PDA

View Full Version : 4E Races and Classes



Tren
2007-12-30, 06:31 PM
I just picked up a copy of Races and Classes (oh teh noes! he's paying for advertisingz!) I think it's a great art book, and I personally really enjoy seeing where the designers heads are at during the process. I myself am looking forward to 4E because a lot of the design philosophy seems to be in-line with what I think would make a good tabletop experience, and Classes and Races has really reinforced that.

I'm wondering if anyone who's bought it or read through a copy noticed any particular articles or discussions that helped to either raise your interest or disdain for 4E. I really liked this quip from Mike Mearls on power sources:

"Going forward, power sources are a useful tool for concepting and creating new character classes. When we release the psionic classes, you can expect that we will do more to make psi powers different from arcane ones, rather than simply steal the same mechanics. By the same token, when designing the Players Handbook we took care to leave space open for the power sources we knew were around the corner. For instance, we expect that psi characters will have more powerful methods for controlling their enemies' minds. Thus, we toned down some of the mind control and charm effects available to arcane characters."

Particularly what makes me giddy with fanboyish glee is the forethought gone into making particular niches and roles for different types of character. They're actively trying to make sure the wizard and psion aren't just carbon copies one with Vancian casting and one with power points. To me, this implies to some extent that they are going to be reining in the diversity and power of the wizards spell list, and not making them the masters of everything given 8 hours of sleep and a chance to prepare a new set of spells.

Crow
2007-12-30, 06:37 PM
(oh teh noes! he's paying for advertisingz!)

Just for the record, it's the people buying the book who are the most defensive about that...

Anyhow, I hope that they include some of the info from this book in the PHB when it comes out. Just reading the "behind the scenes" segments in the 3.5 core books can provide useful insight into the designer's intent, which helps resolve some of the RAW vs. RAI arguments at out table.

Tren
2007-12-30, 07:03 PM
Just for the record, it's the people buying the book who are the most defensive about that...

For my part I've mostly seen the term bandied by people who haven't bought the book and don't plan to. But it's a true statement, in as much as buying any product with the D&D logo on it is advertising.


Anyhow, I hope that they include some of the info from this book in the PHB when it comes out. Just reading the "behind the scenes" segments in the 3.5 core books can provide useful insight into the designer's intent, which helps resolve some of the RAW vs. RAI arguments at out table.

We've seen a bit of this already in the Rules Compendium and I think it'd be great. Beyond rules discussions I think it might also help people comprehend the rule set as a whole a little better if you can see the designers thought process.

Kompera
2007-12-30, 07:39 PM
But it's a true statement, in as much as buying any product with the D&D logo on it is advertising.Not really. Buying the PHB allow you to play the game as a PC participant. Buying the core books allows you to play the game as a GM participant. Buying Races and Classes allows you to read the 4e fluff on races and classes. Whether you think this fluff is worth your money is a matter of personal opinion, but it can't be confused with buying a game.

EvilElitest
2007-12-30, 09:56 PM
A lot of things annoyed me, and a lot of things i liked, but should i go over it here or on some other thread? There are to many 4E threads it hurts my mind :smalleek:
from,
EE

Tren
2007-12-30, 11:58 PM
Not really. Buying the PHB allow you to play the game as a PC participant. Buying the core books allows you to play the game as a GM participant. Buying Races and Classes allows you to read the 4e fluff on races and classes. Whether you think this fluff is worth your money is a matter of personal opinion, but it can't be confused with buying a game.

I guess my point is that buying a product-- whether it's a rulebook, novel, or art/design book-- is not "buying advertising", unless I'm literally buying a book full of pages of ads saying "Buy more wizards products.


A lot of things annoyed me, and a lot of things i liked, but should i go over it here or on some other thread? There are to many 4E threads it hurts my mind

I'd say this is the perfect place for it

EvilElitest
2007-12-31, 12:20 AM
Alright, there is a lot i disliked but it will take me more time, so i'll finish up tomorrow, but two things i disliked and one thing i liked

Cons

1. No more subraces:smallannoyed: , not cool. More detail later
2. Tiefling weapons make no freaking sense, no body could feasibility use them. They are just stupid

Pros
Female dwarves, finally
from,
EE

Enlong
2007-12-31, 12:34 AM
Hey, since you've read the fluff, could you give me some information on how Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (or whichever casting classes are in R&C) are distinguished from each other (outside of Power Source), like where they get their magic, how they control it, etc.?

Matthew
2007-12-31, 12:42 AM
I guess my point is that buying a product-- whether it's a rulebook, novel, or art/design book-- is not "buying advertising", unless I'm literally buying a book full of pages of ads saying "Buy more wizards products.

