the books and you like em, fine, if you read em and you don't like em, feel free to come on here and whine about it. You really don't have anything to base your argument on as it stands.

But seriously, double from level 9 to 10, wow :smallconfused:

Artanis
2007-12-27, 11:03 AM
My GM had this to say in the Yahoo group set up for our tabletop game. I'm curious to see the responses from the erudite here.

*snipped spoiler*

I've modified some of the language in the stronger opinions to make it postable here, but I've left it mostly intact.
Having not read the other replies so as not to get drawn into side debates, I'd say your GM is a godd*** moron for so soundly thrashing something that he has never even played. It's like a 5-year-old shouting "I DUN LIKES BROCCOLI" despite never having tasted it.

Gryndle
2007-12-27, 11:11 AM
I think I will take the novel approach and wait until 4E is released to make my final decision.

There is more than enough that is weak about 3E/3.5 that I will willingly jump ship if 4E is actually a better product.

I really love the Star Wars Saga systme, simply because it is extremely streamlined. The closer 4E is to that, the more likely I am to adopt it.

Talya
2007-12-27, 11:33 AM
We haven't seen enough of the mechanical crunch of 4e yet to make an honest evaluation, frankly. I don't like the changes made to the "fluff" at all. Don't change what isn't broken, the fluff was fine, if you want to change that, do it in a new campaign setting! So 4e has not inspired me with confidence so far, I am not optimistic, but the truth is we do not know how it will perform. I think his concerns are valid, I share a lot of the same suspicions about the design philosophy in 4e, but they may end up entirely unwarranted.

Now, that said, I love 3.5e. Oh, I have issues with it as well, but the design concept just works well, I enjoy it. More so than Saga edition's design concept, (Although Saga seems to work in the star wars setting better than d20 star wars did before it, to a degree), and I suspect 4e will adopt many of Saga's design ideas.

I also dislike this move toward "use once per encounter" powers. They did it with Tome of Battle, Saga Edition, and now are doing so with 4e. I like the current vancian magic idea (as well as spontaneous casting as a counterpoint to it..although spontaneous casting is too heavily penalized). I don't mind the "psionic" style of force power usage that relied on points, such as in KotOR, but overall, this idea of using abilities like "playing cards" does make the game feel like "Magic: The RPG." I don't like it at all. But that alone isn't enough for me to say right now that "4e will suck." It may be great. We'll see.

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 12:00 PM
Well, judging by the stuff I hear on forums, I really cannot say that I like the direction where D&D is heading...

First of all, with core races. Whose brilliant idea was to kick gnomes out and replace them with tieflings? I would even understand if they put a race named Planetouched and then all the subtypes of it (Genasi, Aasimar and Tiefling), but why just the bloody tieflings? I'll tell you why. Because Wizards think Tieflings are cooler and that will attract people to play... I mean, cmon... Or they wanted to announce that they are different fromw WoW by kicking gnomes out... That move I strongly disapprove.

And I object to the idea of manouvers/stances/tome of battle mumbo-jumbo. It's sounds too much like a manga. D&D shouldn't be manga. It should be D&D. Fighters should just be good fighters. Let them make a system where a good fighter will rock with his combat prowess, why does everything have to be supernatural in order to be good?

I'll probably play one trial campaign when 4e comes out, but I don't think I'll stick to it...

The only downside to this is that I'll become one of those geezers who still play 2ed and just complain how everything was better when there wasn't 3ed...

Morty
2007-12-27, 12:06 PM
And I object to the idea of manouvers/stances/tome of battle mumbo-jumbo. It's sounds too much like a manga. D&D shouldn't be manga. It should be D&D. Fighters should just be good fighters. Let them make a system where a good fighter will rock with his combat prowess, why does everything have to be supernatural in order to be good?


Not this again...
Nothing in fighters having manuevers beyond "I hit" or "I trip" is supernatural or manga. Especially now that we have no clue about how will it look in 4ed. But I agree with you that the notion of making everything "cool" and "kickass" isn't something I approve of. I like the mechanics of 4ed so far, with an exception for wizards- but many of the changes in fluff are disastrous. Tieflings and dragonborn as core race, new cosmology... ugh. And when I heard that Wizards are adding Tieflings so that people can play "evil curious" characters... seriously, why can't they play normal races that way?

Ecalsneerg
2007-12-27, 12:48 PM
I'm not gonna say whether I'll play 4e or not until, y'know.... I've reasd the rules.

