PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Bard Preview Is Up!



Inyssius Tor
2008-11-03, 11:31 AM
...but I can't see it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20081103).

And if this is news to you, you probably can't see it either.

Ha ha.

Artanis
2008-11-03, 11:41 AM
*clicks the link*

*blinks*

*starts swearing*

AKA_Bait
2008-11-03, 11:45 AM
I see... they want me to pay for a subscription now. Nah. I'll just wait and pay for the finished product in PHB 2 in that case.

If someone else who does want to shell out for this would give a general description of how the decided to handle the class I'd be grateful though.

Zeful
2008-11-03, 11:47 AM
Umm, I think it a good idea this topic is closed. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17095658&postcount=1)

AKA_Bait
2008-11-03, 11:49 AM
Umm, I think it a good idea this topic is closed. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=17095658&postcount=1)


As a rule of thumb, do not copy or disclose more information than you would expect to see in a brief book or movie review.

I don't think it needs to be locked. Folks who want to discuss it just need to remember that they can't directly copy sections of the article or give away IP. Essentially, the same discussion rules apply as to any WotC products that are not OGL.

For example, we can talk all we like about the good and bad parts of the Warblade. We just can't copy and paste the entry.

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-03, 11:51 AM
:smallconfused:

Are we on the Wizards forum? No.

Did I ask for specific, line-by-line, copy-pasted details? Or, for that matter, any details at all? No.

So... when someone breaks our Forum Rules, or for that matter their Forum Rules, then someone Up On High can get with the scrubbing and the locking and the banning. But it doesn't seem quite warranted at this point, does it?

Zeful
2008-11-03, 11:56 AM
Like I said, I think it's a good idea, I don't want the giant served with a cease and desist order (which is the least that can be done, not to mention the possibility of a lawsuit) over something. And was just informing others that Wizards is (apparently) cracking down on IP violations.

Better safe than sorry.

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-03, 12:00 PM
Well, why aren't we locking all the 4E threads? Surely everything except the Warforged, the Artificer, and the Barbarian is pay-only content! Can we discuss the Compendium? Can we discuss the Warlock? Can we discuss the Swordmage? Can we discuss Orcus?

OF COURSE NOT! WE MIGHT GET SOMEONE SUED!

Mark Hall
2008-11-03, 12:10 PM
As they said, no more than you would expect to see in a review.

Which means, certainly, that we can be told that the Bard is the first Divine Striker (Bard actually meaning B'ard, which is short for Board; they give thanks to their deities for the boards with which they hit themselves). We can be told that their powers work primarily off Constitution, and get bonuses equal to their penalties in Intelligence and Wisdom.

You know, if someone's bothered to pay WotC for preview information. 'Cause I like paying to get excited about a product that I'd also have to buy (provided, of course, I was going to ever give money to WotC again).

Starsinger
2008-11-03, 12:12 PM
...but I can't see it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20081103).

And if this is news to you, you probably can't see it either.

Ha ha.

... I hate you so much right now.

Hzurr
2008-11-03, 12:18 PM
Which means, certainly, that we can be told that the Bard is the first Divine Striker (Bard actually meaning B'ard, which is short for Board; they give thanks to their deities for the boards with which they hit themselves). We can be told that their powers work primarily off Constitution, and get bonuses equal to their penalties in Intelligence and Wisdom.


*blinks*

*gets down on knees, folds hands*

"Dear God, thank you for enabling me to detect sarcasm. If you hadn't given me this ability, I would have thrown something violently. Please continue giving me bonuses to my wis modifier, and allow me to re-roll sense motives when I get a natural 1. Amen."

Mark Hall
2008-11-03, 12:20 PM
*blinks*

*gets down on knees, folds hands*

Dear God, thank you for enabling me to detect sarcasm. If you hadn't given me this ability, I would have thrown something violently. Please continue giving me bonuses to my wis modifier, and allow me to re-roll sense motives when I get a natural 1. Amen.

I thought the blatant Monty Python reference would be enough... but, then, this is the company that provided us with the Godsforsaken Realms...

Starsinger
2008-11-03, 12:24 PM
I thought the blatant Monty Python reference would be enough... but, then, this is the company that provided us with the Godsforsaken Realms...

It's such a pity they couldn't remain Forgotten... innit?


So for anyone who's actually subscribed to Dragon, how tasty is the bard?

RTGoodman
2008-11-03, 12:25 PM
I paid for the three months (I think) as a preview, but I haven't actually looked at it much since then, so this was sort of a surprise for me. :smallredface:


Once I get a chance to look through it, I'll be back with info.

Siegel
2008-11-03, 12:26 PM
I paid for the three months (I think) as a preview, but I haven't actually looked at it much since then, so this was sort of a surprise for me. :smallredface:


Once I get a chance to look through it, I'll be back with info.

You will save the day :smallsmile:

KIDS
2008-11-03, 12:36 PM
Not to market 4E or WotC, but the price of subscription doesn't seem to big to me. I will seriously consider shelling out the price as soon as my credit card arrives...

@rtg: we'll all be waiting and counting down with as much anticipation as for the US elections :D

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 12:36 PM
Like I said, I think it's a good idea, I don't want the giant served with a cease and desist order (which is the least that can be done, not to mention the possibility of a lawsuit) over something. And was just informing others that Wizards is (apparently) cracking down on IP violations.

Better safe than sorry.

The law does not work that way.

More importantly, use of copyrighted material for the purpose of a review falls under a Fair Use exception (so long as you don't cut & paste the "heart" of the material). I doubt The Giant is going to get a DMCA Takedown notice if someone posts a review of the matter. Or even the power source and a brief description of whatever the "bard mechanic" is.

No rules, no copy-paste. It'd be like explaining 4e Fighters as:

"they use the Martial power source (which means they use their personal strength for powers) and are primarily focused on specific weapons. They can lock down enemies adjacent to them, and are pretty well protected from attacks against AC. Strength is their primary stat."

It's silly that WotC doesn't give some teaser text about the Bard here. They're supposed to be enticing you to pre-order their PHB II by convincing you that the classes inside are going to be awesome. :smallannoyed:

Enlong
2008-11-03, 12:39 PM
And what happened to letting us get a playtestable version of it, like they did with Barbarian and Artificer (who isn't actually playable bast 10th level, without multiclassing)? Don't they want more people to be able to discover whatever flaws it has and give them feedback?

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-03, 12:41 PM
This is a playtestable version of it!

It's just that you can't playtest it.

Enlong
2008-11-03, 12:44 PM
ARGABPHIBLE!
That makes precious little sense. More people playtesting it means they get more feedback and ol' bardy gets closer to perfection.

O' course, I'm just ticked because Bard is one of my favorite classes ever and I really wanted to see his playtest version.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 12:44 PM
And what happened to letting us get a playtestable version of it, like they did with Barbarian and Artificer (who isn't actually playable bast 10th level, without multiclassing)? Don't they want more people to be able to discover whatever flaws it has and give them feedback?

Probably not. They want people to start paying into their proprietary network to get a steady revenue stream from subscriptions. Putting "new content" behind the wall is a highly traditional way of doing this.

Of course, like the US newspapers who tried the same thing, they'll probably find out that they can't stop the leaks of "news" either. In any case, they won't be able to stop people from thumbing through their books when they come out - all they're doing is harming their pre-order business.

Mark Hall
2008-11-03, 12:45 PM
Not to market 4E or WotC, but the price of subscription doesn't seem to big to me. I will seriously consider shelling out the price as soon as my credit card arrives...


Wizards of the Coast will get no more money from me.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-03, 12:45 PM
If someone else who does want to shell out for this would give a general description of how the decided to handle the class I'd be grateful though.

I second this request.

Didn't read the rest of this thread. You silly Americans and your obsession with lawsuits.

Hzurr
2008-11-03, 12:46 PM
The idea behind making the Barbarian and Artificer stuff public (as well as the articles on things like Warlocks and Warforged) was to show people, "Hey, here are the things you can expect from a subscription, just so you know what kinds of things you're paying for."

Quite honestly, following that up immediately with a class that people have really been wanting information on since the beginning of 4E is a dang good business strategy.

And as for "Making people want to buy the PHB 2," honestly that's what the Barbarian playtest is making me want. If I know that if I buy the PHB 2, I'll be getting good, classes that let me do things I wasn't able to do before, then that makes me want to buy it.