I think people get confused by what is meant as 'literally true' and what is meant as a tongue in cheek criticism of a product. Obviously Races & Classes isn't literally advertising. It does, however, contain information that some people would have expected to see distributed for free as part of the drive to promote 4e. The internet be a weird place...

horseboy
2007-12-31, 12:50 AM
I think people get confused by what is meant as 'literally true' and what is meant as a tongue in cheek criticism of a product. Obviously Races & Classes isn't literally advertising. It does, however, contain information that some people would have expected to see distributed for free as part of the drive to promote 4e. The internet be a weird place...

Kinda like that book they gave out for free back in the changeover from 1st to 2nd. This time you've got to pay.

Theodoxus
2007-12-31, 12:53 AM
Hey, since you've read the fluff, could you give me some information on how Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (or whichever casting classes are in R&C) are distinguished from each other (outside of Power Source), like where they get their magic, how they control it, etc.?

Wizards will be primarily blasters, utilizing Orbs (like D2 orbs, not orb of acid orbs), Staves and Wands to modify their spells. There are no more Metamagic or Item Creation feats. Wizards will also have Rituals to do most of the out of combat spells (teleport, divination, etc.) so you're not locking up spell slots with 'useless' spells. There was fluff regarding at will abilities, and encounter abilities but no crunch for it. I would hazard that they'll get something along the line of reserve feats with a modified mechanic.

Warlocks are going to be fairly close to their 3.5 counterpart, though there are a number of behind the scenes articles where the developers were spouting off names of new incantations... it was actually pretty funny. The big change will be curses - which look to be rather powerful and might be considered 'Rated M, for Mature'. Pretty gruesome from the developers comments.

Sorcerers are still in the works, and the only real crunch they provided for them is they will not be utilizing the same spell list as Wizards. That was one thing noted in the Power Sources section - any new spell casting class that is introduced (Wu Jen was the example) will have a unique power source and unique spell list that won't be carbon copies of others. Probably some dipping, but hopefully not too much.

Not that you asked, but the Druid (still being worked on) will have far greater emphasis placed on wild shape than spellcasting... Their philosophy is the druids niche is the ability to shapechange. One thing they mentioned - and is subject to change, as is all their notation, really - is Druids will probably get a few specific forms. Probably something akin to the Shapeshift Varient, but with feats to improve the forms and not just an exceedingly generic blanket abilities.


In general, I like that they included a lot of the whys behind their changes. They say they did research of forums and conventions and whatnot to see what people liked and didn't of 3.5 along with what races are the most popular, etc. All in all, not a bad bit of 'advertising', imo.

Conjurer
2007-12-31, 05:54 PM
The one thing that really got to me from the C&R book was the whole "Wizards make things go boom" (I'm quoting here). Yes, that's a valid archetype, and many players like it, but it's my preferance to use other methods... and to the 4 pages or so of 'control through explosions' philosophy, there's a single paragraph to the effect of 'not all controlly spells need to be damage dealers'.

I really hope there's more to the wizard than being a Evoker in disguise.

Other than that, I'm happy with what I saw, but even happier I didn't actually buy this book.

Thrythlind
2007-12-31, 08:05 PM
Actually the way I understood Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks, by reading the "Class Role" section was as follows:


Wizards: "Controllers" meaning battle pacing, terrain affects, and the like. The term "controller" was literally used in the Races and Classes books.

Sorcerers: Seem more elemental powers, fire, water, air, etc. Blasters more than wizards and warlocks.

Warlocks: Debuffers, inhibiting foes. Apparently there will be benefits based on on your chosen source of power: "Infernal", "Fey", "Star" and "Vestige".

Inyssius Tor
2007-12-31, 08:30 PM
Going through the book right now. The introduction is--well, listen:
This exciting suite of digital tools for players and Dungeon Masters was just too powerful a concept to try to shoehorn the existing d20 Game System around it. Instead, we knew we had to rebuild the game to take full advantage of this amazing new initiative. When the two concepts merged - a new edition and a new digital initiative - we knew it was time to start planning the 4th Edition of D&D.
Eugh. Once Bill Slaviczek shuts up, the book promises to get a lot better (with a few tidbits like "Because the races in the Player's Handbook were all balanced against each other ..."). I'll post more later.

Oh and: yes, the Tiefling weapons really are ludicrously impractical. "What a human might mistake for a twisted shard of metal could easily be a tiefling dagger" - there are reasons our swords aren't twisted shards of metal in reality, you know.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-31, 08:47 PM
Oh and: yes, the Tiefling weapons really are ludicrously impractical. "What a human might mistake for a twisted shard of metal could easily be a tiefling dagger" - there are reasons our swords aren't twisted shards of metal in reality, you know.