Whether I'll adopt it or not? No, it's too much paperwork :P

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 01:12 PM
Not this again...
Nothing in fighters having manuevers beyond "I hit" or "I trip" is supernatural or manga. Especially now that we have no clue about how will it look in 4ed. But I agree with you that the notion of making everything "cool" and "kickass" isn't something I approve of. I like the mechanics of 4ed so far, with an exception for wizards- but many of the changes in fluff are disastrous. Tieflings and dragonborn as core race, new cosmology... ugh. And when I heard that Wizards are adding Tieflings so that people can play "evil curious" characters... seriously, why can't they play normal races that way?

And one thing also - Tieflings are not as numerous as gnomes... Why should they be a core race then? Tieflings are rare individuals, whereas there are gnomish villages/towns, I mean cmon... Dragonborn core race? What the hell?

New cosmology? No more Ao and the whole bunch? o.O

Indon
2007-12-27, 01:17 PM
I can't say for sure.

But judging from what I know about the system now, I would wait for the SRD to come out, integrate the specific rules I like into the 3.x framework, and chuck the rest.

Only if there prove to be enough things I like in the system such that I wouldn't want to bother would I adopt it of my own free will (as opposed to, say, moving to a different city and not being able to find a group that would play anything else).

Wordmiser
2007-12-27, 01:22 PM
And one thing also - Tieflings are not as numerous as gnomes...In third edition.


Why should they be a core race then? Tieflings are rare individuals, whereas there are gnomish villages/towns, I mean cmon... Dragonborn core race? What the hell?Hook the fanboys young, take their money for life.


New cosmology? No more Ao and the whole bunch? o.OHere's (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070926a&pf=true)a link. I have to say that I like what I see in this respect. The mechanics [the ones that have been revealed, anyway] look good and the fluff seems cleaner (not that most players won't be changing it anyway) than 3.5.

But the Paladin, Dragonborn and Tiefling? I don't think those will see play in my group*.

*The pally might if its aggro system is like Iron Guard's Glare or Robilar's Gambit. If it goes beyond that (like the Knight), I'm not sure I can stomache the concept of inflicting poor tactics on enemies. Or forcing my players to act stupidly.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-27, 01:30 PM
If it has red, curly hair and sings, yes.

Matthew
2007-12-27, 03:24 PM
Drizz't is a D&D character and his build flaws are the fault of the author.

Actually, his 'build flaws' are the result of him being created under the AD&D 1e Rule Set (particularly Unearthed Arcana); he was one of the most optimised characters going.

As for the rest of the mythological heroes aspect and King Arthur, that's just silly. Mythological heroes do extraordinary things and they tend to have extraordinary heritages to explain them. The House of Priam is descended from Zeus, as are most Greek/Roman heroes. Caesar claimed to be descended from Aphrodite/Venus, as did his heir and most of the Julio-Claudian emperors.

I can pretty safely say that I won't be playing much 4e, but then I don't play a lot of D20 either. I certainly won't be buying any 4e products, though I will probably read the rulebooks at some point.

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 03:26 PM
I'm not sure I understand this Feywild or whatever... Is that supposed to replace all other planes (ethereal, shadow etc) or what...?

Solo
2007-12-27, 03:28 PM
They kicked out Gnomes?

Bout time.

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 03:31 PM
^You sir, suck. Gnomes are awesome.

I really don't understand this changing cosmology... No more 9 Hells of Baator? Heresy!!! Abyss is a part of something called Elemental Chaos. Utter BS.

And how will they import in the Faerun fluff? Suddenly all of the Shadovar don't come from the Plane of Shadow...?

Solo
2007-12-27, 03:33 PM
^You sir, suck. Gnomes are awesome.



Eloquently argued, sir.

tyckspoon
2007-12-27, 03:37 PM
And how will they import in the Faerun fluff? Suddenly all of the Shadovar don't come from the Plane of Shadow...?

I expect the Realms cosmology will remain the Realms cosmology. The setting will change to reflect the new core mechanics of the game. The arrangement of the planes is not one of the core mechanics of the game.

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 03:47 PM
That means Faerun still won't be the default setting, then?


Eloquently argued, sir.

Bout time doesn't sound that eloquent to me, either. :P

tyckspoon
2007-12-27, 04:02 PM
That means Faerun still won't be the default setting, then?


Faerun was never the default setting- that was Greyhawk (not that the book ever actually mentions this, nor did Wizards do much of anything to support the setting outside of the Living Greyhawk campaign.) That's why the basic pantheon is primarily Greyhawk deities and all of the named spells (Tasha's, Mordenkainen's, Bigby's, etc) are Greyhawk celebrity characters. And the default cosmology is (soon to be was) Greyhawk's Great Wheel.

