PDA

View Full Version : Review of the 4E Preview Material



Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 12:14 AM
Basically, I'll be giving my reviews on the Fourth Edition Material as it comes out, rather than divide the two across two threads, I'll be reviewing both of them here and sharing my thoughts.

Worlds and Monsters Review

Okay, before we proceed any further. I'd like to state that I'm not a "Hater." I trust Richard Baker and his Adventuring Party of Game Designers to turn in an excellent product. On the other hand, I'm going to seriously discuss my opinions on some of his choices but they're not going to be dismissed out of hand like some people have done. To keep this thread relevant, it will also deal primarilly with those things that affect the Forgotten Realms.

Overall, I'm impressed with the work on 4E. It's an evocative and fascinating work that is well detailed with a coherent and interesting mythology. The place has a large focus on the mystical and surreal in order to heighten the fantasy elements of the world while downplaying the mundane. So, I definitely recommend gamers to get it. However, I have quite a few reservations and things I would have done differently.

Not enough for me to say that it wasn't a clear labor of love....but reservations.

For example; Richard, do you play a lot of Exalted?

Cause, either you do or you really should pick up that game since I think you'd enjoy it a great deal. You have the same "Primordial beings overthrown by the weaker and smaller gods who create their own static universe but aren't that nice" mixed with the heroes expected to be overthetop powerful figures while the environments aren't just weird and fantastical, they are WEIRD and FANTASTICAL. Plus, the Alien Fae and Lovecraftian horrors are both present with the big Sheol style Afterlife.

I'm not saying these don't have a shared mythological basis but there's a pretty clear Exalted-style feel here.

Richard Baker's Core Setting is what I like to term "Ultimate Greyhawk" in the Marvel sense. It's a place that has a clear similiarity to the D&D Core setting that has been left behind but it's also got striking differences that are even larger than the shift from 2E to 3E. Really, this is a totally different universe from anything that's come before in D&D's mythology. It'd be less problematic if this wasn't going into effect setting wide. But yes, there's no real way to reconcile 4E with the Old D&D world.

I'm going to just say this is the Sarah Conner Chronicles while D&D 3.5 was to Terminator 3. D&D 1st Edition is still on-going thanks to Hackmaster, so we know things go on. Nevertheless, 4E might better be called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3E or something else to differentiate it from the D&D Core Setting we're leaving behind.

Just accepting this is better than attempting to imagine the Crisis on Infinite Earths style things that would be necessary to reconcile the two.

Just some basic notes of what I liked and didn't like.

1. The Dragons: It didn't really need to be said that there's no need to state that Dragons can be bad or good no matter what their color. However, it's an explicit part of the work. I think that very little is honestly changed here but Richard Baker highlights some facts that the typical Alignment Double-think is off. I did like the changes to Green Dragons, however.

One questionable choice is Io is dead now and was split into Bahamut and Tiamat.

2. Giants: I appreciate Richard Baker correcting a long annoying flaw that I've had in that Giants were just too small for the kind of huge ass bad guys that I wanted. However, I'm not really sure about his solution that there's identical versions that are just shorter. In other words, there's HUGE ass Frost Giants and comparatively ting ones. It's like human and Dwarf Frost Giants.

3. Inhuman Civilizations: Ultimately, I have issues with Richard Baker's decisions that an Egyptian civilization ruled by mummies is something that's less interesting than an inhuman civilization of Salamanders. Honestly, not really. My players would have less reason to empathize with Salamanders and would be less likely to care if they were totally destroyed. Really, relatability is an important part of the gameworld.

4. The Undead: I'm not sure that I think the complication of whether undead have "souls" or not was really needed for the world to be honest and it seems like something that's just going to be needlessly confusing in the long run. Honestly, I also think he should have stuck with the idea that Negative Material Energy is evil rather than neutral but different strokes for different strokes.

5. The Shadowfel: I didn't appreciate the Eberronish combining the Negative Material Planes and Plane of Shadow to be honest. It comes off as a little too much like the Greek Underworld or the Jewish Sheoul to be honest. A bunch of ghosts wandering around in a lightless world may work for some mythologies but not all of them.

I also dislike Wee Jas being renamed "The Raven Queen."

6. The Feywild: I have no problems with this depiction, even if I think that Richard is unfortunately making the Fey realms to be too "close" to humankind. I rather liked that they were powerful and mysterious where they are really very close in this setting.

7. The Afterlife: One major mistake that I think Richard Baker has made in that the gods don't know where souls go. While I always felt it was pretty dodgy that "souls melt into their deity" I'm not sure this is really better. For me, I think I'll stick with my "Fluffy Cloud Heaven."

http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwik...ffyCloudHeaven

8. The Gods and Primordials: I appreciate Richard Baker's take on the gods and this fits the Forgotten Realms very really. The gods in Richard Baker's view are not omnipotent, omniscient, or undefeatable by mortals. They're able to be tricked and often have glaring personality disorders.

Honestly, I'm not sure about dividing the gods from the "Primordials" however. It's clear that Richard Baker is going for a 'Titans vs. Gods' and 'Giants vs. Gods' style battle between the Old Gods and the New Gods. However, I'm not sure if it's not another case of just making things more complex than they are.

Also, I don't really think that the Origins of the Universe should be spelled out so clearly as in these books. I liked the mystery of previous editions.

9. The Combination of the Inner Planes and Abyss: Despite my hesitation, I'll agree with Richard that the Inner Planes really were pretty much damned impossible to use. I'm not sure that the Elemental Chaos is better, however since it seems like a bit of a random combination of the Abyss/Inner Planes/Pandemonium without fixing any of the flaws.

Making it one plane doesn't make the unplayable regions any more playable.

10. No Blood War: I confess, I get Richard's reasoning. The Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil fighting one another is probably something that everyone should be happy about. Nevertheless, I always felt that it provided a massive conflict that could be the source of many new adventures.

It really seems to have just been replaced with the Primordial vs. God war. Also, it's one of the clearest signs this is "Ultimate D&D" rather than a continuition of the previous D&D universe.

11. Devils and Demons: I like Richard's desire to move the Devils more clearly from Demons. I don't mind the Succubi being Devils. What I am confused by is the fact that it seems to be undercut by its own text. Devils are all thinkers and corrupters now, yet they have massive armies? Without Pit Fiends, who exactly is supposed to be leading them? Likewise, if the Yugoloths are now Demons then what have the Demons really lost since the Loths are still all corruptors?

I don't mind the transformation of Asmodeus and his company into Fallen Angels, though. It's almost identical to at least some of his origins anyway. What I don't get is why Richard insists that Devils make soul bargains. With Asmodeus as a god, why doesn't he just have his own religion?

A bit disappointed that all the Demon Lords are not gods, though. Orcus should be, at least. The Elemental Evil also seems to be a bit weak for the Ultimate EvilTM.

Overall, I'm rather pleased with this book and despite my belief it's pretty close to Exalted D20, it's not really a bad sign of things to come. I'll definitely be picking up 4E even if I ignore a great deal of the Planar Material for my old Planescape works.

12. The Far Realm: Richard blatantly says that he increased the Far Realm's importance because he created it. Frankly, I'm not sure that Illithids and Beholders should all hail from the same world of sanity-blasting madness but he seems to think it works. I'll just call it "Xoriat" however.

7/10

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 12:18 AM
Races and Classes Review

My opening comment shall summarize this book very clearly for me. 4E artists really like bare midriff. Apparently, full shirts and dresses are impossible for women in 4E and this includes Dwarf Lasses.