Actually, just one reason: We're not badass enough! :tongue:

RandomFellow
2007-12-31, 09:34 PM
Going through the book right now. The introduction is--well, listen:
Eugh. Once Bill Slaviczek shuts up, the book promises to get a lot better (with a few tidbits like "Because the races in the Player's Handbook were all balanced against each other ..."). I'll post more later.

...
This has pretty much turned me off to 4E (Ya, I bought it with gift cards from Christmas. I'm an 'instant gratification' kind of guy.).

The Crunch, the fluff, and the intro. But the intro got me in a foul mood from the get go.

'Digital Initiative' is another word for 'We are abusing the fact we own the copyright to try to con you out of more money and killing good existing services in the process'.

The fact that Paizo's magazines, E-Tools, etc. were killed as par of the creation of 4E pissed me off. The fact that what is visible of their replacements appear to be the quality that I expect from the average hobbyist doesn't help matters. (No offense to my fellow homebrewers, but we aren't professionals. I wouldn't pay for anything we produce.)

No more half races. They aren't races then. THEY ARE SPECIES. And I don't like replacing subraces with 'full' races that are subraces. (e.g. Eldarin, Drow).

I don't like the fact that the majority of it was talking about the arcanists (3 classes with multiple pages compared to the 1/2 to 1 and a 1/2 pages for alot of other core classes that are less popular). And what I saw of arcanists made it sound like 'we are turning the existing classes into effectively 3 archetypes of specialized wizards'. (Controllers, Blasters, Debuffers). So now I've gotta call myself a Warlock to be an effective debuffer? Seriously, what the f***. I'm seriously tempted to go read the core mechanics/srd and homebrew anything I'd use for that.

Basically, the R&C book greatly reduced my interest (from neutral to highly unlikely) in purchasing anything 4E or DI related.

EvilElitest
2007-12-31, 10:36 PM
Alright, this is my absurdly sized rant, it is so big, i'm going to have to cut it into parts

I am going to critique this book page by page alright (by the by, if anyone from WOTC is reading this, please PM me i want a job as a writer for the new book, trust me you will get your money's worth)
maybe this should get its own thread but whatever

Alright

Cover page, cool but simple, kinda basic, almost like SE books. The pictures are cool, but two out of proportioned for my tastes, the fighter dude is wearing armor that look like WOW and the tiefling's daggers make no sense what so ever
cool pictures inside though, 2,3,5 are all cool

alright, now i'm getting really started, p.6 the discussion of the rules, here is where it pisses me of

p. 7 the reasons for 4th edition are discussed, two complaints

1. They admit to flaw in 3.5, and yes we are aware of them. However instead of doing what the sort of did for SE to 3E, the are revamping the system in ways that aren't needed (see complaints in detail later) and changing things are aren't even broken.

2. D&D insider? What is that (note, even if i find out later in the book, they should have explained that on the first page)
also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table, i could understand a digital version (same as table top but for people who just like digital) that goes along side table top but merging them together just makes both pro digital and pro table top, as well as those who lack the people to play with in person and the people who lack the finance, time, or access to computers who will feel left out. This might be addressed later, but i wanted to know from page one
We see advertising for Wizards Presents Worlds and Monsters, so i feel the need to make a disclaimer

As people might have noticed, i love fluff, or as i call it meat (stolen term) over crunch. But i know the importance of crunch and I use it as much as possible to fit the story. The five things i love the most in D&D are
1. Playable Races
2. Classes
3. Worlds, Champion settings ect
4. Monsters
5. Alignments and morality

So this is my element they are preaching to me. I may or may not read the second book depending on my first glance
Anyways in the next paragraph, three notes
1. They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because i really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely i will no be buying 4E

2. This is only a sample, so i will still be open to the possibility of it being really cool
3. Can't imagine playing D&D anyone other way? Eh?