Edit: Oh. Yeah. That's correct; Faerun still won't be the default. They're crafting a new campaign world to be the backbone of 4th Ed; it remains to be seen just how much detail they're going to give it in the books, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a campaign setting published for it within a couple of years. Faerun will become the new Living setting, however, which makes it about as official as anything can be.

Learnedguy
2007-12-27, 04:12 PM
Actually I've quite liked what I've heard about 4ed. The only thing that worries me is what'll happen with the skillmonkey, but that's just because of lack of relevant information. If I got some money to spend, I'll quite likely pick it up as soon as it becomes avaible.

Also, the new setting they are crafting sounds a bit interesting (although I've always been an Eberron fan by heart)

Gerrtt
2007-12-27, 06:29 PM
I have a definitive answer.

Nope.

I've reached a point in my life where I don't really devote time to playing the game anymore because I've got so much going on. It's not worth it to me to go buy a new set of books, especially when some of the ones I have already have yet to see a round of combat.

Which is not to say I don't think it's a good thing, there's not really any way any of us could know that at this point. I simply won't be partaking because the money I would pour into it would not be in balance to how much time I could spend with it.

Gorbash
2007-12-27, 08:40 PM
You can always download them from the internet...

That's what I'll do before I buy 3 core books... No point in spending money on something I won't play...

Blah, the more I hear about 4ed the less I like it... And frankly, this publication of 4ed seems more like a new way for Wizards to get more money out of players than a sincere concern about improving the game mechanics... I mean, first and second edition existed for 15 years, and now we have three editions in 8 years...? Not to mention all of those needless books like Complete Champion etc...

Cuddly
2007-12-28, 12:25 AM
Tieflings and dragonborn are being added as core races because there are so, so, so many weirdos out there who really get off on playing mopey "my life is pain" misfits. And then there all those girls who love dragons. Let's play a half dragon! Dragons are so cool! Yaaay!


Ahem.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wizards is just adapting to a new demographic.

horseboy
2007-12-28, 12:49 AM
Tieflings and dragonborn are being added as core races because there are so, so, so many weirdos out there who really get off on playing mopey "my life is pain" misfits. And then there all those girls who love dragons. Let's play a half dragon! Dragons are so cool! Yaaay!


Ahem.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wizards is just adapting to a new demographic.

There's something wrong with dragons? :smallconfused:

Cuddly
2007-12-28, 12:52 AM
There's something wrong with dragons? :smallconfused:

What? Did someone say there was?

Enlong
2007-12-28, 01:04 AM
I will adopt 4th E, when I see the rules for myself, of course. However, right now, it all looks pretty darn good. It appears that character roles are the focus for the classes from the ground up, the various types of magic-users are going to be distingct and have fluffy differences, the weaker (read melee) classes are all getting better from what I can see, some of the classes are just plain getting more awesome (paladin), and, well, it just looks good. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I'm looking forward to getting a look at 4th ed rules.

Thrythlind
2007-12-28, 02:44 AM
You can always download them from the internet...

That's what I'll do before I buy 3 core books... No point in spending money on something I won't play...

Blah, the more I hear about 4ed the less I like it... And frankly, this publication of 4ed seems more like a new way for Wizards to get more money out of players than a sincere concern about improving the game mechanics... I mean, first and second edition existed for 15 years, and now we have three editions in 8 years...? Not to mention all of those needless books like Complete Champion etc...


I know a guy that does demoes for WotC...the way I understand it, 3.5 was a testing ground for ideas for 4th Ed. And I think the new edition was coming out because they started to get too many optional rules again, that's what made 2nd ed collapse in on itself (that and the growing numbers of us that disliked those old rules). Granted, I'm fine with that, aside from Unearthed Arcana, they weren't introducing any real new mechanics, which is what really sunk 2nd ed. I do like what I'm hearing, however, with feats existing specifically to define a character one way or another and no one character having that much more of them than others. Save maybe fighters.

Rutee
2007-12-28, 02:49 AM
Tieflings and dragonborn are being added as core races because there are so, so, so many weirdos out there who really get off on playing mopey "my life is pain" misfits. And then there all those girls who love dragons. Let's play a half dragon! Dragons are so cool! Yaaay!


Ahem.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wizards is just adapting to a new demographic.

Wait, girls like dragons? I wasn't aware of a stereotype for or against them...

Anyway, I'm probably adopting 4e. It seems to be holding towards a lot of tenets I value in design philosophy.