Now, naturally, I'd like to be able to see the Bard class like I was able to see Barbarian, but that just means that their marketing department is doing their job right, not that they're horrible people for not releasing this to everyone (even though we (and they) all know it'll be scattered to the 4 corners of the internet within 12 hours).


You silly Americans and your obsession with lawsuits. This is one of those situations where .001% of the population makes it a nightmare for the rest of us, so that we all have to be paranoid about it. Most Americans don't want to sue people for every little stupid thing (this excludes people in the St. Louis area. Oy Vey), but we have to be on our guards for the rest of the idiots who decide that because things didn't go their way, they get to throw a fit and make everyone else pay for it.

Person_Man
2008-11-03, 12:52 PM
Wait, since when has a copy and paste of material they post on their website been illegal? It's on their website? We're not re-printing it for cash? I'm blocked from WotC, as are most others who work for the government and large businesses. Why would they want to prevent me from reading material about their product which might convince me to buy the product?

Bah! Another reason to be pissed at 4E.

RTGoodman
2008-11-03, 12:52 PM
Behold, I come bearing gifts!


Bards are Arcane Leaders with a "sub-role" of Controller. Their limited to the same sort of weapons as in 3.x (i.e., nothing you wouldn't expect), plus wands, and have the same staying power (in HP, surges, etc.) as Clerics, meaning their not TOO squishy.

Bards still focus on Charisma, but they get mileage out of Intelligence and/or Constitution also. For instance, the powers they have that are sort of their version of the Warlord's Commanding Presence (it's called Bardic Virtue) can let an ally that misses an attack move, or let an ally that hit gain some temporary HP, with the first having an Int-based bonus and the second a Con-based bonus. As the article says, "All bards use Charisma for their attacks. Intelligence increases the effect of tricky attacks, and Constitution is best for powers that inspire allies."

4E still reign supreme in the variety department, getting 5 trained skills at 1st level (Arcana plus 4 from a big list) AND a natural bonus on untrained skills, plus the Multiclass Versatility feature which lets them take multiple [Multiclass] feats. For healing, they get the same "X Word" power as other leaders, plus an ability that lets them heal allies better during short rests. Along with the fact that they are also Ritual Casters, that means they can probably act as an EXCELLENT fifth character, being decent at a lot of things and GOOD at a few things. Oh, and they STILL are better at Diplomacy, getting an encounter power that gives a nice bonus to it, but I hardly think it's Diplomancer-level power.

As far as powers go, Bards have a LOT going for them that I personally like. For instance, they have MULTIPLE powers that automatically mark the target FOR ALLIES. For instance, if a Bard uses his misdirected mark at-will, the target takes some damage AND one ally within a certain number of squares marks the target. I think by this alone the Bard is the Paladin's new best friend, but I'll have to check the wording on Divine Challenge before I'm sure.

Other than that, Bards get a lot of powers with the Psychic keyword that are either sort of reminiscent of the Illusionist Wizard powers from a while back, or are a lot like standard Leader powers (sliding allies, healing allies, protecting allies with a sanctuary-like power). They also get several Utility powers that give them skill bonuses or give skill bonuses to allies (i.e., inspire competence). At higher levels, Bards get powers are more Wizard-like with significant control effects (including powers that dominate or slow), but also good traditional bard spells and abilities (hideous laughter, unluck, illusory disguises for the party, invisibility for the bard and/or his allies, etc.)

Overall, it seems like a REALLY cool class and one I'd want to play, but nothing really all that different from what folks were expecting (except you loonies that thought he'd be a Primal Controller or some mess like that :smallwink:). I think PHB2 is going to be totally worth the money, and I'll be waiting for it.

And I think that's a good review that gets the point across without giving away any real information that would get me in any sort of trouble.

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-03, 12:53 PM
Wait, since when has a copy and paste of material they post on their website been illegal? It's on their website? We're not re-printing it for cash? I'm blocked from WotC, as are most others who work for the government and large businesses. Why would they want to prevent me from reading material about their product which might convince me to buy the product?

Bah! Another reason to be pissed at 4E.

Because you haven't subscribed to Dragon Magazine lately. I presume they are also not cool with photocopied .pdfs of Martial Power.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 12:54 PM
And as for "Making people want to buy the PHB 2," quite honestly, that's what the Barbarian playtest is making me want. If I know that if I buy the PHB 2, I'll be getting good, classes that let me do things I wasn't able to do before, then that makes me want to buy it.

Now, naturally, I'd like to be able to see the Bard class like I was able to see Barbarian, but that just means that their marketing department is doing their job right, not that they're horrible people for not releasing this to everyone (even though we all know it'll be scattered to the 4 corners of the internet within 12 hours).

See, that's the point. They did it right with the Barbarian - release a partial preview so that people get a sense as to what the mechanics will be like, and then release a full version later for people to buy. You stir up buzz as people begin playing around with the mechanics, which invests them in the class (because they're already daydreaming about their New Barbarian) so that they'll be more likely to pre-order the PHB II book.

But with the Bard, they're not doing that. A small number of hardcore WotC fans will see the mechanics, while the rest of us get irritated that WotC is "trying to squeeze money out of us." Eventually, someone with DDI will leak it, and the Internet gets a look at it anyways. All WotC did is sacrifice brand loyalty for the subscriber income stream; plus they lose control of the dissemination of information.

Heck, look at the buzz they worked up over 4e pre-release. You had websites devoted to rounding up stray remarks from the developers in an attempt to puzzle out what the system would be before it was released. They got a huge number of pre-orders (I think?) from people who got invested in their conception of the system, which is just easy money for WotC.

EDIT:

Wait, since when has a copy and paste of material they post on their website been illegal? It's on their website? We're not re-printing it for cash? I'm blocked from WotC, as are most others who work for the government and large businesses. Why would they want to prevent me from reading material about their product which might convince me to buy the product?

Bah! Another reason to be pissed at 4E.

It has always been illegal under US Copyright Law. Specifically making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted material (for cash or for not) violates Section 106(1). Look here (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/) for the full law.

By the way, Section 107 has the details of the Fair Use Exception, though its actual boundaries are defined more by case law than statute.

Morty
2008-11-03, 12:57 PM
Well, apart from multiple multiclassing feats, looks like a solid class but nothing really interesting like barbarian's rage mechanics. I take offense in calling me a loony, though.:smalltongue:

Hzurr
2008-11-03, 12:58 PM
snip

This is actually exactly what I was hoping for with the bard. Thanks a bunch for passing on the info.

Also, is it just me, or is m0rt a bit of a loony?

AKA_Bait
2008-11-03, 01:01 PM
This is actually exactly what I was hoping for with the bard. Thanks a bunch for passing on the info.

Same here. Thanks muchly for the review rtg!

As for the pay service, it doesn't seem that expensive but, frankly, I told myself before that I wasn't going to buy a subscription until the interactive features (like the mapper and the character creator) they promised were up and running. At least, as of last time I checked, they still aren't.

Mando Knight
2008-11-03, 01:03 PM
*Almost-Completely-Mechanicsless-Preview*

Juicy. Makes me want to get the subscription myself so I don't have to wait for PHB II...

Multi-Multiclassing could be interesting...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 01:05 PM
Behold, I come bearing gifts!

Excellent. So they really wanted to make the Bard a Jack of All Trades, eh? Well, MC is still clunky enough that being able to multiclass across several classes shouldn't be too problematic... should it? :smallconfused:

So, oh wise bearer of gifts, how did the Bard look compared to the Warlord and Cleric? And the Artificer for that matter? What niche does it fill between them?

RTGoodman
2008-11-03, 01:05 PM
Same here. Thanks muchly for the review rtg!

As for the pay service, it doesn't seem that expensive but, frankly, I told myself before that I wasn't going to buy a subscription until the interactive features (like the mapper and the character creator) they promised were up and running. At least, as of last time I checked, they still aren't.

Well, according to Bill Slavicsek, "[The Character Builder] just gets better and better every day, and next week, Insiders will get to start playing with it. Watch for more details as the week progresses, and let your friends who haven't become Insiders yet know that the Character Builder is coming -- and initially, the only people who get to try it are D&D Insiders. " So, it's basically going into a closed BETA.

I think I remember seeing another article last month sometime that laid out sort of a schedule for when the various components are being debuted, but I can't find it now. I"ll take another look and try to find and come back.

EDIT: YOU PEOPLE POST TOO FAST! :smallbiggrin:


So, oh wise bearer of gifts, how did the Bard look compared to the Warlord and Cleric? And the Artificer for that matter? What niche does it fill between them?