4. Good luck with the champion
5. they are still play testing, yet again please hire me, i have no qualifications other than a bloated ego and a lot of gaming experience:smallbiggrin:
There is thank a rather nice thank you saying how we have and still are helping them make a better game
Then on p. 7 we have a cool dwarf picture (I know this i subjective) i liked the sketch and the finished product, the red looked nice with the dagger and i found the beard cool, but i'm not artist

I feel the need to make one thing clear at this time, i have always been a bit fan of WOTC, i've defending them against most attacks (except wizards being overpowered, even i couldn't argue against that one) and i greatly prefer D&D to other RPGs. I am also a massive fantasy fan, and i love seeing and creating games related to the genre

I'm going to skip the design timeline on pages 8 and 9 as it doesn't really interest me as well as p.10 and most of p. 11 but the final article, where the artist talk, i must say "Good job" as i found most of the art very good quality in these books, i think they have done a very good job:smallbiggrin:
big fan of the art, one two things bother me (and by that is out of all the pictures i've seen

1. I wish the weapons and armor looked more realistic, but that is just me
2. Only real complaint, Please, Please, Please, i beg of you, stop showing lewdly clad women, please. This book doesn't do it so much (a bit more cleverage for my liking but i'm extremely american) but really, this has been bugging me for years
I just turned 16 (male) and i know most teens are extremely immature in matters of women (Way to many just go "Hmmmmmm, Boobs" and leave it at that) but really, i'm just asking you to cut back. This is just an important point here that i really just want to make a few bullets (I know i'm getting off topic but still)
A- I can't take them seriously. I can accept magic, and super human strength (realistically most people go down after one sword wound via infection), i can accept fantasy races, i don't mind dragons flying ect. But when adventures run around on admittedly dangerous journeys fighting stuff, but when a the elves all run around wearing vollyball girl outfits? Really, please, that just screams "Stab me" as chain-mail bikini's offer no protection and they would just die of exposer. This prevents me from being drawn into the world and looking at the said characters in any sort of realistic manner, it just kills the spirt for me. Considering this is a mid-evil styled game this makes even less sense

B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings. I just feel like they are soulless fashion models who i can't even start to judge as real characters. If the smartest, bravest and toughest wizard wears an outfit that exposes her stomach and breasts, i just am thinking "So does she sleep around a lot or what? Why is she wearing such a useless outfit?" D&D doesn't have enough female players as it is (this saddens me greatly) and i think WOTC should open out to girls more by treating them equally, not as sex symbols. Exception exist for pictures of girls who are suppose to dress that way (a seducer for example, or a succubus ect) but really

C- Every time a see a male dude wearing armor and a female wearing next to nothing in the mid section, i feel so, out of it, i just feel no connection to the female character and it kills the fantasy mood i have been experiencing. So please, i admit i am american (in the prude sort of way) and that i am rather straight laced in said matters but please stop

D- I am not ashamed of the fact i play D&D, i have no problem brining books like the Players hand book to school, however when my friends (non gaming) are interested in the game an i try to explain it to them, when the see a half naked girl they just assume the worst and no longer take me seriously. I've stopped bringing most books because it embarrasses me.


Other than that, i love WOTCS artwork, makes the books worth the buy:smallbiggrin:

Back on topic (sorry about that, i notice i am taking to much room, so i might cut this up) we move onto the new logo, that feels, well, boring. The old one (with the sword running through the middle) kinda set the mood of epic fantasy, while this one i pretty, well, plain. I don't mind a new logo, but please make a cooler one. They do list the reasons for why the didn't like the old one, but i feel that should motivate them (i really think a new one would be cool) to make one that is cooler, not plainer

Alright, on p. 13 we have the Orcus Design Tenets.
1. Must be Medieval Fantasy Role Playing
Me- Horray, keep it that way, total agreement
2. Dungeon Master as Story teller
Me- you have my total support there
3. Cooperative Play Experience
Me- Good job, two thumbs up
4. Base Mechanics
It is worth noting in this book they go against this in some ways but in general, I support that whole heartily. After all, i play D&D for a reason, not Gurps or something else
5. Three - Dimensional tactics
Me- I don't use miniatures, but i have problem with them and as long as you can still play without them keep up the good work
6. Options not Restrictions
Me- This is the thing that makes me still open to D&D forth edition, and what i love most about this game, please, keep this rule true
7. Improve the Game
Me- I hope you improve it mechanically but don't fix want wasn't broken
8. Make the Game Easy to Design or, Develop, and Edit
Me- Oh gods, thank you, but keep the essential rules the same
So i am pretty supportive of what they are trying to do
Their email are also on p. 13, i might email them to apply for a job
Alright, i can't take anymore, i have plenty more to say, and i'll most likely finish EE's essay part two tonight but i need to eat dinner

Please comment on the essay, sorry for not staying on topic
:smalltongue:
from,
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 03:44 PM
Reserved for EE's essay part two, due to time management problems (caused by to much partying on New Year's eave) i am a little late with part two, but i'll make it up to you

The writing will be here when completed

Alright part two, i hope i can get part three up without my internet failing but here it goes