Matthew
2007-12-28, 05:05 AM
I know a guy that does demoes for WotC...the way I understand it, 3.5 was a testing ground for ideas for 4th Ed. And I think the new edition was coming out because they started to get too many optional rules again, that's what made 2nd ed collapse in on itself (that and the growing numbers of us that disliked those old rules). Granted, I'm fine with that, aside from Unearthed Arcana, they weren't introducing any real new mechanics, which is what really sunk 2nd ed. I do like what I'm hearing, however, with feats existing specifically to define a character one way or another and no one character having that much more of them than others. Save maybe fighters.
Nah, 2e collapsed because of the number of settings, which fragmented the market, Magic: The Gathering and because ten years were up (i.e. its life cycle was over). The rules, by 1995/6, were very similar to those which finally appeared in 3e.

Danzaver
2007-12-28, 09:18 AM
I will se what it is about, but I am NOT buying 50 odd books /again/.

I may use some aspects of it, provided there can be a smooth transition and 3rd ed things can be used in 4th ed easily.

That said, I haven't even started using 3.5 yet :P

Danzaver
2007-12-28, 09:20 AM
Wait, girls like dragons? I wasn't aware of a stereotype for or against them...

Apparently so - my sister keeps Bearded Dragons - has 16 of them. Monopolise most of her time, with the feeding, exercising, and sunning. You'd have to like them :P

Mando Knight
2007-12-28, 11:06 AM
Heh, so the clear answer is a resounding:

"Maybe!"

I'm in the same boat here... I'll go to 4e if I feel like shelling out the cash for all-new PHB, DMG, etc....

JadedDM
2007-12-28, 11:17 AM
I put some thought into the whole Drow/Tiefling/Half-Dragon thing, and I'm wondering if making them core is really such a good idea.

It seems to me that the two main concepts that make these races popular are that A) they are very powerful and B) they are 'forbidden' (not literally, but they aren't core--thus, they are more exotic than say, dwarves or halflings).

If they make them core, they are no longer exotic or strange. Anybody will be able to play them. Also, assuming that 4E makes all of the core races balanced, we can assume these races will be watered down a bit (in terms of power), so they don't completely overshadow the other core races, like humans, halflings, dwarves and so forth.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-12-28, 12:14 PM
I mean, first and second edition existed for 15 years, and now we have three editions in 8 years...? Not to mention all of those needless books like Complete Champion etc...

Game design advances much more frequently than every 10-15 years.

Compare 2nd edition D&D with Vampire: The Masquerade, for example. In those days (early nineties) it was hard to find people willing to play D&D because the Storyteller system was much more flexible and less clunky.

I believe third edition (even with its 3.5 revision) has reached the end of its cycle. The market is saturated of supplements, and many of those are published specifically to solve problems in the core rules (and it could even be argued that they have introduced more problems than they solve).

In fact, I would be content if, instead of multiple rules supplements, we got a new core rules edition every 5-6 years. After that time, the $100.00USD investment for 3 books becomes 1.6 USD monthly (and you spend more than that on chips and soda), and the game keeps up with the latest advances in game design.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-12-28, 12:29 PM
Also, about those complaining about having to "buy books all over again", let me just say that books are never obsoleted (with the possible exception of software manuals).

Even if there's a 3.5 version of Temple of Elemental Evil, the memories of me and my friends being killed by the original version in 1988 don't go away. That alone covers the purchase price.

And I still mine my old books for plot ideas and adventure hooks, even if I can't use the rules on them... I happen to have the 1st edition Forgotten Realms grey box open in my desk at home because I am using one of the maps in the sample adventures.

Also, I am currently converting "(C3) The Lost Island of Castanamir" to 3.5...
I have great memories of that adventure, and its emphasis on problem-solving instead of combat makes it useful for introducing newbies to tabletop rpg's.

Flubadubdub
2007-12-29, 12:32 AM
While the removal of gnomes actually does sadden me (I quite like gnomes, particularly deep gnomes, or svirfneblin from first edition)

They always struck me as the "other" short guys though, and we're sadly always less used than even the halfling, so their removal, while unfortunate, might be warrant.

As for Dark elves, they we're introduced in the arcana for first edition, and I really quite enjoyed the addition of them. At the time, the different elf races seemed kind of stupid in my mind. High Elves and Gray elves we're nearly exactly the same, except gray elf got an extra intelligence point, and their prefered races we're like a notch different. Wild elves got a ridiculus +2 to strength, which at the time was a bit rigged.

Drow on the other hand, while I considered a little overpowered, got negatives in light, but had a few spells to start with, basically got 2 weapon fighting, and could finally go ultimate in cleric, unlike all the other races who got screwed over.