Which is strange since a lot of the Artistic forces here seem to be women. But yes, once more, we shall not be seeing "realistic armor" anywhere on the women of D&D. However, all of the guys looked like they escaped Gwar anyway so maybe it's for the best.

My overall impressions of Races and Classes is fundamentally that they're trying to recapture a lot of the feel of D&D 1E and AD&D that was lost in the transition to 3rd Edition. It's a rather curious charge but it's one that impresses itself upon me. A lot of the "signatures" of 3rd Edition are eliminated.

1. No Prestige Classes: I was surprised by this move since The Prestige Class was a major cash cow for WOTC. Of course, I always recognized that Prestige Classes were nothing more than "Kits" from 2nd Edition warmed over. Frankly, I won't be surprised if there's something similiar that pops up soon.

2. 0-level Characters: The creation of "classless" characters that was foreshadowed by the SAGA edition of Star Wars was something that I personally disagreed with. While there's no need for the 20th level Commoner, it was understandable why it existed.

3. The Elimination of "Epic Levels": I was surprised by the decision but it seems like an attempt to simplify the rules while simultaneously bringing down the bar. Mordekain and Elminster are all within the 30th level limit, so they're no longer "beyond" player character aspirations.

The choices that are also made regarding the actual races have been discussed to death but there's some definite choices that reflect a Post-3rd Edition and Post-Eberron mentality that I don't necessarilly agree with. Honestly, I think it's more focused on continuing the "Dungeon-Punk" theme that's meant to differentiate D&D fantasy from Tolkien (oddly, it's MORE similiar in some respects).

1. Goodbye Tanis Half-Elven: Half-breeds were the first to get the chopping block in this work and its rather easy to see why. They've been sacrificed to allow for Tieflings to fill in their role as the "romantic outsiders." There's not much point in playing a Half-Orc if you have a genuine Demonspawn to replace your 'child of evil' origins.

2. Saiyanorah Gnomes: Richard talks about what's always been a problem in D&D that no one knows what to do with gnomes. Honestly, when I told Chris at my table, you'd think Richard killed Christ. The irony is, our entire games are BUILT on Gnomes sucking and no one liking them.

We just played it for laughs that they weren't aware of it. But in case you missed it, they just aren't including them in the main book, not eradicating them.

3. Tieflings and Celestials: I like the replacing of the name of the Aasimarr with Celestials for the same reason that Richard gives (it sounds like ). Nevertheless, Demonspawn having their roles so dramatically increased doesn't necessarilly fill me with a lot of joy.

It feels like base D&D becoming more like WOW. There was a time in D&D when Demons were rather rare. Nevertheless, it opens the door for the Fey'ri to be reclassified and made to continue in FR (even though they've been wiped out in canon) since the origin story is so similiar.

4. The Rise of the Sexy Dwarf: I don't think anyone under the age of 35 remembers the "Do Dwarf women have beards" debates unless they heard about them in KODT but clearly Richard thinks the issue needs to be settled. It was a bit of a joke at our table because Philip (our resident Dwarfphile) printed up the pictures. It's kinda weird to be honest. We him off by suggesting they were just bulky halflings since "Dwarf women don't exist."

Nevertheless, the biggest change is the return of Race Hate. Dwarves HATE Giants and loathe Orcs. Frankly, the origins of the Giant Hate makes Moradin one of the dumbest looking of the gods.

5. The Eldarin Controversy that's not really so controversial: Elves are divided into two particular castes. Their's the hoitey-toity conservative and godlike Eldarin and the "live in forests and party all night long" Elves. If you take a step back, the sudden division between the two types of elves isn't that big of a change at all. I assume that the only difference in FR will be Moon Elves/Gold Elves are Eldarin while Wild Elves are not.

6. Drow are unchanged: I'm surprised that Richard more or less stated this. I thought we'd be seeing surface Drow kingdoms and the like. Instead, they're still Dark Skinned people who are evil and worship Lolth with a matriarchy underground.

7. Halflings are all Brandybucks: Halflings used to be Hobbits in the Shire then they were Kender and now they're Brandybucks. I.e. they're River Hobbits that live in Swampy terrain and probably now all speak with a Cajun accent while eating gumbo. I'm not really sure how Richard thinks this will encourage people to play them.

But I am pleased to know Richard made them as tall as Dwarves.

One MAJOR change, of course, is that Yondalla doesn't exist. They're children of Obad Hai and Sehaine Moonbow.

8. Humans are....well....Humans: I do like Richard explicitly saying that its a Human Racial Trait that we're drawn to Evil. Apparently, Humans are naturally cursed to give into temptation.

So there's some controversial and not so controversial choices to be made there.

9. Dragonborn: To be honest, they worked in Dragonlance but arguably only in the War of the Lance. I've never really been able to get much out of Dragonborn despite my best efforts. They just don't seem that interesting and their role as the "Children of the Dragons" doesn't really grab me. They're not even Half-Dragons with all the ick that it implies.

It's really like making Lizardmen a PC race. However, if this will end the attempt to make Kobolds into Dragonkin, GOD BLESS HIM. They're DOGS, *MAN*, get over it!

Now onto the class changes.

1. Every Fighter is a Warblade: The Book of Nine Swords is apparently something that's going to be with every fighter. They'll be lots of manuevers and special moves. I think that they'll probably be toning down the supernatural aspects of move them to "Mageblades" (whom I assume will be the more anime style swordsmen). Frankly, I approve but it adds a lot of AD&D style complexity to combat.

2. Monks still suck: There's no sign they can use weapons from what I can tell and no real changes.

3. Paladins are going to be all Alignments: It was practically hand-stamped in D&D anyway, it'll now just be official. This makes sense in a world where Angels are Evil as well as good.

Worryingly, Richard seems to indicate Paladins will have varities of Smite. I keep imagining "Limit Breaks"

4. Every Mage is an Island: No more Vancian spell-system, well there's a toast to you but I can't say I'll miss you. Unfortunately, details are very vague on what's replacing it and I have to confess that I'm worried. As Final Fantasy and other RPG games attest, the Vancian system works even if there's no damn good storytelling reason for it.

Sorcerers will also be making an appearance and Warlocks. Frankly, I don't think that either are necessary if they REALLY overhaul the system.

5. Barbarians are unchanged: At least as far as I can tell.

6. Clerics are Nerfed: Richard spends pages extolling his Cleris but since Alignment is going to be mostly non-existent (or more precisely "Neutral" as "Unaligned" will be replacing most alignment) and there won't be any spells against Evil subtypes.....basically, most of their spell list is gone.

Frankly, I don't think whatever he creates as a substitute will be the same.

7. Rogues seem about the same: Except, a lot of the skills will be combined and Backstab will be more useful. I'm pretty sure that most of the changes will be non-controversial. However, Richard's statement that everyone will be able to deal with trap is troubling since it removes one of the Core things that a Rogue does.

Might as well give Swords to Wizards.

8. Druids are going to be Shapechanging more: Whoop de do. Sorry, Richard, I don't think that really invokes much. I suppose I should be grateful you're not dumping the class into the Cleric (though that's always been a valid choice in my opinion since they're really just a variant class of them----arguably so is Paladin).

But overall, I'm very impressed with this work and it seems the Core Rules will not be that problematic.

Still, I think 3rd Edition will be hard to top as this is much more complex whereas simplicity was the name of the game in 3rd.

7/10
Edit/Delete Message

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 12:34 AM
Races and Classes Review

My opening comment shall summarize this book very clearly for me. 4E artists really like bare midriff. Apparently, full shirts and dresses are impossible for women in 4E and this includes Dwarf Lasses.