Well, I find the Cleric rather boring, but the Bard seems like he's got the same capabilities in a more interesting package. He's definitely not as martial as the Warlord (a Leader-Defender), but the Bard does cover the Controller and Jack-of-all-Trades aspects pretty well. I can't really say about the Artificer since I don't know much about it.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-03, 01:13 PM
I think I remember seeing another article last month sometime that laid out sort of a schedule for when the various components are being debuted, but I can't find it now. I"ll take another look and try to find and come back.


Thanks. I am quite curious. I'd be willing to pay $5 a month for those tools. I'd be willing to pay $5 a month for an actual printed magazine. I'm not willing to pay $5 a month for online previews.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 01:24 PM
Well, I find the Cleric rather boring, but the Bard seems like he's got the same capabilities in a more interesting package. He's definitely not as martial as the Warlord (a Leader-Defender), but the Bard does cover the Controller and Jack-of-all-Trades aspects pretty well. I can't really say about the Artificer since I don't know much about it.

Hmm, interesting.

Oh, and I think you should give the Cleric another look. I'm currently playing a Elven Bow Cleric who has tons of fun between his Interrupt Actions and his "pets." Spiritual Weapon is awesome, and being able to drop sentry guns about the battlefield is good times indeed :smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2008-11-03, 01:27 PM
Well, according to Bill Slavicsek, "[The Character Builder] just gets better and better every day, and next week, Insiders will get to start playing with it. Watch for more details as the week progresses, and let your friends who haven't become Insiders yet know that the Character Builder is coming -- and initially, the only people who get to try it are D&D Insiders. " So, it's basically going into a closed BETA.

Pay to do WOTC's beta testing?
Pay for marketing material (aka, previews)?

I'm obviously a little too old fashioned for this esoteric new sales paradigm. Finish the job, then we can talk about money for product. :smallamused:

kbk
2008-11-03, 01:47 PM
The law does not work that way.

More importantly, use of copyrighted material for the purpose of a review falls under a Fair Use exception (so long as you don't cut & paste the "heart" of the material). I doubt The Giant is going to get a DMCA Takedown notice if someone posts a review of the matter. Or even the power source and a brief description of whatever the "bard mechanic" is.

No rules, no copy-paste. It'd be like explaining 4e Fighters as:

"they use the Martial power source (which means they use their personal strength for powers) and are primarily focused on specific weapons. They can lock down enemies adjacent to them, and are pretty well protected from attacks against AC. Strength is their primary stat."



That said it is okay to use portions of a text for reviews and critique under fair use. Large portions of quoted texts however are frowned upon. Under fair use, you could describe their class features and even quote a few powers word for word, but more than that gets shaky. Fair use is ultimately defined by an objective judge.

That doesn't mean that people won't remove stuff for fear of copyright infringement at the behest of wizards well ahead of any real legal action. See the Giant in the playground forum rules: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1 (and cntrl-F to copyright)

Saves Giantitp a lot of trouble. For these forum rules, I'd just steer clear of quoted text. Rules aren't really copyrighted but tables, text, and pictures are.

House_of_Dexter
2008-11-03, 01:48 PM
while the rest of us get irritated that WotC is "trying to squeeze money out of us." Of course they are trying to squeeze more money out of you...They are a corporation...They have to sell stuff to stay in business, to pay for that large building in Seattle and many, many employees that are in it...

Myself...I'll wait to get a subscription until the rest of the stuff goes live...Right now as has been stated...This is just the marketing stuff...Paying to Beta Test...:smallcool:

Hzurr
2008-11-03, 01:52 PM
Pay to do WOTC's beta testing?
Pay for marketing material (aka, previews)?

I'm obviously a little too old fashioned for this esoteric new sales paradigm. Finish the job, then we can talk about money for product. :smallamused:

Think of it another way. Remember all the problems that 3.XE had because of too little playtesting? First off, cheers to WotC for not making those same mistake again, and by opening it up to the community to help them test stuff. However, it's a business, just like any other. If they can achieve the same thing, and get money from it, do you expect them to pass that up?

I mean, yes, I don't want to pay for it, and in my nice ideal world, they'd release it all for free. But that ain't gonna happen.

And in reality, WotC knows that these things will be leaked, and anyone who really wants them can find them. However, by attaching them to DDI, they can attract more people to the thing that makes them money, while still knowing that the playtest articles will be read by the entire community regardless.

Alienating your fanbase? Eh, maybe, but not more than it already is. Having practically the same net playtesting effect (because of the people using the leaked version), but getting some of them to pay for the privilage? What company wouldn't do this?

Again, not what I would like, but understandable.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-03, 01:54 PM
Think of it another way. Remember all the problems that 3.XE had because of too little playtesting? First off, cheers to WotC for not making those same mistake again,
Heh. Are you aware of the sheer volume of errata published for 4E within weeks of its release?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-03, 01:59 PM
Of course they are trying to squeeze more money out of you...They are a corporation...They have to sell stuff to stay in business, to pay for that large building in Seattle and many, many employees that are in it...

Myself...I'll wait to get a subscription until the rest of the stuff goes live...Right now as has been stated...This is just the marketing stuff...Paying to Beta Test...:smallcool:

Mmmm, yes I should have elaborated.

This is a question of perception, not goal.

People are actually pretty happy about paying for useful stuff - rules, mapping software, etc. - but dislike feeling coerced into paying for that stuff. Here, DDI doesn't really seem to have anything "useful" behind their proprietary wall, but WotC has begun placing interesting (but not useful) information there to coerce you into giving them money. There is no real sense of value-added in the purchase - it's kind of like being told you have to pay for the patch of a computer game, or for a "new" feature that was supposed to be there in the first place.

So of course WotC wants money, but they should also want a happy fan base. Happy fans are more willing to part with their money, which means better long term revenues. We have all gotten used to seeing the Dev Notes for 4e thanks to their "free" service, so now that they're making us pay for it, we get grumpy.

This is not, BTW, a call for "we want more free stuff!" I mean, we do, but WotC has to make a buck :smalltongue: I'm really aiming more towards WotC offering good value for their money rather than trying to tease out every last dollar of their customer base through sequestering interesting, but not useful, stuff behind a Pay Wall.

EDIT:

Heh. Are you aware of the sheer volume of errata published for 4E within weeks of its release?

This is another sore point. Nobody likes buying a buggy game, but in the computer world people have gotten used to patches. This is because it's easy to get and apply them when everything is just software hooked up to the internet. However, things which are harder to patch (cartridge games and books) should have fewer bugs in the finished product. For whatever reason, WotC is terrible at spotting bugs - there is no excuse for re-writing a whole chapter of your new system within months of it being released!

So, if WotC released these "play-test classes" for free and put up a stickied post on their forum for comments, they could get a lot more "cycles" of testing done on the cheap. Even if they don't really want to pick through a messy thread, this sort of outreach could brings people back to their forums and create some goodwill in the community. A happy gamer is a spendthrift gamer :smallbiggrin:

AgentPaper
2008-11-03, 02:06 PM
Heh. Are you aware of the sheer volume of errata published for 4E within weeks of its release?

Mostly little grammar errors that could lead to RAW silliness. The only major dealies were the skill checks in DMG and stealth. I remember writing in all the changes in all 3 of my books, and it really wasn't that much. Not any more than pretty much any book I've ever read, at any rate.

its_all_ogre
2008-11-03, 02:22 PM
the bard adds their charisma modifier to healing surge use
warlords add d6
clerics add d6 plus wis mod.

bards work out between the two

when the warlord and cleric add an extra d6 the bard does too

Kurald Galain
2008-11-03, 02:24 PM
Mostly little grammar errors that could lead to RAW silliness.

Apparently you've overlooked, among the twenty pages of errata from the first two months, such gems as missing keywords, the mage hand barrier, moving powers from AC to Reflex, the Blade Cascade bug (causing the "breaking D&D the week before its release date" thread), a skill being based on the wrong attribute, basing powers on the wrong kind of action, and failing the math on their entire skill challenge system (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailStatisticsForever).

And that's not counting the errors found since then, because the latest published errata is now almost three months old and a new version is long overdue. You've got a very funny definition of "little grammar errors" there. I dare you to find me any other RPG with twenty pages of errata, period.

ravenkith
2008-11-03, 02:50 PM
I had refused to buy any 4th ed stuff, because after looking at their preview material on pcs (purchased by another player), it was clear to me that they hadn't thought everything through all the way.