As for this a money grab, I consider the introduction of a million different books to add new classes for 3.5 much more of a money grab. They geared generally towards casters and did little for the suffering melee classes. New rules means perhaps they have created a system which this will be fixed, making swords and magic equal finally!

Besides, I don't see what possible gain you could get from owning 50 different books. I consider myself a dork for how much I'll read the books, but 50 of em, you'd just get lost :smalleek:

As for half dragons, I would less willing to use those unless mechanically I felt they we're sound, and somehow made sense. And if I really feel the urge, I'll just write up some stats on gnomes and reintroduce em

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-29, 12:46 AM
Drow and Tiefling, powerful?

lolz. They're in no way worth the ECL. If you want a good fighter, which we're assuming since a caster with LA is dumb, go for Feral or Insectile templates instead of drow. You get a dex bonus, no NA, no extra limbs, no fast healing, no natural weapons, and a con penalty, with Drow. A feral human has one less LA and is a better fighter. An insectile human having six arms trumps two weapons, by far, for the drow's equal LA. A regular human has no LA, and is thus a better wizard.
Drow are played for RP reasons, I assure you. Renegade Drow gives a very easy explanation to why you're adventuring, and being a renegade anything is pretty cool; James Dean, Wolverine, Steve McQueen (less so, but I wanted to keep the rhyme going and he kinda fits), and so on. Also, being a dark elf is pretty cool, based on the fact that main representations of dark elves are cool. They're the wit, grace, and elegance of elves, without the pansy side most elves have. Their wit is used for cruel, biting sarcasm, and so on. This makes them inherently more interesting than the elitist, but goody-goody elves one usually sees.
That and a lot of people like Drizzt and want to play him. That's part of it, too.

Thrythlind
2007-12-29, 02:04 AM
I can see how the Tiefling is viewed as deserving of an LA of +1, because its Ability bonuses outweigh its single penalty. This is rare. However, the Aasimar seem more worth the +1 because they don't HAVE negatives at all.

Snooder
2007-12-29, 02:15 AM
I have a feeling a lot of the posters with hate for Tieflings and Dragonborn haven't really kept up with the info from WOTC or paid much attention to it. Here's a quick recap first.

Tieflings:
Not 'planetouched' any more. They are an real 'race' now. Just like elves, orcs, dwarves, e.t.c. They have little to do with humans and have their own communities and distinct culture. Imagine if WOTC created a race of smart orcs with horns. THAT'S the new Tieflings.

Dragonborn:
Don't think half-dragon, think burly kobold. Again, no longer is there the idea of a weird half-breed who is 'special' and 'unique', instead it's just another race.

Ok, now that perhaps the new races have been put into the proper light, lets move on to why Gnomes, Half-Orc and Half-Elves deserved to be left out of the PHB. Also, why Tieflings and Dragonborn needed to come in, and why the introduction of the two isn't necessarily the reason for the elimination of the three.

First, the departing races. I'll start with the more explainable loss of the halfbreeds. The problem with Half-Elves and Half-Orcs is that they aren't really races. You can't have a continual community of Half-Elves, at some point they devolve into humans or elves. Furthermore, since the race is a blending of two other races, it's hard to give it a unique flavor or idea. Better really to just take that unique flavor and assign it to a whole new race that actually is designed to represent it.

And now to Gnomes. And here is where the acrimony flows and flamewars begin. I will start with a statement that may seem harsh but if you are patient and read through till the end, will be proven and supported.

Gnomes Suck.

Yes, it's true. Gnomes suck, precisely because they are supposed to suck. "But I love playing Gnomes. And my Gnomes Bard/illusionist/whatever is awesome" you reply, inchoate with rage. Well yes, YOUR character rocks. But the race as a whole, and as an archetype is supposed to be weak. Part of the reason many people enjy playing gnomes is because they enjoy bucking the stereotype and turning a weak character into a strong one.

So why do I say gnomes are weak? Lets examine the common archetypes for the gnome shall we?
a.) hobbit - a race of sedentary, fat rural bumpkins as adventorous PCs? I think not.
b.) tinkerer - these gnomes are known specifically for being flighty and feebleminded. Not to mention the problem of placing a technologist race in a fantasy setting where technology is almost non-existent. And dwarves make better smiths/engineers for the technology that DOES fit.
c.) illusionist - far too specific a flavor to be useful. Note that gnomes are the masters of the arcane arts, that role is reserved for Elves(now Eladrin). nor are they tricksters and pranksters, halflings tend to fit that role better. And they certainly aren't jacks of all trades, humans have that role battered down and locked in a tight grip.