Which is strange since a lot of the Artistic forces here seem to be women. But yes, once more, we shall not be seeing "realistic armor" anywhere on the women of D&D. However, all of the guys looked like they escaped Gwar anyway so maybe it's for the best.
The dwarven females I've seen have been pretty reasonable, from the fully armored fighter to the amusing swashbuckler-style rogue.


My overall impressions of Races and Classes is fundamentally that they're trying to recapture a lot of the feel of D&D 1E and AD&D that was lost in the transition to 3rd Edition. It's a rather curious charge but it's one that impresses itself upon me. A lot of the "signatures" of 3rd Edition are eliminated.

1. No Prestige Classes: I was surprised by this move since The Prestige Class was a major cash cow for WOTC. Of course, I always recognized that Prestige Classes were nothing more than "Kits" from 2nd Edition warmed over. Frankly, I won't be surprised if there's something similiar that pops up soon.
Characters are obviously going to have some kind of customization options. Whether those are more like kits, more like prestige classes, or something else remains to be seen.


The choices that are also made regarding the actual races have been discussed to death but there's some definite choices that reflect a Post-3rd Edition and Post-Eberron mentality that I don't necessarilly agree with. Honestly, I think it's more focused on continuing the "Dungeon-Punk" theme that's meant to differentiate D&D fantasy from Tolkien (oddly, it's MORE similiar in some respects).
What? The new races aren't "dungeonpunk" at all.


1. Goodbye Tanis Half-Elven: Half-breeds were the first to get the chopping block in this work and its rather easy to see why. They've been sacrificed to allow for Tieflings to fill in their role as the "romantic outsiders." There's not much point in playing a Half-Orc if you have a genuine Demonspawn to replace your 'child of evil' origins.
Also the whole "race is based around rape" thing.


3. Tieflings and Celestials: I like the replacing of the name of the Aasimarr with Celestials for the same reason that Richard gives (it sounds like ). Nevertheless, Demonspawn having their roles so dramatically increased doesn't necessarilly fill me with a lot of joy.

It feels like base D&D becoming more like WOW. There was a time in D&D when Demons were rather rare. Nevertheless, it opens the door for the Fey'ri to be reclassified and made to continue in FR (even though they've been wiped out in canon) since the origin story is so similiar.
What? Tieflings aren't demonspawn. The amount of demonspawn went *down*, in fact. 4E Tieflings are the descendants


5. The Eldarin Controversy that's not really so controversial: Elves are divided into two particular castes. Their's the hoitey-toity conservative and godlike Eldarin and the "live in forests and party all night long" Elves. If you take a step back, the sudden division between the two types of elves isn't that big of a change at all. I assume that the only difference in FR will be Moon Elves/Gold Elves are Eldarin while Wild Elves are not.
Eladrin are also from the Feywild, whereas Elves are more solidly mortal.


7. Halflings are all Brandybucks: Halflings used to be Hobbits in the Shire then they were Kender and now they're Brandybucks. I.e. they're River Hobbits that live in Swampy terrain and probably now all speak with a Cajun accent while eating gumbo. I'm not really sure how Richard thinks this will encourage people to play them.
I like the new halflings at least as much as I liked the old ones.


9. Dragonborn: To be honest, they worked in Dragonlance but arguably only in the War of the Lance. I've never really been able to get much out of Dragonborn despite my best efforts. They just don't seem that interesting and their role as the "Children of the Dragons" doesn't really grab me. They're not even Half-Dragons with all the ick that it implies.
The Dragonborn aren't like Dragonlance draconians *or* like 3E Dragonborn. They're 4E's honor culture.


1. Every Fighter is a Warblade: The Book of Nine Swords is apparently something that's going to be with every fighter. They'll be lots of manuevers and special moves. I think that they'll probably be toning down the supernatural aspects of move them to "Mageblades" (whom I assume will be the more anime style swordsmen). Frankly, I approve but it adds a lot of AD&D style complexity to combat.
I really don't think it'll be as direct as Tome of Battle. You can expect them to have at-will and per-encounter abilities, and we know the selection will differ based on weapon choice (for example, swordsmen will be able to pick up a Flurry-like power, while spearmen will be able to punch through armor, which is presumably attack Reflex defense instead of AC).


2. Monks still suck: There's no sign they can use weapons from what I can tell and no real changes.
What? We know nothing about what the monk mechanics will look like. It's the details that determine whether they will be awesome or terrible.


3. Paladins are going to be all Alignments: It was practically hand-stamped in D&D anyway, it'll now just be official. This makes sense in a world where Angels are Evil as well as good.

Worryingly, Richard seems to indicate Paladins will have varities of Smite. I keep imagining "Limit Breaks"
We've already seen examples the Paladin smites. They will create certain short-term effects--a lot more like Crusader strikes than anything else.


4. Every Mage is an Island: No more Vancian spell-system, well there's a toast to you but I can't say I'll miss you. Unfortunately, details are very vague on what's replacing it and I have to confess that I'm worried. As Final Fantasy and other RPG games attest, the Vancian system works even if there's no damn good storytelling reason for it.

Sorcerers will also be making an appearance and Warlocks. Frankly, I don't think that either are necessary if they REALLY overhaul the system.
"Necessary"? For D&D only four classes are *necessary*, a Warrior, a Magic-User, a Priest, and a Thief. Maybe there can be an Elf class added later.
It's really not about what's necessary.


5. Barbarians are unchanged: At least as far as I can tell.

6. Clerics are Nerfed: Richard spends pages extolling his Cleris but since Alignment is going to be mostly non-existent (or more precisely "Neutral" as "Unaligned" will be replacing most alignment) and there won't be any spells against Evil subtypes.....basically, most of their spell list is gone.

Frankly, I don't think whatever he creates as a substitute will be the same.
Again, we've seen nothing about the mechanics. You can't possibly say that "barbarians are the same" or "clerics are nerfed". I'm wagering the cleric is still going to be pretty potent, just not totally overpowered. I'm guessing they're not going to have to spend a lot of actions serving as combat healbots, either.


7. Rogues seem about the same: Except, a lot of the skills will be combined and Backstab will be more useful. I'm pretty sure that most of the changes will be non-controversial. However, Richard's statement that everyone will be able to deal with trap is troubling since it removes one of the Core things that a Rogue does.

Might as well give Swords to Wizards.
The way D&D does traps is just plain lame. I avoid the Rogue class and I groan when my Beguilers have to sink points into Search/Disable Device, ebcause D&D trapfinding is just rolling a bunch of checks, one in every two to five of which you are statistically *going* to fail. That's not exciting, that's just being punished for performing your role on a regular basis.
Rogues are "Strikers" in 4E, and they should have plenty to do.


But overall, I'm very impressed with this work and it seems the Core Rules will not be that problematic.

Still, I think 3rd Edition will be hard to top as this is much more complex whereas simplicity was the name of the game in 3rd.
Whether the core rules are problematic depends in huge part on the mechanics of the rules.

And you've got it backwards. 4E is going to be mechanically simpler than 3E, which isn't simple at all.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 12:48 AM
Also the whole "race is based around rape" thing.

Demonspawn are the products of consensual and happy unions?


What? Tieflings aren't demonspawn. The amount of demonspawn went *down*, in fact. 4E Tieflings are the descendants of demons

They're still the descendents of creatures from Hell/The Abyss etc. They're Demonspawn.


Eladrin are also from the Feywild, whereas Elves are more solidly mortal.

Except for the Elves having ties to the Feywild.


The Dragonborn aren't like Dragonlance draconians *or* like 3E Dragonborn. They're 4E's honor culture.

I read the book. They're Draconians and dragonborn as much as the Dwarves are Dwarves.