1. Druids? We don't need no stinking druids.
2. Warlocks? They're going to be core!
3. Gnomes? Oh, they're monsters now.
4. etc., etc.

I played the game the week it came out. I was not impressed.

Yes, character creation was simple (but when has it not been for level one?), and yes, the mechanics were different, and because of that, interesting, but generally speaking this was less of an improvement in the game and more of a dumbing down for the lowest common denominator.

It was generally upheld around the table that the way the system played felt less like an RPG and more like an MMORPG.

If we wanted to play an MMORPG, we'd sign on and play WOW or something.

The poor guy who had shelled out his hard earned money for a full set of books was very upset when the rest of the group played through the first adventure, and when he offered to get the next booklet when it came out, everybody said: 'No, thanks".

4th ed sucks. You would have to pay me to play it.

Artanis
2008-11-03, 02:53 PM
I had refused to buy any 4th ed stuff, because after looking at their preview material on pcs (purchased by another player), it was clear to me that they hadn't thought everything through all the way.

1. Druids? We don't need no stinking druids.
2. Warlocks? They're going to be core!
3. Gnomes? Oh, they're monsters now.
4. etc., etc.

I played the game the week it came out. I was not impressed.
Well no kidding you weren't impressed. That tends to happen when you've made up your mind before you even try it.




Yes, character creation was simple (but when has it not been for level one?), and yes, the mechanics were different, and because of that, interesting, but generally speaking this was less of an improvement in the game and more of a dumbing down for the lowest common denominator.

It was generally upheld around the table that the way the system played felt less like an RPG and more like an MMORPG.

If we wanted to play an MMORPG, we'd sign on and play WOW or something.

The poor guy who had shelled out his hard earned money for a full set of books was very upset when the rest of the group played through the first adventure, and when he offered to get the next booklet when it came out, everybody said: 'No, thanks".

4th ed sucks. You would have to pay me to play it.
MA! GIT TH' BEATIN' STICK! THAR BE A DED HOSS OUT HEAH!

Starbuck_II
2008-11-03, 02:59 PM
I had refused to buy any 4th ed stuff, because after looking at their preview material on pcs (purchased by another player), it was clear to me that they hadn't thought everything through all the way.

1. Druids? We don't need no stinking druids.
2. Warlocks? They're going to be core!
3. Gnomes? Oh, they're monsters now.
4. etc., etc.


True, but how much of that Preview thought is wrong?

Gnomes are a PC races in Monster manual too (they were monsters in 3.5; even had some gnome monster stats).

Not sure, why you dumping on 4th here.

Back to OP:
Bard sounds interesting. Could be good depending on how final product looks and plays.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-03, 03:08 PM
Paying to beta test? Wow, D&D 4e is even stealing business strategies from MMOs.

EDIT: This post is meant in lighthearted fun. Please don't nerd rage. I like D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, and WoW (though I can't afford either WoW or D&D Insider).

RTGoodman
2008-11-03, 03:18 PM
Not sure, why you dumping on 4th here.


Well, to be perfectly honest, it's because there's probably not a 4E discussion thread out there where that doesn't happen. As Artanis said, there's a lot of http://www.myth-weavers.com/images/smilies/orcs/deadhorse.gif around the new edition. I've just learned it ignore it now.



the bard adds their charisma modifier to healing surge use
warlords add d6
clerics add d6 plus wis mod.

bards work out between the two

when the warlord and cleric add an extra d6 the bard does too

Well, not quite - there are a few differences.

Warlords' inspiring word lets allies spend a healing surge and gain +1d6 healing, plus an extra d6 at 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, and 26th, to a max of +6d6 at 26th level. Clerics' healing word is the EXACT same, except cleric's also get a class feature that adds Wis to damage healed. So that's a max of +6d6 + Wis modifier at 26th level.

Bards' majestic word is slightly different - at 1st level, it lets an ally spend a healing surge and gain additional healing equal to the Bard's Cha mod. At 6th, 11th, etc., it adds +1d6, for a max of +5d6 + Cha modifier at 26th level. BUT, the Bard's word ALSO lets the ally shift one square, which could definitely be worth the d6 of healing at higher levels.

Oslecamo
2008-11-03, 03:20 PM
Paying to beta test? Wow, D&D 4e is even stealing business strategies from MMOs.


Personally, it's more that they're releasing the popular classes little by little, to force us to buy more books.

It's my belief the bard, druid, monk, psion and barbarian for 4e have been designed and for ages, but they will let them out one by one to force us to buy a butload of books.

I'll keep leeching information thank you very much. Perhaps when they get out a class compendium I'll bother to buy a 4e book.

Mark Hall
2008-11-03, 03:31 PM
Think of it another way. Remember all the problems that 3.XE had because of too little playtesting?

You're too new to the hobby to remember, Hzurr, but 3e had a boatload of playtesting. They bragged about how they playtested it for a year or more before release.

The problem wasn't too little playtesting, but the wrong kind. The designers went in with set assumptions about how the game would be played, and the playtesters either failed to red-line the system, or the designers didn't take into account the reports of those who red-lined the system because they didn't meet with the designer's preconceptions of how the game would be played (i.e. clerics would heal, wizards would blast, and fighters would be consistent damage-dealers).

Heck, I remember a picture of a playtest group, holding up a sign saying "Where's the assassin".

Hzurr
2008-11-03, 03:32 PM
Bards' majestic word is slightly different - at 1st level, it lets an ally spend a healing surge and gain additional healing equal to the Bard's Cha mod. At 6th, 11th, etc., it adds +1d6, for a max of +5d6 + Cha modifier at 26th level. BUT, the Bard's word ALSO lets the ally shift one square, which could definitely be worth the d6 of healing at higher levels.

Ok, that's kindof cool. A small change in mechanics that could really make all the difference in the world, with neither being cut-and-dry "better" than the other.


You're too new to the hobby to remember, Hzurr, but 3e had a boatload of playtesting. They bragged about how they playtested it for a year or more before release.

Dang...they really said that? Man...that's what I get for believing what I read on the internet.

Ramien
2008-11-03, 03:36 PM
Pay to do WOTC's beta testing?
Pay for marketing material (aka, previews)?

I'm obviously a little too old fashioned for this esoteric new sales paradigm. Finish the job, then we can talk about money for product. :smallamused:

If that's all the monthly subscription got you, you'd be right. There's still published adventures in Dungeon and new powers, magic items, paragon paths, and more in Dragon. For me, that's worth the subscription fee even without the software part of the Insider. Your mileage may vary, of course.

TwystidMynd
2008-11-03, 03:42 PM
I dare you to find me any other RPG with twenty pages of errata, period.

While this is an interesting challenge, and not one that I feel scholarly enough to pick up (I've only played AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and Paranoia XP... not nearly the breadth of gaming experience that other forumgoers here have), I feel that you're suggesting that one might be hard-pressed to find such a system because other systems are more "perfect" than D&D 4e, further implying that WotC has "slacked off" and kicked a malformed good out the door, and slapped a price tag on it.

I'd like to suggest that perhaps there's a different explanation for the difficulty of finding another RPG with 20 pages of errata: other RPGs don't have the fanbase or the support structure to offer the same amount of errata. In an ideal world, the designers would find all of the bugs in a game system. In a real world, the designers find as many as they can. After the books get published, there's very little the designers can do; any bugs that they can find, they have, and are more likely to overlook after further iteration. These tough-to-see bugs are seen by the players who buy the RPG systems, and reported back. More players means more eyes, therefore more post-publish bugs are found.
Perhaps 4e has 20 pages of errata because 4e has a fanbase WAY larger than most other RPGs out there. Because of this, the bugs in the system are actually found. If this is the case, then WotC deserves a tip of our hats for acknowledging the problems in the system, and caring enough to try to fix them. Perhaps, if other RPGs had more players playing them, then they would have 20 pages worth of bugs found, too.

Da Beast
2008-11-03, 03:47 PM
*anti 4e rant*

Thank you for that insightful list if talking points that people have been spitting out since before the release of 4e. Unfortunately,this is a topic for discussing the bard preview article, not for complaining about gnomes being left out of the PHB or discussing our reactions to Keep on the Shadowfell.

Anyhow, two things I want to know about the preview article.


Bards are Arcane Leaders with a "sub-role" of Controller. Their limited to the same sort of weapons as in 3.x (i.e., nothing you wouldn't expect), plus wands, and have the same staying power (in HP, surges, etc.) as Clerics, meaning their not TOO squishy.