So we have gnomes, a race of flighty, fat bumpkins whose only use is to make fake pictures (remember that's what illusions are after all). Do they really belong among the hardy dwarves with arms like corded steel? Or the Elven wizards of fearsome arcane prowess? Or the halfling rogues with uncanny stealth and the ability to steal the very breath from your lips? Can you imagine WOTC placing a note after the gnome entry as follows:
"-play a gnome if you want to be the butt of all jokes and a crazy eccentric fellow"

So yeah, the gnomes are kinda a joke race. They really always have been. It's fine if you like that sorta thing, but they don't really belong in the PHB.

So now to the new races. The new races, in a way, reflect the new classes of the PHB. Tieflings are the archetypical Warlock and Dragonborn are Warlords. Each has its own flavor and archetype that doesn't intrude on the others and has a necessary place in the PHB. If Elves are the masters of wizardly might, then Tieflings are masters of fey/demonic might. Dragonborn are just the burly new bruisers. Basically they came in to replace the disposessed Half-Orcs. The gnomes didn't have to go because the new guys came in, no matter what WOTC says, they left because they just didn't have a place other than nostalgia and 'sacred cow'.


Of course, I could be completely wrong and gnomes left because an editor over at wizards was molested by a midget at a young age. Who knows.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-12-29, 09:47 AM
Before this discussion goes anywhere else, let me point out that half-elves are still in the PHB and that you will be able to play a Gnome (it just wont be in the PHB, it will be in the MM)

Morty
2007-12-29, 09:52 AM
Before this discussion goes anywhere else, let me point out that half-elves are still in the PHB and that you will be able to play a Gnome (it just wont be in the PHB, it will be in the MM)

Actually, from what I've heard there's no mention of half-elves in 4ed materials so far, apart from them being used as an example in early article about racial progression. As for the gnomes, it all depends if WotC will give them racial progression.
I'm personally happy about removal of gnomes and half-orcs, but not half-elves- I can live with that though, and I understand the reasons behind removal of half-elves. The added races however, are distasteful for me.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-29, 12:45 PM
Tieflings:
Not 'planetouched' any more. They are an real 'race' now. Just like elves, orcs, dwarves, e.t.c. They have little to do with humans and have their own communities and distinct culture. Imagine if WOTC created a race of smart orcs with horns. THAT'S the new Tieflings.
Tieflings aren't really like orcs at all, except for the "usually evil" descriptor.


Dragonborn:
Don't think half-dragon, think burly kobold. Again, no longer is there the idea of a weird half-breed who is 'special' and 'unique', instead it's just another race.
What makes them lame is the same thing that makes half-dragons lame; they aren't really dragons. They're just guys in dragon suits. Making Lizardfolk a PC race would've been a much better idea, flavour wise, than some cut-rate dragons. Kobold are fun because they show the weak side of the great, noble creatures. Dragonborn show the grey, dull middle ground.


Furthermore, since the race is a blending of two other races, it's hard to give it a unique flavor or idea. Better really to just take that unique flavor and assign it to a whole new race that actually is designed to represent it.
That's exactly what gives Half-Orcs cool flavour; humans and orcs tend to hate each-other. Them blending together can make very interesting combinations.


So why do I say gnomes are weak? Lets examine the common archetypes for the gnome shall we?
a.) hobbit - a race of sedentary, fat rural bumpkins as adventorous PCs? I think not.
I thought hobbits were a halfling archetype?


b.) tinkerer - these gnomes are known specifically for being flighty and feebleminded. Not to mention the problem of placing a technologist race in a fantasy setting where technology is almost non-existent. And dwarves make better smiths/engineers for the technology that DOES fit. (emphasis mine)
When, exactly, were gnomes known to be feebleminded. They're known to be ingenious, but with few practical concerns; absent-minded professors. Also, Dwarves are conservative and tradition-bound, that tech isn't going anywhere but where it is with them in the lead.


c.) illusionist - far too specific a flavor to be useful. Note that gnomes are the masters of the arcane arts, that role is reserved for Elves(now Eladrin). nor are they tricksters and pranksters, halflings tend to fit that role better. And they certainly aren't jacks of all trades, humans have that role battered down and locked in a tight grip.
First, more than one race can be good at something. Both dwarves and half-orcs are good fighters, and both can actually make pretty good clerics. The int penalty doesn't affect half-orc clerics too much, really, and they both take a cha penalty. Secondly, Gnomes are also the ideal bard, which, for the mockery it gets, is a surprisingly formidable class. Better than any non-caster.