"Necessary"? For D&D only four classes are *necessary*, a Warrior, a Magic-User, a Priest, and a Thief. Maybe there can be an Elf class added later.
It's really not about what's necessary.

Rather confrontational, aren't we?


Again, we've seen nothing about the mechanics. You can't possibly say that "barbarians are the same" or "clerics are nerfed". I'm wagering the cleric is still going to be pretty potent, just not totally overpowered. I'm guessing they're not going to have to spend a lot of actions serving as combat healbots, either.

The mechanics don't matter, merely the flavor of the mechanics. That's how all RPG systems function.


And you've got it backwards. 4E is going to be mechanically simpler than 3E, which isn't simple at all.

Attributes, skills, Hit points, Feats, attack bonus, saving throws. It's literally as simple as humanly can be done without making it not D&D.

I think you're undermining Richard Baker's work here by believing it'll be about the mechanics when it's clearly so much about the change in Flavor that they wrote two books about it. With things like Racial Feats and new maneuvers, saying it'll be simpler is....insane.

EvilElitest
2008-01-21, 12:51 AM
I really need to get around to editing my review. Damn mid terms
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 01:04 AM
Demonspawn are the products of consensual and happy unions?

They're still the descendents of creatures from Hell/The Abyss etc. They're Demonspawn.
Except for the fact that you're making that up. Tieflings are the descendants of humans. Humans who made pacts with demons, pacts that affect their descendants (because the demons can't revoke the powers granted to the bloodline of the pactmakers), but being spawned by a demon is not involved in any way.
Tieflings aren't demonspawn in 4E. What they are is 7th Sea sorcerers.


Except for the Elves having ties to the Feywild.
They may have ties to it, but they certainly don't live there. The division between Eladrin and Elves is sharper than between High/Gold/etc elves and Wild/Wood/etc elves.


I read the book. They're Draconians and dragonborn as much as the Dwarves are Dwarves.
How?


Rather confrontational, aren't we?
No.


The mechanics don't matter, merely the flavor of the mechanics. That's how all RPG systems function.
I'm sorry, but that displays a fundamental ignorance about game design and how it affects play. The mechanics are absolutely vital to a game, since they determine how it actually plays. D&D is a mechanics-heavy game, focused largely on tactical combat, and how those mechanics work are what determines how the game plays.
Mechanics Matter. Monte Cook's World of Darkness d20 does not play the same as White Wolf's WoD. If I make an Eberron-setting character with an adapted Spirit of the Century ruleset, it's going to be different than that character as made with D&D rules.


Attributes, skills, Hit points, Feats, attack bonus, saving throws. It's literally as simple as humanly can be done without making it not D&D.
It most certainly isn't. There's a lot more to 3E than the things you mention. For example, there are hundreds of feats and spells, many of which provide some way to break the "simple" basic rules of 3E. 3E is both sprawling and exception-based, and the combination of those two things is not simple.



I think you're undermining Richard Baker's work here by believing it'll be about the mechanics when it's clearly so much about the change in Flavor that they wrote two books about it. With things like Racial Feats and new maneuvers, saying it'll be simpler is....insane.
Racial feats already exist in 3E. They're feats with racial prerequisites. "Maneuvers" are just class powers, they're no more complicated--keeping track of a Fighter's twenty feats (some of which have three tactical options, some of which kick in after a certain point, &etc) is more complicated than keeping track of that Fighter's combat maneuvers, unless 4E fighters get an enormous amount of them.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 01:30 AM
The Developer says explicitly in Races and Classes. "Why play Drizzt when you can have a great grandfather whose a Pit Fiend?"

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 01:34 AM
Hmm. You're a reliable witness Phipps, but I heard the same thing about the Tiefling being changed in a bout of political correctness to the whole pacts thing (wasn't that the warlock's background?). Are you sure?

You think that one dev who commented didn't get the memo?

Renegade Paladin
2008-01-21, 01:35 AM
The Developer says explicitly in Races and Classes. "Why play Drizzt when you can have a great grandfather whose a Pit Fiend?"
Are you serious?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 01:40 AM
The Developer says explicitly in Races and Classes. "Why play Drizzt when you can have a great grandfather whose a Pit Fiend?"

I don't recall that. Even if it's true, he's certainly not speaking literally. Go ahead, reread the bit about Tieflings in Races and Classes--it's exactly what I'm saying.

illathid
2008-01-21, 02:04 AM
Are you serious?

Yes, Chris Perkins does say this, but it's been taken out of context. Here is the full quote:



Tieflings trace their origins back to the 2nd Edition Planescape Campaign Setting. With their horns, tails, and wicked tongues, tieflings quickly became the exotic "Bad Boys" and "Bad Girls" of the Outer Planes. Sly, Sexy, and a little sinister, they afforded D&D players a chance to flirt with the dark side without actually crossing the line into full-blown evil. Why play Drizzt when you could play the great-grandson of a pit fiend?

Tieflings reappeared in the 3rd Edition Monster Manual as one of the "plane-touched"...

It's clear by the context that he is specifically referring to 2nd edition tieflings with that comment. Everywhere else in the book it's very clear that tieflings are curse bearers, tainted by their ancestors infernal pacts.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 02:13 AM
Hmm. You're a reliable witness Phipps, but I heard the same thing about the Tiefling being changed in a bout of political correctness to the whole pacts thing (wasn't that the warlock's background?). Are you sure?

You think that one dev who commented didn't get the memo?

Well there's no need to define what the Pacts are as anything but interbreeding with the forces of darkness. Frankly, I think the idea that they're not the damned children of darkness misses the point. However, it is clear that such unions with horrors would be consensual.

So I suppose that's alright.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 02:39 AM
Well there's no need to define what the Pacts are as anything but interbreeding with the forces of darkness.
..what? No, you're again making that up. I don't know why you like the idea so much. "Pacts" here refers to compacts, literal deals with the devil(s). You misunderstood the book; let it go.


Frankly, I think the idea that they're not the damned children of darkness misses the point.
How so? I think it's a fairly significant difference.


However, it is clear that such unions with horrors would be consensual.

So I suppose that's alright.
...um. Yeah. Consent is kind of a really big deal.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 02:42 AM
...um. Yeah. Consent is kind of a really big deal.

And it's sex with gigantic demonic forces of darkness. The issue of Charm Person and Illusions/Shapechanging issues can blur the issue of consent in a fantasy environment. Frankly, call me callous but the sheer absurdity of demonspawn tends to remove me from the concerns I'd have about the causal assumption that "All Half-Orcs are the product of unwilling unions."

Orcs are one stepped removed from an issue that has a very arguable place in fantasy but Demons are two steps. It's like issues of consent with vampires and their bizarre mesmerism.

But yes, I don't really see how anyone thinks it makes sense to have a race whose a "half-breed" type character with genetic traits associated with demons and monsters that is the result of pacts in the ancient past. Really, it seems a trifle bizarre to me.

In any case, I'd rather not dwell on this topic but the Unions *ARE* evil no matter whether the partners were willing to crossbreed with horrors from beyond or not. The children pay the penalty.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 02:46 AM
And it's sex with gigantic demonic forces of darkness. The issue of Charm Person and Illusions/Shapechanging issues can blur the issue of consent in a fantasy environment. Frankly, call me callous but the sheer absurdity of demonspawn tends to remove me from the concerns I'd have about the causal assumption that "All Half-Orcs are the product of unwilling unions."

What? Those don't blur the issue of consent at all. Using Charm Person to get laid is rape. Using shapechanging or illusions to sleep with someone by pretending to be someone they're sleeping with is rape.