P. 11 we have heros of the world.

In the very first paragraph they make it quite clear that the PCs are the heroes of the world by devault. I would like to point out that this seems a lot like WOW, with every single PC being a "hero" simple because they chose a PC class. More later
The writers move onto talk about the "sweet spot" the levels 4-15 where the characters are very powerful and are having a good time. I would like to point out this really varies from class to class, for the fighter the 'Sweet spot" lasts until the wizard get high enough level to be useful, then he is useless
The Thief doesn't really have a sweet spot
The Druid and Cleric's sweet spot start to kick in around 7-9 ish levels and last forever
The wizard's goes from 8-20 (at best)
The monk doesn't have a sweet spot, ever. I mean ever
you get the idea, i think what WOTC should have focused upon is making all hte classes have the same "sweet spot" first before trying to expand it

Then the book gets absurd
In 3E, monsters are modeled in the same way as PCs, so that monsters are following the same rules as the PCs. This opens a lot of options
1. Monsters can be suitable challenges for PC, such as rivals, allies, comrads, enemies, and hunters ect.
2. The PCs get a sense that the monsters is more than a random encounter and a person in its own right, leading to many interesting situation and cool role playing options. The races also feel more "real" and integrated into the world
3. Evil Champions are open, players playing as monsters is an option, and monster cohorts are around, pretty cool. The webomic Goblins is a good example of this
4. the monsters follow the same rules as the PCs, useful for both role playing and for combat
5. The world makes more sense

D&D now has a chance to change itself from the black and white "You vs. them" sort of persona and go instead to launch itself instead into a geo political realistic fantasy world, with hundreds of different fantasy races struggling for survival and existence. The many different fantastical creatures all of whom have their own agenda, many of them fight for good or evil or live in a grey areas in between. The PCs can play as the champions of good, live in an anti hero gray area, or tyrants for the forces of darkness and evil. The players will be immersed in a world, not a basic came of "See the monster, stab the monster, loot its body, move on". I could play WOW for that. WOTC could publish more culture book on the many monsters (thus making lots of money) and increasing the sense of "realism" in the D&D world
So close


And they proply ruin it

"The PC s are going to be the center stage for the life of the campaign"
That.....doesn't make any sense
1. Sounds like a video game, where everything evolves around the PCs. That is an awful idea. If you want the PCs to be engrossed in the world, then you have to make the world realistic and amazing. The PCs will have no interest if some NPCs are being killed if they think the world revolves around them. They will not have any sort of interest in anything really, it will just be kinda "Kill it, get money, kill it, get money". Their is no longer any sense that they are inside a fantastical Tolkien like (oreMartin like if you enjoy Song of Fire and Ice, eddings like ect) world, it will be more like they are inside a video game, where everything is about you, and in sort, i think video games will always be able to do that better. Save the Final Fantasy sort of additude for video games
2. The above sort of world leads to PC hubris, as seen in the comic DM of the Rings, trust me, if the PCs don't care about the world they are in, then why will they ever bother to save it
3. Why do the PCs deserve such power? Think about it, within the game world, most Parties start out level 1, pretty normal guys, all around them there are NPCs that are the same level and higher who do more. The PCs eventually become heros, epic legends however why? They are good at what they do, they fight, they struggle, they level up, they work together and after all their hard work they become level 15! They are legends, most normal people look up to them in awe, they are praised as heros, songs are written about them ect, everybody loves them. And the players earned it
And in 4E they start out amazing. WTF? Why? What have they done to earn all this super power? What
4. It will kill FR. Think about it, FR is crawling with PCs, and in their world they have earned their high level prestige, wealth and fame. now every single PC in FR will suddenly be super powered? It doesn't make any sense. FR is already a high magic setting, do this and the world will fall apart
5. It is like the Exalted champaign settings. However, i don't like Exalted for that reason, so i play D&D. Broaching of territory i gather

"and deserve all the power optons and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path, i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheros. This is why i don't like Mary Sues, they start out super, i want characters to earn their fame and prestige and reap the rewards of their good work
"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. Thats it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super, this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else. Dear gods, don't do this, i can play Daiblo for a good video game, i play D&D for the cool gaming combined with a realistic role playing setting. 3.5 supported this, you lose nothing by having 4E do so as well

"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"
1. Ok, how will my world make any f**king sense then? If everything revolves around six dudes for no good reason, how does my plot even make sense? Why should my players care about my world if they aren't told to, whats to keep them from just rampaging the land killing as they please? Thank you for bringing D&D back to the old black and white and boring world that doesn't make sense. Thank you so much
2. Why are we spoiling the PCs so much?
Also, why shouldn't monsters have the same powers as everybody else? It makes the world more uniform and more interesting

/End rant

Oh i'm starting a new thread with these, as i've long sense gotten off topic

from
EE