So we have gnomes, a race of flighty, fat bumpkins whose only use is to make fake pictures (remember that's what illusions are after all). Do they really belong among the hardy dwarves with arms like corded steel?
The hardy dwarves who can be killed by those "fake pictures." Because guess what? Fighters have ****ty will saves. Also, while not as strong, Gnomes are just as hardy as those Dwarves.


Or the Elven wizards of fearsome arcane prowess?
Gnomes can have just as fearsome the prowess, unless it's a Grey or Sun elf.

Or the halfling rogues with uncanny stealth and the ability to steal the very breath from your lips?
Actually, rogues can't really do this very well at all. The gnome's favoured class, the bard, begins to outshine the rogue at level eight or so.


"-play a gnome if you want to be the butt of all jokes and a crazy eccentric fellow"
"Play a dwarf if you want to be a homewrecking alcoholic and crazy, eccentric fellow, but only crazy and eccentric in one way, because your whole race is a zany, psuedo-scottish, psuedo-norse stereotype."
"Play an elf if you want to take a size penalty in bed and be a crazy, eccentric fellow," ((It doens't apply to most rub-races, but still, nobody plays most of those sub-races, and there's a lot more mileage for mockery in elves.))
"Play a halfling if you want be the butt of all the jokes and a dull, sedate fellow."
"Play a human if you don't want to be the butt of the jokes or a crazy, eccentric fellow. In fact, if you don't want to have a personality at all and want the party to forget you're there."

You can do that with any race.


So now to the new races. The new races, in a way, reflect the new classes of the PHB. Tieflings are the archetypical Warlock and Dragonborn are Warlords.
Oh, good. I was worried D&D might get less stereotypical and repetetive with this edition. Glad to know I can expect to see the same four characters over and over again every time again. Only, now one will be a demon lady, which is okay, and one will be a lame attempt to make dragons a PC race without actually making dragons a PC race.

Thrythlind
2007-12-30, 02:28 AM
Actually, I've heard from a demo-runner that the art on the gnome came out pretty good, so they're thinking of working it back in.

Meanwhile, Tieflings and the Aasimar are getting renamed and Aasimar are getting buffed up a bit to match Tiefling.

The rumors I've heard are that Tieflings (whatever they get renamed to) and Dragonborn are going to be ancient races about the same age as elves, but that they've been at war so long that they're fading/dying as a race.

I'm thinking the Aasimar will be similar.

I've also heard that Dragonborn are basically a mix of half-dragons, bahamut's dragonborn and spellscales and that they've been crafted to become something akin to a D&D klingon. His comparison, not mine. I haven't seen the storylines on any of these yet, just heard generalizations.

Some other word I've heard, most Alignment-based effects are just outright gone. In order to detect someone as good or evil, they have to be on the level of paladins or blackguards respectively, and probably clerics of extreme gods. Common drow, orcs, humans, elves, halflings, aasimar, tieflings and the like will just sort of register as neutral.

so, the Lawful Good on your fighter is more of a guideline for yourself to RP than a mechanic affecting situation.

they've also added a class of magic called "rituals" that's always available. I'm not sure how combat-useful they are yet, but I know that things like wizardly teleport and clerical healing are now rituals.

Also, Sorcerers are being given all the elemental effects in order to differentiate them somewhat from wizards.

Again, I haven't seen paper, just heard about stuff from a demo-runner, and general conversation tends to run toward inaccuracies.

Somebloke
2007-12-30, 06:33 AM
Yes, I will be converting.

4e has moved in a number of directions I liked- toning down spellcasters, giving fighters more options and power, reducing the dependancy on magic items, granting defence bonuses...I will be able to cut back dramatically on my homebrews.

I'll probably change the races to some sort of human upbringing, but that was in the works to begin with.

Matthew
2007-12-30, 10:51 AM
Compare 2nd edition D&D with Vampire: The Masquerade, for example. In those days (early nineties) it was hard to find people willing to play D&D because the Storyteller system was much more flexible and less clunky.

Heh, maybe for you it was.

Xerillum
2007-12-30, 11:10 AM
I Will Resist!!!

Newtkeeper
2007-12-30, 07:17 PM
Probably not. 3.5 works for what I need. Also, I have a fair amount of money tied up in it.

I know I shouldn't judge a system based on its fluff, but I hear the cries of pain coming from the old cosmology- one that survived some 3 1/2 editions.

And replacing the gnomes with tieflings? I'm sure it makes good business since, but it feels wrong, somehow... If they've put off half-elves, too, as the rumors say, I will be angry.