Also--and, again--there aren't any demonspawn, so dismissing the half-orc thing because of them doesn't work. You made the whole "4E tieflings are the children/grandchildren of demons thing up, and I have no idea why you're clinging to it as though it's fact and trying to reinterpret "pact" to mean "sexual union".


But yes, I don't really see how anyone thinks it makes sense to have a race whose a "half-breed" type character with genetic traits associated with demons and monsters that is the result of pacts in the ancient past. Really, it seems a trifle bizarre to me.
What? Tieflings don't have genetic demon traits, they have an altered appearance. Frankly, genetics doesn't work in D&D; it has no place and doesn't apply.

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 02:52 AM
*Chews popcorn, watches argument.*:smallamused:

Actually, I have a point of interest on the issue. How will the new Tiefling work, in comparison to the last one? What will this background change result in? Increased romanticism? Tieflings becoming the new Drow?

I don't think I've ever seen a Tiefling who's been the result of rape anyway.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 03:06 AM
I don't think the implications are the Tieflings THEMSELVES made the *quote* *unquote* pacts.

But they're definitely the descendants of the place.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:11 AM
I don't think the implications are the Tieflings THEMSELVES made the *quote* *unquote* pacts.

But they're definitely the descendants of the place.

This is all covered in Races and Classes. You have no reason to put pacts in quotes besides a totally unfounded insistence that tieflings somehow *have* to be demon-descended. Why do you continue to insist that that's the case?

Tieflings are the descendants of humans, who made bargains with devils, in return for power. Tieflings have access to that power, because the deal is done: the devils can't revoke it. That means that some tieflings--who are not inherently evil--can take that power--which they themselves did nothing evil to attain--and use it against the devils.

Starsinger
2008-01-21, 03:20 AM
Actually, I have a point of interest on the issue. How will the new Tiefling work, in comparison to the last one? What will this background change result in? Increased romanticism? Tieflings becoming the new Drow?
Yeah, Tieflings are supposed to the be the new "flirting with evil" race.



I don't think I've ever seen a Tiefling who's been the result of rape
anyway.

Google Succubus and look for images.. I'm fairly certain rape isn't necessary. :smallamused:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:23 AM
Google Succubus and look for images.. I'm fairly certain rape isn't necessary. :smallamused:

Ah, yes. Men will never turn down sex with an attractive woman, no matter what. My, that's hilarious.

VanBuren
2008-01-21, 03:27 AM
Aren't they supposed to have some otherwordly charm that makes them near-impossible to resist regardless of whether you actually want the sex or not?

Dhavaer
2008-01-21, 03:29 AM
Aren't they supposed to have some otherwordly charm that makes them near-impossible to resist regardless of whether you actually want the sex or not?

Charm monster at will, IIRC.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-21, 03:33 AM
Aren't they supposed to have some otherwordly charm that makes them near-impossible to resist regardless of whether you actually want the sex or not?

Charm Monster at will and Suggestion-imposing kisses... but that's not what was being implied (as see "google an image").

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 03:39 AM
Charm Monster at will and Suggestion-imposing kisses... but that's not what was being implied (as see "google an image").

Shallowness isn't a universal male trait. It's certainly one found in a lot of people, however. Still, I'll ask Richard Baker if there's any chance that there was EVIL CONGRESS with the Tiefling's ancestors. I hope it won't be precluded because I think it undermines the characters.

I'm a fan of Lovecraftian marriages.

But yes, I'm glad to get rid of the children of forced sex.

Reinboom
2008-01-21, 03:48 AM
Ah, yes. Men will never turn down sex with an attractive woman, no matter what. My, that's hilarious.

Not even if she married him without him knowing it, sneaked on to the spacecraft, played cute innocent and 1700s perfect wife, and was nude for him in his bed without his consent and...
[/prematurely ends the reference]

And working with the fact that some devils are actually beautiful and could produce children from that sort is easier to do than the generic half orcs requires one absolutely hideous parent background.

Hm... y'know... a half-orc with a loving mother and father as parents would be an interesting backstory. Now to find a way to throw cat ears on it..
*flees*

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 05:00 AM
I loved D&D the Movie 2's commentary.

One of them was a Half-Orc.

He stated "A Hot Barbarian"

"Yeah, so?"

"Where do you think Half-Orcs come from?"

and it was like.

Oh, Orcs and Barbarians mix peacefully. That's an entirely rationale explanation without terrifying ugliness and war crimes.

Moral Wiz
2008-01-21, 05:34 AM
The point was that I'd never seen a tiefling player who's ancestry was in fact the result of rape. The most common seems to be "Horney Devil + Whore" (I believe this was a common for Planescape Tieflings too). I've never seen someone use demonic rape , and evil temptress seems uncommon.

I'm not sold on the idea of it being all down to pacts in the past. That worked well for the warlock, but it basicly means that all the tieflings "Racial abilities" will probably draw upon the aforesaid power; irrespective of if the Tiefling wants to use that power or not.

Warlocks make a choise, on some level, to use their power. Tieflings, by virtue of gaining XP have no choice what so ever. That'll make them very diferent, and might leave them one dimensional. (Unless WotC has grown wiser for the new edition)

Tobrian
2008-01-21, 05:48 AM
Hm... y'know... a half-orc with a loving mother and father as parents would be an interesting backstory.

Here you go: Glon half-orc (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=322), illegitimate son of a human baron (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=104) and Mrs. Bloodhand, the wife of an orc warlord, fathered while the baron was prisoner of said warlord. Raised among humans (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=108) in the barony of his father, as the blacksmith's son, while the blacksmith's son was raised as the baron's heir. Until the ruse was found out (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=224).
And even years later, there are still feelings (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=239) between Mrs. Bloodhand (by now a widow) and the baron. An unlikely romance? You bet (http://yafgc.shipsinker.com/index.php?strip_id=240). :smallbiggrin:

Starsinger
2008-01-21, 06:02 AM
Ah, yes. Men will never turn down sex with an attractive woman, no matter what. My, that's hilarious.

I didn't say all men. I wouldn't sleep with a succubus willingly, but are you going to deny that there aren't enough men out there who would that they could sustain a race consensually?

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 06:18 AM
The point was that I'd never seen a tiefling player who's ancestry was in fact the result of rape. The most common seems to be "Horney Devil + Whore" (I believe this was a common for Planescape Tieflings too). I've never seen someone use demonic rape , and evil temptress seems uncommon.

Well, in the Erevis Cale novels, one of his sidekicks is a Tiefling that is the child of a woman that was violated by one of the Lords of the Nine (!) that's a rather unsavory bit of backstory that nevertheless is canon for the Forgotten Realms.

Most of the Tieflings in my games are the result of demonic pacts between Noble Houses and the various Devils that offer them power. Basically, human men and women want to make deals with Balors and Glaabezu or so on. They make their offerings and get their deals but the Demon is often willing to make ANOTHER gift in exchange for a night of sexual congress (often assuming a pleasing form).

This results in whole families being nightmarishly perverted and transformed into monsters. Rosemary's Baby situations are also common where men and women are catured then brought to serve as breeding stock. I don't go into detail.

Let's be honest, I rarely use the last but Demons and Devils should be HORRIBLE.


I didn't say all men. I wouldn't sleep with a succubus willingly, but are you going to deny that there aren't enough men out there who would that they could sustain a race consensually?

At least one Paladin in our game was the result of a young demure Lady wedded to the Noble Lord father that "rescued" her from a vampire. This, of course, was just so that the Secret Succubus could wait 12 or so years til the boy reached Adolescence and became a monster.

The Paladin was the "human" twin of the monster that murdered his father and seized control of his Ancestral home.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 06:24 AM
Hm... y'know... a half-orc with a loving mother and father as parents would be an interesting backstory.