Do their powers rely solely on their implement or is their a mix of implement and weapon powers?


Bards still focus on Charisma, but they get mileage out of Intelligence and/or Constitution also. For instance, the powers they have that are sort of their version of the Warlord's Commanding Presence (it's called Bardic Virtue) can let an ally that misses an attack move, or let an ally that hit gain some temporary HP, with the first having an Int-based bonus and the second a Con-based bonus. As the article says, "All bards use Charisma for their attacks. Intelligence increases the effect of tricky attacks, and Constitution is best for powers that inspire allies."

Does the article present the constitution or intelligence focused build option?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-03, 03:52 PM
I'd like to suggest that perhaps there's a different explanation for the difficulty of finding another RPG with 20 pages of errata: other RPGs don't have the fanbase or the support structure to offer the same amount of errata.

That's a nice idyllic idea, but it doesn't fit the reality that other systems can be heavily played for over a decade (e.g. White Wolf, GURPS, Ctulhu, and so forth), and still have much less errata than 4E gets in two months.

For instance, the GURPS 3.0 core book gets less than twenty lines of errata in almost two years of heavy duty playing. And if you think GURPS lacks fanbase or support structure, you are sorely misinformed.

Mark Hall
2008-11-03, 03:57 PM
Dang...they really said that? Man...that's what I get for believing what I read on the internet.

Yep. They denied it for a while, until they officially announced it. They denied it so vehemently that my 3rd edition was written between them starting to deny it and them officially announcing it.

RTGoodman
2008-11-03, 04:08 PM
Do their powers rely solely on their implement or is their a mix of implement and weapon powers?


According to some part of the article, there's a mix of implement and weapon powers, though the article had mostly implement powers (i.e., one weapon power, several that required neither, and a bunch of implement powers).


Does the article present the constitution or intelligence focused build option?

Well, it kinda has some of both. It has both builds' class features (the Int-based one and the Con-based one) so you could theoretically do both, but I believe all the powers are either more suited for Cunning (Int-based) Bards or are generic and DON'T have a specific build in mind.

TwystidMynd
2008-11-03, 04:20 PM
That's a nice idyllic idea, but it doesn't fit the reality that other systems can be heavily played for over a decade (e.g. White Wolf, GURPS, Ctulhu, and so forth), and still have much less errata than 4E gets in two months.

For instance, the GURPS 3.0 core book gets less than twenty lines of errata in almost two years of heavy duty playing. And if you think GURPS lacks fanbase or support structure, you are sorely misinformed.

My apologies for being sorely misinformed. My experiences have led me to meet one person who has admitted to owning a GURPS book, but dozens who admit to owning D&D sourcebooks. I can only attest to what I've known in the past. I'd readily amend my views if my experiences led me to conclude differently. Unfortunately, a reference-less citation from a rather anonymous person online doesn't really merit changing those views.

Anyways, you wanted someone to find you an RPG with 20 pages of errata, and I checked up on GURPS. Evidently there's a VERY long list of changes for GURPS. All published online, here (http://sjgames.com/errata/gurps/new.html). Copying and pasting this page into Microsoft Word yields a 10-page document, which is a sizeable amount of errata by itself. Compound that with the fact that for almost a year SJGames has been posting links to seperate pages of errata instead of posting each change, and I'd imagine you'd get far more than 20 total pages of errata.

This leads me to believe that the Steve Jackson designers care about their game, want it to be perfect, and are willing to strive towards the unattainable goal of perfection. Optimistic though I may be, I feel the same about the game designers behind D&D 4e, as well.

EDIT: I realize I made the assertion that 4e has more players than most RPGs in my first post. This, again, is mostly based off of personal experience, but that's not exactly enough proof to justify the claim.
Without a census of RPGers, I can't really "prove" it, but I can propose evidence that supports the claim, even if it proves nothing. To support my claim, I'll claim that the activity on a forum is representative of the player base. It really isn't valid to assert that all players will participate in online forums, but I hope it's at least reasonable to presume that it is a rather representative sampling.
Anyways, the sjgames.com forum (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php?) has approximately 500,000 posts in it - this includes GURPS and other games published by Steve Jackson Games.
The White Wolf forums (http://forums.white-wolf.com/index.php) has approximately 138,000 posts in it.
The D&D 4e forums (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=693) has approximately 2,628,000 posts in it.
I couldn't find a Chaosium-sponsored forum for Call of Cthulhu, which makes me question how big the CoC community actually is - at least as compared to D&D. If permissible, I can cite the Yog-Sothoth forums (http://www.yog-sothoth.com/modules.php?name=Forums), which have approximately 141,000 posts.

I realize that many of these posts are probably posted by the same person, and many people who read those forums may not post, but the activity of the forums has to be some indication of the state of the game. I think it's a safe conclusion to draw that 4e has a fanbase at least as large as those other RPGs you cited.

Uh, lastly, sorry for carrying on this de-railing for so long. I'll post any further insights into errata-analysis in a different thread.

Beleriphon
2008-11-03, 04:49 PM
I suppose I should point this out, by paying for DDI you get access to Dungeon and Dragon magazines, while contain a preview article. Just like they did under Paizo, with preview articles. And a whole bunch of other stuff as well.

Yakk
2008-11-03, 06:00 PM
rtg0922, divine challenge doesn't work that way. You have to be marked by that power for it to do lazer-burn on you.

Random NPC
2008-11-03, 11:17 PM
I will probably NOT wait for the torrents and I WON'T download it...


Because downloading is illegal and you should buy the books and stuff

String
2008-11-04, 12:24 AM
The bard sounds cool, but as someone mentioned earlier, doesnt have the 'punch' of the Barbarians rage mechanic. On a slightly off-topic note, can someone direct me to the 4e Errata, since I doubt the copy I'm about to pick up of the DMG and MM and my current copy of the PHB includes it? I'd like to not have fault info, if I could.

Jokes
2008-11-04, 02:06 AM
I'm more surprised at the fact that Bard is missing Thievery and Stealth from their class list. In fact, those two and intimidate are the only ones they don't have. Why not give bards the entire list?

Beleriphon
2008-11-04, 02:09 AM
The bard sounds cool, but as someone mentioned earlier, doesnt have the 'punch' of the Barbarians rage mechanic. On a slightly off-topic note, can someone direct me to the 4e Errata, since I doubt the copy I'm about to pick up of the DMG and MM and my current copy of the PHB includes it? I'd like to not have fault info, if I could.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

RTGoodman
2008-11-04, 02:26 AM
I'm more surprised at the fact that Bard is missing Thievery and Stealth from their class list. In fact, those two and intimidate are the only ones they don't have. Why not give bards the entire list?

Unless they've changed it from when you saw it until now, Bards DO have Intimidate. True, they still don't have Stealth or Thievery, but that could change. As is, they're automatically trained in Arcana, but it's still listed as one of their optional picks, too, meaning they should either switch it out for one or two of the above, or just remove Arcana from the list.

Of course, Bard still won't be terrible at either of those. I mean, they get their bonus for just being a Bard, and almost ALL Bards'll probably take Jack of All Trades as a feat, so that's almost equivalent to being trained anyway. Of course, they could just spend the feat, too, or pick it up with a background or something.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-04, 03:44 AM
As is, they're automatically trained in Arcana, but it's still listed as one of their optional picks, too, meaning they should either switch it out for one or two of the above, or just remove Arcana from the list.
Not really; this applies to all classes that have a mandatory skill (e.g. religion for clerics in the PHB, and so forth).



Of course, Bard still won't be terrible at either of those. I mean, they get their bonus for just being a Bard, and almost ALL Bards'll probably take Jack of All Trades as a feat,
Depends. There's the con-based and the int-based bard, and the former arguably won't have sufficient stats for Jack. Also, I note to my surprise that bards don't benefit much from being dextrous, which of course stealth and thievery are dependent on. I think they're running from a different archetype here.