And here is a quote that disturbs me:


Play a drow if you …
...
* ?enjoy playing a hero in search of redemption and who struggles to rise above the wickedness of his people;
Don't worry, they won't be in the 1st PHB. But....
I have nothing against drow. But don't we have enough Drizzt clones already without WoTC *encouraging* them?

Grrw
2007-12-30, 07:55 PM
After thumbing through the races and classes book, it seems all races are getting bumped up a few levels, IIRC the book even says that. So far, 4e just seems like a different game...yeah, it says D&D on it, but its more like rolemaster or MERP.

Newtkeeper
2007-12-30, 08:00 PM
After thumbing through the races and classes book, it seems all races are getting bumped up a few levels, IIRC the book even says that. So far, 4e just seems like a different game...yeah, it says D&D on it, but its more like rolemaster or MERP.


Oh, I dunno. If we say that 4e "isn't DnD", then 3.x isn't either. I've looked at the 2e rules, and they are rather more different from 3.5 than I expect 4e to be.

Aiylithe
2007-12-30, 08:33 PM
I've always played tieflings, myself, and I'd be seriously disappointed if too many changes were made to them. The Lesser Tiefling (which makes it a native instead of an outsider) gets rid of the level adjustment, and makes everything much simpler. And there are some amazing combat classes if you're the type to play them... the BoVD has the Disciple of Dispater, for example.

I think that the idea of 4.0 just being there to integrate the miniature-based and online versions of D&D takes away from the game. Any problems in 3.5 can be fixed by the DM and the players, and the computer-based applications piss me off a bit. It's a TABLETOP role-playing game. Adding a computer to the planning stage is great (I have all my character's stuff on my computer), but adding a computer to the playing part of it takes the whole game down a notch. I don't know about everyone else, but I like D&D even more because it's not mechanized.

If they do something to boost the combat classes, that's great... but I don't think I'm going to have anything to do with 4.0, myself. I know my DM has already sworn never to touch it.

But, in the end, the rules are really just guidelines. Anything goes as long as everyone is having fun. Whether you're in 1st edition or 4th, that's what matters.

horseboy
2007-12-30, 09:06 PM
After thumbing through the races and classes book, it seems all races are getting bumped up a few levels, IIRC the book even says that. So far, 4e just seems like a different game...yeah, it says D&D on it, but its more like rolemaster or MERP.

ROTFL Yeah, right, like WotC could do something that solid.

Matthew
2007-12-31, 12:33 AM
Oh, I dunno. If we say that 4e "isn't DnD", then 3.x isn't either. I've looked at the 2e rules, and they are rather more different from 3.5 than I expect 4e to be.

Depends which 2e Optional Rules you're using. By 1995, a lot of 2e was looking very similar to 3e.

skywalker
2007-12-31, 02:44 AM
Hi, just popping back in here to say that there's nothing in the preview book to say that half-elves are out, except the tenuous evidence that they're included along with half-orcs and gnomes as a race with "legacy value." There is also one race portrait in the front of the book without a corresponding article in the book. His ears appear too long to be human, and too short to be elven. As well, there is another piece of concept art near the end of the book showcasing an half-elf paladin. This, combined with the early development talk of half-elves having new abilities convinces me that half-elves remain a part of 4th edition's core.

Thrythlind
2007-12-31, 03:54 AM
Yes, I will be converting.

4e has moved in a number of directions I liked- toning down spellcasters, giving fighters more options and power, reducing the dependancy on magic items, granting defence bonuses...I will be able to cut back dramatically on my homebrews.

I'll probably change the races to some sort of human upbringing, but that was in the works to begin with.

Actually, from what I'm hearing, they didn't tone down anything.

They toned up everything, they just toned spellcasters up less and melee classes more.

The result might look like spellcasters were toned down, but that's what it looked like initially with the move from 2nd to 3E which, after all, presented an enormous leap for most melee classes and a small jump for several caster ones.

Also, it sounds like all the core races, including humans, are going to be the equivalent of about an LA +2 since they specifically said that drow as they are would be about as powerful as any other class.

By the way, Humans have finally been given a distinct advantage besides just adaptability, which has always been either overpowering or underpowering. From what I read, human Talent trees are going to have a lot of abilities focused on "dramatic action and dramatic recovery" while their weakness is discussed under "human frailty" and seems to be describing how corruptible humans can be sometimes.

So, it seems like Aragorn, Isildur, Boromir and Angmar are becoming the models of humanity.

So, we got, resist corruption, fall to corruption, fall but recover, and fall really far.