I should note that one of my current characters is Trent Carlyle, A Half-Orc in Eberron. I played him as a fun non-stereotype in the fact that he's a blindingly Intelligent Half-Orc that's a Lawyer as his side profession. Of course, he's still a CN wenching and drunken carouser who likes to slaughter everything that moves but he can cite to you any kind of precedent imaginable.

When asked about his parentage, he explained he was the son of a human adventurer who came to visit his village. Then I showed the PCs, what Trent's Princess mother looked like and she was a gray skinned and sultry beauty with fangs and claws.

It worked as a nice contrast.

Most Orcs just have low Charisma. She didn't. ;-)

Matthew
2008-01-21, 09:31 AM
Hey, Classless 0 Level Characters are coming back? Great, that's another point in favour of 4e. What have I got so far?

1) Saving Throw Progression
2) Dropping Iterative Attacks
3) Skill Progression
4) Simplified Critical Hits
5) 0 Level Classless Characters

Charity
2008-01-21, 09:51 AM
Thank god for no more npc class levels.

I'm not sure if it does matter where these half breeds come from Tiefling or otherwise. When you run a game if the fluff doesn't fit you change it. It's a hell of a lot easier than changing the crunchy rules bits. Lets hope they get them right eh.

Hey Matthew, if you are warming to 4th ed does that mean they're missing their market? :smallwink:

Matthew
2008-01-21, 10:16 AM
Hey Matthew, if you are warming to 4th ed does that mean they're missing their market? :smallwink:

Nah, I think my 'don't like' list is a lot longer, but credit where credit is due.

Kioran
2008-01-21, 10:16 AM
I think the entitre "pact warps the bloodline" thing is total baloney. It would, if Tieflings always breed true, mean Humans will be extint sooner or later unless they visit a genocide on 4th Ed. Tieflings (given that they are mostly "kickahs Wolocks", I aprove).
The demon/Orc ancestors, unsavory or not, are a matter of verisimilitude. And by the way, the male and female Half-Orcs in the PHB looked decidedly better than a few of the others, for example the elfs. Not everyone´s in the market for the androgynous bishonen or the bulimic streak......

Rape/mind control/uninformed consent via Shapeshifting and such might be very unsavory aspects, but so is chopping of arms and burning Goblins alive. Hell, unless you´re playing a Candyland campaign full of Mary-Sues, sooner or later you get knocked around, killed, lose limbs or teeth etc.....Maybe get mind**cked by an Illithid or Demon. It´s unsavory, but a "natural" occurence in a world with dangerous monsters.

And besides, if we blank out all the more violent/seedy stuff, where are awesome things like Monk/ 0.5 Orc Paragon/ Orc Paragon/ Fighters ripping of a Warblade´s arm an beating him to death with it? I´d miss such things.......

Morty
2008-01-21, 10:21 AM
I think the entitre "pact warps the bloodline" thing is total baloney.

Yeah, but, see, it's cool.:smallyuk:


The demon/Orc ancestors, unsavory or not, are a matter of verisimilitude. And by the way, the male and female Half-Orcs in the PHB looked decidedly better than a few of the others, for example the elfs. Not everyone´s in the market for the androgynous bishonen or the bulimic streak......

The problem with half-orcs in 3ed is that orcish race is generally hostile to everything else, and its relations with humans consist mostly of killing each other. So half-orcs while possible, are logically too rare to be core race.
Blech. Wizards got me all happy by removal of gnomes and half-orcs just to make me nauseous by including Tiefling and Dragonborn. I don't have anything against tieflings in 3ed, but what they're doing to them in 4ed looks so far idiotic.

Blackadder
2008-01-21, 10:34 AM
I have to say, I don't like the Tiefling changes, but not as much as I really don't like the 4nd Edition changes to the outer-planes.

My view of the planes was shaped by Planescape, Sigil, Tieflings, the Abyss, the City of Brass and the Chaosmen's Temple on the Negative Energy plane. It all recked of creativity unbound. Planescape emphasized that the planes was where anything could happen. That the PC's were big fish in a little pound, and nothing says culture shock like dropping the PC's into Sigil to find demon's openly walking the street, or head off to meet various God's in person, and realize exactly how little their various heroic deeds mattered in the infinite scope of things. In short Planescape humbled you(At least until you moved on to even more epic quests)

But now? 3rd Ed did some dumbing down of the planes(The Abyss is "mildly evil aligned HAH!), less flavor, mystery. And now 4th Ed seems destined to candy-coat everything and make it more friendly.

Get rid of the Blood War? What excuse do you have now for why the hords of Fiends of the Abyss don't roll right over the other planes? Cause they don't feel like it?

Darkantra
2008-01-21, 10:36 AM
Well, in the Erevis Cale novels, one of his sidekicks is a Tiefling that is the child of a woman that was violated by one of the Lords of the Nine (!) that's a rather unsavory bit of backstory that nevertheless is canon for the Forgotten Realms.

Must... resist nitpicking... favorite FR series... :smallfurious:

:smallsigh:

Well actually, he isn't a Tiefling. Inside the spoiler tags below is an explanation of the whats and whys, but don't read it if you don't want a plot point spoiled.

Magadon only poses as a Tiefling, he is really a half-devil. He does this because Half-Devils are irremediably evil and thus he'd be pretty much killed on site in most cities, and because he does not under any circumstances want to actually internalize the fac that his father rules the second layer of hell.

His mother was actually raped by Mephistopheles and he was the product of that union. Unable to cope with it all, his mother committed suicide when he was born, horns and all, leaving him in the wilderness to die where a wandering woodsman found and raised him. Using his psionic talents he was able to cut away the devil portion of his soul and essentially entomb it inside of him, thus he does not appear as or has any of the abilities of a half-devil, and actually staves off the onset of incredibly evil urges that most of his kind would have. Of course, hijinks occur later on because of this but I won't say more...

Arg, are they really getting rid of the half-orc though? All they needed were a few more racial traits and they'd be on par with the others dammit!

Sebastian
2008-01-21, 10:39 AM
This is all covered in Races and Classes. You have no reason to put pacts in quotes besides a totally unfounded insistence that tieflings somehow *have* to be demon-descended. Why do you continue to insist that that's the case?

Tieflings are the descendants of humans, who made bargains with devils, in return for power. Tieflings have access to that power, because the deal is done: the devils can't revoke it. That means that some tieflings--who are not inherently evil--can take that power--which they themselves did nothing evil to attain--and use it against the devils.

It is not exactly unfounded, real life witches had to do exactly that to gain their powers (or so say the stories) and I seem to remember that female drows had to have sex with a demon(devil?) before to become (or better to become) Lolth priestess, or something like that, so there are precedents to support the "pact with devil implies sex" theory

DementedFellow
2008-01-21, 11:39 AM
To be honest, from what I've read we 4E is just some over-inflated home-brew that some wingnut with too much time wrote down.

There's a lot that I've read and heard that makes me sick. And yet, I can't put it down to one defining reason. I feel that if we continue having these home-brew wingnuts make up entire worlds then it won't be long before someone makes a Gorean Tabletop Roleplay. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

I do admit that I found the alignment both constraining, but to have "unaffiliated" is just absurd. TN are hard to play and are a rarity in most storylines.

And I also disagree with the TC who said that Sorcs aren't necessary. If we are talking unnecessary, why are monks worth a nod but Sorcerers aren't? I prefer the Merln-esque spellcaster to the Harry Potter one any day. "Hang on guys, I have to prepare my spell list, I have 30 levels so this could take a while." I always thought the Sorcerer system in the 3.x cut down on the time wasted, yes WASTED, on the wizards thinking about which spell they -might- use. But that's more of an aside.