(of course, the concept of a con-based bard is more than a little silly, but apparently they were running out of actual things to use constitution for)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-04, 06:00 AM
(of course, the concept of a con-based bard is more than a little silly, but apparently they were running out of actual things to use constitution for)

Funny, the CON based Bard made a lot of sense to me. But then again, I always think of Bards as the Class of Don Juan :smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2008-11-04, 06:10 AM
Funny, the CON based Bard made a lot of sense to me. But then again, I always think of Bards as the Class of Don Juan :smallwink:

You want to try that in combat? Against a troglodyte? :smallbiggrin:

RPGuru1331
2008-11-04, 06:17 AM
Funny, the CON based Bard made a lot of sense to me. But then again, I always think of Bards as the Class of Don Juan :smallwink:

That would be something of a different outlook. The lack of thievery strikes me as completely weird, I'll say that. Stealth I can take or leave, but Thievery seems to still be ingrained in the modern perception of the musician :smallbiggrin:

Thematically, what's the con-based bard supposed to be like?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-04, 06:27 AM
That would be something of a different outlook. The lack of thievery strikes me as completely weird, I'll say that. Stealth I can take or leave, but Thievery seems to still be ingrained in the modern perception of the musician :smallbiggrin:

Thematically, what's the con-based bard supposed to be like?

*cough* Don Juan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_juan).

...but more seriously. It's weird that WotC decided to divorce the "rogue" aspect from the bard, since that something that's been part of the class since 2nd edition. The casting thing was pretty secondary, but I guess WotC likes its bards caster-y.

But it works out. Bards are now, officially, the charming faces of adventuring - leave all that sneaking around to the Rogues and Rangers :smalltongue:

RPGuru1331
2008-11-04, 06:31 AM
The thing that makes dropping stealth seem odd.. is Warlocks. Whom have it. It would have been nice to get a full stealth party. As is, only strikers have it, for now.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-04, 06:39 AM
Maybe I missed it but...

Are in the preview references about the skill of the Bard in the music, arts and so on?

Are Bard power someway connected to a song, a poem, and so on? The fact that nobody asked it leaves me a little bit surprised, I mean...

Arcane leader, marks, healing surge... ok, but.. where is gone the bard's soul?

snoopy13a
2008-11-04, 06:40 AM
They probably had the bard finalized a year ago. They are just holding up its release to get people to pay more money. At least, that's my cynical viewpoint :smalltongue: .

NPCMook
2008-11-04, 06:45 AM
Could always just take the Skill Training feat, or if you play FR have everyone coming from the region that gives stealth to your class skill list.

Jokes
2008-11-04, 07:10 AM
Unless they've changed it from when you saw it until now, Bards DO have Intimidate. True, they still don't have Stealth or Thievery, but that could change. As is, they're automatically trained in Arcana, but it's still listed as one of their optional picks, too, meaning they should either switch it out for one or two of the above, or just remove Arcana from the list.

Ah, my bad, it's Endurance that they lack. *doublechecks* Yep, endurance...


Could always just take the Skill Training feat, or if you play FR have everyone coming from the region that gives stealth to your class skill list.

Or take both Ranger and Rogue multiclass and get Thievery and Stealth, as well as Sneak attack and Hunters Quarry :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-04, 08:24 AM
Maybe I missed it but...

Are in the preview references about the skill of the Bard in the music, arts and so on?

Are Bard power someway connected to a song, a poem, and so on? The fact that nobody asked it leaves me a little bit surprised, I mean...

Arcane leader, marks, healing surge... ok, but.. where is gone the bard's soul?

I'm pretty sure most of Bard's non-physical powers are songs of some kind.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-04, 08:39 AM
OK. The thing surprised me is that should be, IMHO, the thing that should describe the bard, more than role or so... and wasn't so much on the spotlight... at least less than role, feats, skills and so on. :smallconfused:

Tengu says: I'm PRETTY SURE that... pretty sure? Is the bard! And more of this, my hope was a return of the perform skill... there is no hope?:smallfrown:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-04, 08:55 AM
Well, I can't be 100% sure until I actually see the bard with my own eyes. I don't think if we're going to see Perform as a skill, though. Not that it's essential - it didn't exist in AD&D and people played bards just as fine there.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-04, 09:32 AM
Well, I can't be 100% sure until I actually see the bard with my own eyes. I don't think if we're going to see Perform as a skill, though. Not that it's essential - it didn't exist in AD&D and people played bards just as fine there.

Yes it did. It was a nonweapon proficiency based on dexterity.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-04, 09:35 AM
Um. Look behind you, Gary Gygax's zombie! *runs away*

I still think Perform as a skill is not essential - not every aspect of a character must be represented mechanically. If you really need to roll for it, I think Diplomacy would suffice.

Of course, in the end I might be proven wrong and it might turn out there really is a Perform skill in 4e.

Raz_Fox
2008-11-04, 09:37 AM
Even though I can't see it, I still like rtg's summary, but for one thing.

Cha-focused: Yay!
Int-focused: YAY!!!
Con-focused: What in the Hells?!?

The iconic bard is charming, smart and agile. If I get PHB2, I'm going to cross out CON wherever I find it in the Bard Powers and write in DEX. :smallmad:

Honestly, WotC...

Tengu_temp
2008-11-04, 09:40 AM
Resistance to alcohol is Con-dependant. A teetotaler bard is an abomination.

Morty
2008-11-04, 09:41 AM
Even though I can't see it, I still like rtg's summary, but for one thing.

Cha-focused: Yay!
Int-focused: YAY!!!
Con-focused: What in the Hells?!?

The iconic bard is charming, smart and agile. If I get PHB2, I'm going to cross out CON wherever I find it in the Bard Powers and write in DEX. :smallmad:

Honestly, WotC...

If a Rogue can add his Cha bonus to damage, I really don't see how bard using Con is any worse.

Enlong
2008-11-04, 10:01 AM
If a Rogue can add his Cha bonus to damage, I really don't see how bard using Con is any worse.

Connmen need to be charismatic. Musicians... um.. need... a good... Constitution... for... ...
...
...
.
AH! For all the new Marching Band abilities that Bards get, right?

Morty
2008-11-04, 10:02 AM
Connmen need to be charismatic. Musicians... um.. need... a good... Constitution... for... ...
...
...
.
AH! For all the new Marching Band abilities that Bards get, right?

Conmen, yes. But using your Charisma for stabbing people is pure abstraction. And since bards use magic, I have no problems imagining bard spells that use Con.

Hzurr
2008-11-04, 10:09 AM
Well, Bards have Con, because many bards find themselves with certain...duties...that may require lots of...endurance...so that they don't get tired.

:smalleek:

WOOOOO!!!! Nailin' the BBEG's daughter FTW!!

But yeah, Con doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Jokes
2008-11-04, 10:36 AM
Well, Bards have Con, because many bards find themselves with certain...duties...that may require lots of...endurance...so that they don't get tired.

Needed more since Endurance isn't a class skill :smallamused:

Yeah, I don't know what's going on with Con. Maybe it's for your Inspiring Dance class feature.

And Hzurr, you almost made me spit out my beer :smallbiggrin:

Enlong
2008-11-04, 10:57 AM
Conmen, yes. But using your Charisma for stabbing people is pure abstraction. And since bards use magic, I have no problems imagining bard spells that use Con.

"Hey buddy, look over there for a second, will ya?"
"Well, okay, what-"
*shank'd!*

Roderick_BR
2008-11-04, 11:03 AM
Looks like DDI is just the online version of buying a magazine in the newspaper stand.
The only sucky factor, really, is that they apparently won't have many (or at all) free previews like they used to, instead only publishing it on their "magazine".
Yeah, feels like the old times without internet, when you needed to buy a magazine to read about the latest games...

Enlong
2008-11-04, 11:06 AM
Except on the internet, you need to pay for a subscription, not just the issue you want.
Though I suppose if they ever get all of DDInsider up, it would probably be a good investment. Idunno. Methinks I'll just wait for PHB2 to come out.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-04, 11:31 AM
Except on the internet, you need to pay for a subscription, not just the issue you want.
Though I suppose if they ever get all of DDInsider up, it would probably be a good investment. Idunno. Methinks I'll just wait for PHB2 to come out.

Also except that on the internet you don't get a physical magazine you can take about with you and read on the subway.

Mark Hall
2008-11-04, 12:00 PM
Also except that on the internet you don't get a physical magazine you can take about with you and read on the subway.

And some people are skidgy about taking their laptop to the bathroom.

aielman
2008-11-04, 12:48 PM
any more info to share?? I dont get insider and every other site is blocked I am in desperate need of info!

How are they handling the bardic music? Will it be a feature or is it just mixed into their powers?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-04, 12:55 PM
any more info to share?? I dont get insider and every other site is blocked I am in desperate need of info!

How are they handling the bardic music? Will it be a feature or is it just mixed into their powers?

It sounds like it's just in the fluff - like what a Warlock's Pact actually entails. I doubt WotC will repeat their mistake of making everything a numerical skill, no matter how funny it can be (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0347.html). :smallbiggrin:

RTGoodman
2008-11-04, 01:23 PM
For Kaiyanwang and aielman, regarding the "music" of Bards:

The music aspect of the 4E Bard is mostly fluff, which I didn't really want to include. A lot of the powers and almost ALL the class abilities are fluffed as being based in song, reciting a tale, or some other performance (majestic word and song of rest class features, and the fast friends, echoes of the guardian, hunter's tune, dissonant strain, song of discord, and tune of ice and wind powers, among others).


@AKA-Bait: And not only do you not have a physical copy (unless you have the PDFs printed somewhere), you have to make sure you get them before the end of the next month or their taken down. The issues of Dungeon and Dragon for October, for instance, will be taken down at the end of November and won't come back until their ready to be released to the general public at some later time. (Coincidentally, I guess that also means D&DI non-subscribers WILL at least get the mag material, but will be a bit behind.)


ALSO: For those interested, one of the other new articles today (or yesterday, I'm not sure on the date) spoiled a new class from (I assume) PHB2. The new article on "Playing Minotaurs" (which I've been expecting for a while, includes this tidbit:


Play a Minotaur if you want . . .
[...]
✦ to be a member of a race that favors the barbarian, fighter, and warden classes.


I'm guessing Warden is our new Primal Defender.

Morty
2008-11-04, 01:41 PM
I'm guessing Warden is our new Primal Defender.

Was it even mentioned anywhere before? It's the first time I see that name.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-04, 01:49 PM
@AKA-Bait: And not only do you not have a physical copy (unless you have the PDFs printed somewhere), you have to make sure you get them before the end of the next month or their taken down. The issues of Dungeon and Dragon for October, for instance, will be taken down at the end of November and won't come back until their ready to be released to the general public at some later time. (Coincidentally, I guess that also means D&DI non-subscribers WILL at least get the mag material, but will be a bit behind.)


Wow, really? They aren't going to keep them archived? Use it in the first month of lose it... that's not cool. Another strike against my signing up for DDI I guess.

ShaggyMarco
2008-11-04, 01:54 PM
Was it even mentioned anywhere before? It's the first time I see that name.

Warden-I called it!

Awesome.

On topic though, the new bard sounds cool--nothing earth-shattering (though the multiple multi-class thing sounds neat), and right about what I expected for an Arcane Leader.

I would have liked their Dailys to all be "songs" that last until the end of the encounter or until you start a new one--great long-term buffs. Maybe even give them a bonus that you can expend other dailys for while you are singing, kind of like the Rage Strike ability. Call them "Improvisations" or "Riffs."

I'm only sort-of kidding.

Yakk
2008-11-04, 01:55 PM
I would have done something stance/rage like with the Bard -- Daily powers that have a lasting inspiring effect on the group, that have some of the same feel as the 3e song powers.

RTGoodman
2008-11-04, 01:57 PM
Wow, really? They aren't going to keep them archived? Use it in the first month of lose it... that's not cool. Another strike against my signing up for DDI I guess.

Well, sorta, I guess. Randy Buehler talked about it in a recent article:


I’ve seen a number of questions about how back issues will interact with D&DI subscriptions so I’d like to clarify things here: These full-issue PDFs will be posted for one month. At the end of November when Dragon 369 and Dungeon 160 are posted, we’ll be taking the October issues down. If you are a current subscriber and you want to save this content for posterity you can save a copy of the PDF to your local machine and/or print out a copy for your own personal use. (Note that at some point in the future if your computer crashes and you lose all access to your archived files, our customer service team can provide you with replacement files.)

Meanwhile we do expect to put back issues on sale at some point so that folks who were not subscribers at the time those issues were published will be able to get access to them. We’re not ready to announce those details yet, but note that the 16 free trial issues will remain accessible to the general public for the foreseeable future so there really aren’t any “back issues” until we get to December, which is when the October compilations will come down.



Was it even mentioned anywhere before? It's the first time I see that name.

I can't remember ever hearing about the Warden before, but without going to look it up I do think there was a W on the list of initials for PHB2 classes. I think the material from Martial Power is supposed to be added to the Compendium thingy today, so I'll check that, too, to see if it's from there. I don't think there are supposed to be any classes in the "[X] Power" series, though.

THAC0
2008-11-04, 02:06 PM
Yes it did. It was a nonweapon proficiency based on dexterity.

Only in 2nd, not in 1st.

Zeful
2008-11-04, 02:06 PM
Was it even mentioned anywhere before? It's the first time I see that name.

Since the listing of the first letters of the PHb2 classes came out Warden was the most popular idea for the W slot. Right above "Witch" and "Witch-hunter". But I figure this is the first time it's been mentioned by WotC.

MartinHarper
2008-11-04, 05:06 PM
What fluff does the new bard use? There was talk before of bards having extraplanar sponsors and whatnot: is that still in?


Musicians... um.. need... a good... Constitution... for... ...

Lots of musical instruments, including the voice, are tiring to use if you don't have access to amplifiers.

RTGoodman
2008-11-04, 05:14 PM
Basically, it's generic Bard fluff. It's all about weaving magic and art together, be it through training at a bardic college, through being a warrior skald, or as just a performer with a knack for trickery and charm.

Enlong
2008-11-04, 05:16 PM
What fluff does the new bard use? There was talk before of bards having extraplanar sponsors and whatnot: is that still in?



Lots of musical instruments, including the voice, are tiring to use if you don't have access to amplifiers.

Oh yes, I get that.
Man, I'm in Marching Band, and I forgot about that? Stamina is a good thing to have, especially for wind instruments.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-04, 07:19 PM
Lots of musical instruments, including the voice, are tiring to use if you don't have access to amplifiers.

That's a very silly stretch, because this has nothing to do with the things usually associated with constitution. Besides, lots of pretty much anything is tiring. I can just as easily claim that rangers need constitution powers because shooting a bow is tiring for your arms.

As Saph said, any reasoning that could equally be used to explain everything, is in fact explaining nothing. It's just tacked on to whatever game-technical mechanic they were trying at the time.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-04, 07:24 PM
Lots of musical instruments, including the voice, are tiring to use if you don't have access to amplifiers.Singing:Hard and tiring.
Swinging a giant sword:Very tiring
Channeling the raw forces of the weave itself through the palm of your hand:Hard and tiring.
The Con seems to have no justification for me that wouldn't apply either better to another class or make the game require a valid ID to buy. ;)

MammonAzrael
2008-11-04, 07:43 PM
Perhaps it's the style of magic? They're creating this magical force purely from their performances, thus the need for Constitution to power it?

Starsinger
2008-11-04, 08:17 PM
Perhaps it's the style of magic? They're creating this magical force purely from their performances, thus the need for Constitution to power it?

I assumed it's because Constitution is the hold your breath stat...

Mark Hall
2008-11-04, 09:24 PM
Channeling the raw forces of the weave itself through the palm of your hand:Hard and tiring.

There is no weave. Because Wizards wiped their collective ***es with the Forgotten Realms.

Vortling
2008-11-04, 09:37 PM
Well, sorta, I guess. Randy Buehler talked about it in a recent article:

*Stuff from Randy*



I find that terribly disappointing. I do understand that "that's how paper mags work", but not receiving access to all the archives of previous material once I sign up completely defeats the purpose of an online subscription for me. Maybe they'll manage to make the rest of it functional enough to be worth the money.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-04, 10:39 PM
What fluff does the new bard use? There was talk before of bards having extraplanar sponsors and whatnot: is that still in?

Man, I never heard of that! That'd be pretty neat, actually - sign a deal with a minor extraplanar entity and instead of a record deal, you get magical powers!

If I end up getting PHB II, I may just use that fluff anyhow :smalltongue:

Enlong
2008-11-04, 10:58 PM
Man, I never heard of that! That'd be pretty neat, actually - sign a deal with a minor extraplanar entity and instead of a record deal, you get magical powers!

If I end up getting PHB II, I may just use that fluff anyhow :smalltongue:

"Oh, dude. Warlock? So you had to sell your soul to get your powers? Harsh man. All I had to do was sign up my talents to that extraplaner guy. Y'know; a concert every year or so, make sure to give 'im a share of the royalties, it's a sweet gig, man."