What's the deal with getting rid of half-races too? I am just crazy apparently, because I like a little fantasy in a fantasy game. So if someone wants to be a half-minotaur, half-vampire, I don't see a problem. We have LAs to adjust for that mess.

I seriously think this will be the death knell for "D&D". I shutter to even use the words in the same sentence. What's the use in a fantasy game if you can't have some extraordinary fantasy? I just can't wait to see what drivel 5E will be. You wake up and go to work, come home and roll a percentile die to see if you are drunk enough to hit your wife.

Prestige classes are gone. Great, so your level 10 fighter is exactly like my level 10 fighter! Isn't it great that we are all the same, now that the pesky classes we used to have to make us cool are more effective in battle are gone completely?

Words are not enough to express the dissatisfaction I feel for the system and I haven't even played it yet. And I probably won't. I'd much rather play 2E than 4E, at least they have bards.

horseboy
2008-01-21, 11:54 AM
Tieflings are the descendants of humans, who made bargains with devils, in return for power. Tieflings have access to that power, because the deal is done: the devils can't revoke it. That means that some tieflings--who are not inherently evil--can take that power--which they themselves did nothing evil to attain--and use it against the devils.
This sounds kinda like the post-Rise of the Midnight Sons Johnny Blaze. He still had access to Hellfire even though Danny Ketch was the one possessed by Zarathros. Are they trying to bring back the 90's anti-hero?

Ah, yes. Men will never turn down sex with an attractive woman, no matter what. My, that's hilarious.
Well, given the standard "Diceman" comment on the subject, plus their shape change abilities to full fill some of my friends more "interesting" fetishes, yeah, I could totally see them not having to resort to much more than showing up and saying "**** me."

VanBuren
2008-01-21, 01:56 PM
To be honest, from what I've read we 4E is just some over-inflated home-brew that some wingnut with too much time wrote down.

It certainly would be if several of things you said in that post were actually true. That's why it's such a relief.


I do admit that I found the alignment both constraining, but to have "unaffiliated" is just absurd. TN are hard to play and are a rarity in most storylines.

I don't know if we have enough information on alignment yet to make a call, but somehow I'm seeing that being Good will take a major conscious dedication, Evil taking major depravity and Unaffiliated covering your everyday adventurer. But like I said, not enough information.


And I also disagree with the TC who said that Sorcs aren't necessary. If we are talking unnecessary, why are monks worth a nod but Sorcerers aren't?

Because, with the death of the Vancian system, Sorcerers do the exact same thing as Wizards, while Monks do not do the same as Fighters. That said, Sorcerers are not out to the best of my knowledge but are going to undergo a huge change. Possibly some kind of wild mage or something.


I prefer the Merln-esque spellcaster to the Harry Potter one any day. "Hang on guys, I have to prepare my spell list, I have 30 levels so this could take a while." I always thought the Sorcerer system in the 3.x cut down on the time wasted, yes WASTED, on the wizards thinking about which spell they -might- use. But that's more of an aside.

I'm not even sure I understand the difference between Merlin and Harry Potter casting. Did either of them ever have to prepare spells and/or forget them after use? Harry Potter didn't, but I'm not as well read on Arthurian legend.


What's the deal with getting rid of half-races too? I am just crazy apparently, because I like a little fantasy in a fantasy game. So if someone wants to be a half-minotaur, half-vampire, I don't see a problem. We have LAs to adjust for that mess.

Because they weren't comfortable with a race that owes the majority of its existence to violent rape. I disagree with the decision, personally. But I can understand the reasoning.


Prestige classes are gone. Great, so your level 10 fighter is exactly like my level 10 fighter! Isn't it great that we are all the same, now that the pesky classes we used to have to make us cool are more effective in battle are gone completely?

Lovely strawman. Too bad there's so much misinformation in this post that the only thing true about it is your first sentence. Yes, prestige classes are gone. No, your two Fighters will not be the same. Did you miss the bit about all the paths you can chose, from each level range that offers greater customization of a single class than in previous editions?


Words are not enough to express the dissatisfaction I feel for the system and I haven't even played it yet. And I probably won't. I'd much rather play 2E than 4E, at least they have bards.

Have fun with THAC0. I know I won't.

Learnedguy
2008-01-21, 02:15 PM
To be honest, I'm not really that worried about the fluff in 4ed. I have a few things that bother me though.

To begin with, I think the number of gods is too low really. Having only six gods hits me as slightly, well, unnatural really. To many to be a proper monotheism, to few to be a proper polytheism. I'd add more gods really. Also, when you match the gods to each other, they lack a unifying pattern, which bugs me a bit.

What goes for the races, I can understand why most of the half-breed got the chopper. Sure, we'll see them again, no doubt about that, but really, starting with some proper "full" races did seem pretty smart. I don't really mind the thieflings, as in a world filled to the brim with all kinds of demonic and angelic, there's probably going to a be a fair deal of corruption flying around. Those dragonborn though, they feel misplaced. Sure, they have a place, but is it really big enough to fill the a spot in the PHB? I think they are a bit too exotic to do that myself.

What goes for classes, I'm rather excited with the exact mechanics of the casters. They sound more sorcery-ish and the word ritual fills me with glee. Hope they manage to pull it off:smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-01-21, 03:06 PM
Newest Forgotten Realms novel (Orc King by R. A. Salvatore), has a little snippet at the start about arranged marriage between Orc princess and Human community leader. Orc communities are on peaceful terms with human ones, though king Obould VI finds human condescension irritating.

Now thats a more interesting way to do half orcs!

Drow got their own special Half Fiend, half drow, half glabrezu. Sounds painful.

Feyri were basically elf tieflings, a bit more powerful than human ones, mostly part succubus. The founder of the Feyri, Sarya Dlardrageth, was a half fiend- half elf, half balor. Her son was technically a 3/4 fiend, a half glabrezu. had 4 arms, which does occur for some unique half fiends. Serpent Kingdoms had an ex-avatar of Sseth, a yuan-ti abomination, half marilith, also with 4 arms (not the 6 that full mariliths have)

I do think the Pact is an interesting way of doing it. The article does imply the rituals were very horrible, WORSE, probably, than doing it the old fashioned way. I think 4th ed writers are sensible not to overdo the Vile stuff, imply it, not show it.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-21, 03:54 PM
I'm not all that concerned about the half-human half-whatever races getting the ax. When you really start to think bout them, they don't make a lot of sense. Default Player's Handbook races would pretty much have to make up a signifigant percentage of the population. Even the least common of these would have to number in the tens to hundreds of millions. Thats a lot of hal-breeds. In fact, the only way to justify those kind of numbers that makes sense to me would be if a thousand years in the past, in order to end a long and bloody war over a rather large disputed territory, the leaders of both nations in question arranged a mass marriage between about a hundred thousand young people on both sides, with the idea that these young people and their decendants would create a buffer state between the two nations that favoered neither nation over the other. A millenium later, you get half-elves or half-orcs in massive numbers.

And even that explanation is ridiculous.

Charles Phipps
2008-01-21, 11:12 PM
And even that explanation is ridiculous.

Actually, there's no reason why two ethnic groups living in close proximity to one another WOULDN'T have a lot of close polination.

Mewtarthio
2008-01-22, 01:19 AM
I think the entitre "pact warps the bloodline" thing is total baloney. It would, if Tieflings always breed true, mean Humans will be extint sooner or later unless they visit a genocide on 4th Ed. Tieflings (given that they are mostly "kickahs Wolocks", I aprove).

Bear in mind, humans have a tendancy to be more aroused by, say, other humans than by red, horned, hellspawn with vaguely-defined rage-based powers. It makes even more sense if you assume that not all warlocks give birth to Tieflings: Only certain ones that make certain pacts. If you want to have some real fun, Tieflings all share a common ancestor: A mortal emperor who ruled the entire world and managed to strike a bargain with a powerful fiend to "grant me and my descendants your power forevermore!" (have fun thinking up the cost of that). Any child with a single Tiefling parent is always a Tiefling, but most of such children would have two Tiefling parents anyway, so it hardly matters. Humans, meanwhile, are likely keeping pace with the Tieflings, and the instances of human/tiefling matchings are uncommon enough to not matter in the long run.

Blackadder
2008-01-22, 10:13 AM
@Mewtarthio

1. Most of those said Red-horned demonspawn have shapechange, alter-self or polymorph on their spell list somewhere. So they can be whatever they want and not have to try and seduce someone as a 12foot tall flaming demon. But knowing humanity, there's someone who would rather do it with a 12 foot tall flaming demon.



Tieflings all share a common ancestor: A mortal emperor who ruled the entire world and managed to strike a bargain with a powerful fiend to "grant me and my descendants your power forevermore!"
Reading this I was reminded of a mortal emperor in our world who has some serious cred in this area. Specifically Genghis Khan, the man who has .5% of the world's population sharing his genetic line. Roughly 20 million people in the former Mongol empire can trace their genetic history to the Khan. Give time plus an rather "ahem" enthusiastic emperor, one tiefling could beget many, MANY more.

kamikasei
2008-01-22, 10:20 AM
@Mewtarthio

1. Most of those said Red-horned demonspawn have shapechange, alter-self or polymorph on their spell list somewhere. So they can be whatever they want and not have to try and seduce someone as a 12foot tall flaming demon. But knowing humanity, there's someone who would rather do it with a 12 foot tall flaming demon.

The "red, horned, demonspawn" to whom Mewthario refers are the new Tieflings, not any actual demons. If you're concerned that a Tiefling who mates with a human will automatically produce a human and thus humans will be bred out of existence, just don't have humans breeding with Tieflings all that often because they look... well, inhuman. And they don't get nifty free shapeshifting.

Alternatively, perhaps it's Tiefling/Tiefling pairs that breed true, and Tiefling/human pairs have a 50% chance or less of producing a (game-statistical) Tiefling?

I think some people are either missing something or have access to information I don't. The basis from which many here are working appears to be that some number of people in the past made demonic pacts which influence their offspring and that these people between them somehow added up to enough demonic influence to somehow produce a distinct race. Rather, last I heard, Tieflings were derived from an entire ancient empire that rose to power on the back of such pacts and the entire empire's population was subject to this progeny-warping, easily enough to produce a Tiefling race.

Greenfaun
2008-01-22, 11:22 AM
Okay, as much fun as the demon sex discussion is, I actually want to say something about this:



4. Every Mage is an Island: No more Vancian spell-system, well there's a toast to you but I can't say I'll miss you. Unfortunately, details are very vague on what's replacing it and I have to confess that I'm worried. As Final Fantasy and other RPG games attest, the Vancian system works even if there's no damn good storytelling reason for it.

Sorcerers will also be making an appearance and Warlocks. Frankly, I don't think that either are necessary if they REALLY overhaul the system.


I haven't played every Final Fantasy game, but I've played more than five, and every one I've played DIDN'T have Vancian magic. They all used mana points. That also applies to every other computer RPG I've played, they either used mana points or a cooldown mechanic, never Vancian spell-slots. I'm not saying it's not out there, but it's definitely not the standard. So what exactly do you mean by this statement?

Personally, I'm happy to see Vancian spellcasting go. My ideal 3.5-paradigm magic ruleset would be something along the lines of XPH's power points and augmentation mechanics combined with the "Spell templates" from arcana evolved and a well-vetted spell list, but I may never get a chance to try that out if I like 4e as much as it's looking like I will.

I haven't read the book yet, but if you read the WOTC site then it's very very clear what's replacing Vancian magic. Every class gets "powers" which are divided into tiers based on how often they can be used: "per day", "per encounter", and "at will". In one example from Shelly Mazzanoble's column, Magic Missile and Fireblast were at-will spells, Burning Hands was per-encounter, and Sleep was per-day.

This whole power scheme seems like a really good design choice to me, although I obviously haven't seen the whole rules yet. It gives the designers a clear way to handle balance across all classes, so while I'm sure balance won't be perfect, it won't be as fundamentally screwed-up as the casters vs non-casters divide of 3e. To which I say "woot."

bayushisan
2008-01-22, 12:26 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree a bit here.

I'm not liking a thing that they're doing with 4e. Much of it, especially what I'm hearing about the Realms, seems a lot like Marvel's One More Day fiasco.

My group will likely keep to 3.5 because we like it. The magic system works fine for us. Yes there are problems, I'd be foolish not to admit that. From my point of view though, you can't hope to completely balance one class against another because no matter how powerful the character it comes down to the player and how he, or she, plays that character.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-01-22, 12:58 PM
Okay, as much fun as the demon sex discussion is, I actually want to say something about this:



I haven't played every Final Fantasy game, but I've played more than five, and every one I've played DIDN'T have Vancian magic. They all used mana points. That also applies to every other computer RPG I've played, they either used mana points or a cooldown mechanic, never Vancian spell-slots. I'm not saying it's not out there, but it's definitely not the standard. So what exactly do you mean by this statement?

Personally, I'm happy to see Vancian spellcasting go. My ideal 3.5-paradigm magic ruleset would be something along the lines of XPH's power points and augmentation mechanics combined with the "Spell templates" from arcana evolved and a well-vetted spell list, but I may never get a chance to try that out if I like 4e as much as it's looking like I will.

I haven't read the book yet, but if you read the WOTC site then it's very very clear what's replacing Vancian magic. Every class gets "powers" which are divided into tiers based on how often they can be used: "per day", "per encounter", and "at will". In one example from Shelly Mazzanoble's column, Magic Missile and Fireblast were at-will spells, Burning Hands was per-encounter, and Sleep was per-day.

This whole power scheme seems like a really good design choice to me, although I obviously haven't seen the whole rules yet. It gives the designers a clear way to handle balance across all classes, so while I'm sure balance won't be perfect, it won't be as fundamentally screwed-up as the casters vs non-casters divide of 3e. To which I say "woot."

Final Fnatasy 1 used a vancian-ish system. As I recall, it was sort of a wizard/sorceror mix. You buy your spells (through spellbooks) from vendors, and can cast any spell of X level Y amount of times per 'rest period'.

As for a magic point system, D&D Online used a magic point system (similar to Psionics), though instead of augmentations, the spells progressed by caster level, but always cost the same.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 01:26 PM
I haven't played every Final Fantasy game, but I've played more than five, and every one I've played DIDN'T have Vancian magic. They all used mana points. That also applies to every other computer RPG I've played,
The only computer games I've ever played that had Vancian magic, were those games explicitly based on D&D rules. Additionally, the only tabletop RPGs I've ever played that had Vancian magic, were D&D (and hackmaster, but that's a direct spinoff). And furthermore, the only fantasy novels I've ever read that had Vancian magic, were those by Jack Vance. In other words, as a trope, it is exceedingly rare.


My group will likely keep to 3.5 because we like it.
WOTC's marketing strategy seems to assume that reaching out to potential new players is more important than catering to existing players. And they have a very good point, too, because existing players don't buy nearly as many rulebooks, because they already own them.