Mewtarthio
2008-11-05, 12:47 AM
Bear in mind, Con is just a general indicator of health. Healthy people are sexy people, as per natural selection. Thus, the Con-based Bard "inspires" the party by walking around baring his chest/her cleavage/midriff. And, yes, it works on straight parties members of the same gender/gay party members of the opposite gender, because they are just that damn sexy.

I want to know the flavor behind an Int-based Bard myself. That, and how one goes about getting monsters marked by other PCs. "Please, Mister Dragon, I'd be so tough and bony! Eat him instead!"

RTGoodman
2008-11-05, 12:57 AM
I want to know the flavor behind an Int-based Bard myself.

Int-based Bards are those that spent a bunch of time at bard college (no, not that one) and studied both arcane artistry and ancient heroes, drawing inspiration and power from such lore. Or something like that.


That, and how one goes about getting monsters marked by other PCs. "Please, Mister Dragon, I'd be so tough and bony! Eat him instead!"

Well, the flavor text on misdirected mark (one of the powers that does that) says, "You conceal your arcane attack, tricking your foe into thinking the attack came from one of your allies." I think my bards'll probably use your example, but I guess either works. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 04:55 AM
All right, having read the class at a friend's, I can state that

(1) it looks really fun to play; many of the powers focus on messing up the DMs plans, messing with the mind of opponents, and generally shifting everybody around on the battlefield. Whereas local reactions to the artificer have been lackluster, and reactions to the barbarian have been wildly varied, everybody was very positive about the bard.

(2) power creep. Perhaps they're going to fix this, but I doubt it. The bard has good powers, and pretty much all skills, and a number of class abilities like a diplomacy boost, and full ritual casting like a wizard, and can take all multiclass feats. First, those feats are among the best heroic feats anyway, and second, that allows it to pick their combos from everywhere. If a broken combo exists in 4E, the bard can use it.

(3) it potentially eclipses the warlord, in terms of both healing and battlefield control.

(4) more stupid fluff, but then that was to be expected.



What fluff does the new bard use? There was talk before of bards having extraplanar sponsors and whatnot: is that still in?
Not that I've seen, no.


Bear in mind, Con is just a general indicator of health. Healthy people are sexy people, as per natural selection.
More silly reasoning, because how people look has traditionally been governed by charisma (which, yes, also covers other things).


"You conceal your arcane attack, tricking your foe into thinking the attack came from one of your allies."
More silliness caused by the fact that "marking" is a crunch-only event that has no plausible fluff equivalent.

What this needs is a healthy dose of the MST3K mantra. 4E isn't intended to make sense, it's intended to be a game. Bards focus on constitution because con was not used often enough in PHB classes, that's all there is to it. I mean, we spent all of last night fighting ant swarms with a longbow, and hitting on long-range attacks while blinded; all of those are conceits to gameplay and none of them make sense from a RPG perspective. "It's only a board game, we should really just relax."


I find that terribly disappointing. I do understand that "that's how paper mags work", but not receiving access to all the archives of previous material once I sign up completely defeats the purpose of an online subscription for me.
This is one of the reasons why I'm not signing up for them. It also strikes me as economically unsound, as a year from now the best way to access old dragon magazines will be P2P filesharing, rather than the WOTC site. That's the "Better Than Original" problem all over again.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-05, 08:05 AM
(2) power creep. Perhaps they're going to fix this, but I doubt it. The bard has good powers, and pretty much all skills, and a number of class abilities like a diplomacy boost, and full ritual casting like a wizard, and can take all multiclass feats. First, those feats are among the best heroic feats anyway, and second, that allows it to pick their combos from everywhere. If a broken combo exists in 4E, the bard can use it.


A Broken Bard? Wow, this is the first edition I heard that possibility.

The Mormegil
2008-11-05, 08:42 AM
Hmm... from what I have seen the bard isn't broken at all. At best, he's very good. For now. But we have only half of the heroic tier powers... who knows what will come next...

But I'm gonna play a Cunning Bard in a future adventure, and I look foward to it.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 08:49 AM
Hmm... from what I have seen the bard isn't broken at all. At best, he's very good.

I didn't say he was broken. I did say he was indicative of power creep, and potentially eclipsing the warlord. Being "more powerful than what is printed in the PHB" is not the same as being "broken".

Starbuck_II
2008-11-05, 10:05 AM
I didn't say he was broken. I did say he was indicative of power creep, and potentially eclipsing the warlord. Being "more powerful than what is printed in the PHB" is not the same as being "broken".

You said he had use broken combo.
"If a broken combo exists in 4E, the bard can use it."

That implies the Bard is broken.
Anyway, I haven't found much power creep yet other than magic items (new book has some better stuff).

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 10:47 AM
You said he had use broken combo.
"If a broken combo exists in 4E, the bard can use it."

That implies the Bard is broken.

Nope. That only says that IF a broken combo exists in 4E (which is decidedly not a given so far) THEN the bard can use it (and possibly, so can other classes).

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-05, 10:57 AM
A Broken Bard? Wow, this is the first edition I heard that possibility.

:smallbiggrin:

@RTG 0922 tnx, I needed it :smallsmile:

Anyway, I accept better the power names as songs. I mean, the martial class powers names are really silly, but I like the song titles you cited.

Friv
2008-11-05, 01:51 PM
And that's not counting the errors found since then, because the latest published errata is now almost three months old and a new version is long overdue. You've got a very funny definition of "little grammar errors" there. I dare you to find me any other RPG with twenty pages of errata, period.

Ask, and ye shall receive. (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php?title=Questions68)

Although, to be fair, those are almost all unanswered open errata questions. But since the developer team asked for said questions, I feel that it counts.


I realize that many of these posts are probably posted by the same person, and many people who read those forums may not post, but the activity of the forums has to be some indication of the state of the game. I think it's a safe conclusion to draw that 4e has a fanbase at least as large as those other RPGs you cited.

Without disagreeing with your premise, I don't think you can really classify total forum posts without a lot of secondary information. For example, White Wolf's forums prune threads that are over three months old to conserve server space. Steve Jackson Games seems to do the same. D&D, on the other hand, still has forum posts up from last May, which was six months ago.

its_all_ogre
2008-11-05, 02:24 PM
the sheer number of feats you would need to dip into several classes, and pre-req stats too, would make the grabbing powers from different classes much less common than you'd assume.

looks good and does not overpower the warlord.

Artanis
2008-11-05, 03:27 PM
(2) power creep. Perhaps they're going to fix this, but I doubt it. The bard has good powers, and pretty much all skills, and a number of class abilities like a diplomacy boost, and full ritual casting like a wizard, and can take all multiclass feats. First, those feats are among the best heroic feats anyway, and second, that allows it to pick their combos from everywhere. If a broken combo exists in 4E, the bard can use it.
Wait, it gets full Wizard-caliber ritual casting? Like, as in free rituals at first level and more free rituals every five levels?

...and no, that's not sarcasm. I honestly don't know.

Draz74
2008-11-05, 03:38 PM
I don't think so, I think it just gets the Cleric's same deal: Free Ritual Casting feat. But then, what do I know? I'm not forking over money for 4e previews. :smallamused:

On the CON dependence: Well, it follows pretty naturally from the Half-Elf's CON bonus. Half-Elves make good Bards, natch. So asking why in the Nine Hells Bards rely on CON is really just the same ol' question as why in the Nine Hells Half-Elves have a CON bonus. :smallconfused:

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 03:45 PM
why in the Nine Hells Half-Elves have a CON bonus. :smallconfused:

Cuz, as Mewtarthio said, Con and Charisma bonuses mean you're sexy. And half-elves are sexy. :smalltongue:

Draz74
2008-11-05, 03:51 PM
Cuz, as Mewtarthio said, Con and Charisma bonuses mean you're sexy. And half-elves are sexy. :smalltongue:

Well, then. What more is there to question? All I've done is add a consistency check -- with positive test result -- to Mewthario's theory.

Zeful
2008-11-05, 03:51 PM
Cuz, as Mewtarthio said, Con and Charisma bonuses mean you're sexy. And half-elves are sexy. :smalltongue:

That and the whole half-breeds are stronger than either parent.

DSCrankshaw
2008-11-08, 08:22 PM
The thing I like about the new bard is the possibility of a real Jack of All Trades character. Since the "Jack of All Trades" feat stacks with the bard's proclivity of untrained skills, and since the bard can pick up a new skill with each multiclass feat, there's a real possibility to make a bard with a decent ability for every possible skill check (at least +5 + 1/2 level--which is 55% odds for any moderate difficulty skill check DC).