[4e Review] - Keith Baker, Creator of Eberron

[SamTheCleric]

The original blog can be found here: http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/

Some interesting viewpoints coming from him.

Part 1:

With DDXP in full swing, there's lots of news about Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons on the net this week. I just read the first part of a fairly extensive review of the system, posted by a playtester at http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776 . He's already said much of what I'd say, so I'll refrain from discussing the system itself it too much detail. But I do want to highlight a few points.

First, Massawyrm - the aintitcool reviewer - makes a critical point. Simple doesn't mean stupid. 4E D&D has simplified many things, and these systems will as a result be more accessible to a wider audience. But this doesn't mean that they have somehow sacrificed quality in the process. They've simply improved the systems. There's nothing admirable about being clunky or esoteric. When I was running a game for a friend and his kids yesterday, I thought "Damn! I wish I could run 4E!" And part of this WAS because I knew that the kids would have a far easier time with it. But it wouldn't have simply been a sacrifice made to cater to the children; I'm enjoying 4E more that third.

A second thing I've heard is that 4E is somehow a copy of World of Warcraft. To set my credentials on the table, I've not only been playing D&D for almost 30 years, I've spent 7 years designing massively multiplayer computer games (MMOs). So, is there a basis for these accusations? Certainly. There are basic principles in 4E that are reflected in MMOs. The most obvious of these is the concept of character roles. Defining the fighter as the "guardian" and the rogue as the "striker" is a obvious parallel to the role of these classes in WoW. The rogue deals more damage than the fighter, but can't absorb as much. The fighter is the tank, and specializes in drawing attacks away from his allies. And the 4E fighter has abilities that allow him to do just that - encourage enemies to face him instead of his teammates.

But does that make 4E D&D a clone of WoW? Does it make the experience of playing 4E just like playing WoW? Does it sacrifice the inherent experience of D&D? In my opinion, the answer is no on all counts. Combat in WoW is a real-time experience set against foes driven by AI routines. If you REALLY wanted to make a WoW clone, you'd give the DM instructions along the following lines: "Keep track of the amount of damage each player inflicts on the monster. Any concombat spell such as healing or summoning will be given an equivalent damage value. The monster will always attack the player who has inflicted the most damage on it. The attacks of a fighter are considered to inflict double damage only for this purpose, and his taunt ability adds an immediate thirty points to his threat value."... or something like that. Decision making would be taken out of the DM's hands, and you'd ignore the tactics of the situation.

Scaling it back slightly, you could simply give the fighter an ability that said "Taunt: Target must make a Will saving throw. If he fails, he must attack the fighter." More D&D, perhaps, but equally hamfisted.

Fourth Edition doesn't do either of these. Instead, it gives the guardian classes tools that hinder or harm the target if he chooses to ignore the fighter. It creates a tactical situation - something more complex than you will typically see in the real-time combat of WoW. As DM, I get to decide: is the monster going to turn against the fighter in response to his efforts? Or will he still attack the wizard, in spite of the consequences he'll suffer as a result?

So 4E D&D does draw INSPIRATION from the MMOs, in saying "Let's provide the fighter with a way to actively defend his allies - a way to protect the low hit-point/AC wizard BEYOND simply whacking the guy with a sharp piece of metal." As someone who has always enjoyed playing fighters, I think this is great. I still have my high AC, my high hit points, my high strength, my excellent weapon selection, and the ability to deal decent damage. I haven't been stripped of the basic things that have always defined fighters in D&D. But I have been given new abilities that expand what I am capable of... that allow me to defend my allies even while smashing my foes.

Games evolve, and that's what's happening here. In my years working on MMOs, I always looked to my experiences with pen-and-paper RPGs and live roleplaying for ways to add depth of story to the MMO experience. You couldn't simply transfer the pen-and-paper game to the computer and expect it to work perfectly; they're completely different mediums. But there are lessons to be learned, ideas we can try. And that's what's been done here, in reverse. 4E isn't simply World of Warcraft ripped from the computer and played at the table, because WoW wasn't designed for that. But it does draw inspiration from MMOs, looking at the ideas that have evolved over the course of a decade of MMO development and seeing if there's anything there that could enhance the traditional pen-and-paper experience. And for what it's worth, so far I love the result. The action of the game is fast and fun. It's something I wish I could share with more of my friends, and I look forward to having the chance to play instead of just DMing!

Next time around I'll talk about some of the issues facing Eberron in 4E... but I think that's enough for now!

Part 2

So. Fourth Edition comes out in June. A dedicated 4E Eberron sourcebook won't be out until sometime in 2009. So what do you do?

Well, one obvious answer is to keep using 3.5. You may want to do that anyway; I'm NOT promising that everyone will prefer fourth edition to third. However, *I* do, and besides, if you're going to stick with third you don't need help from me. So, if you want to switch to running an Eberron campaign in June, how hard is it going to be?

It's not as bad as you might think. As was revealed at the DDXP, most of the races that play a significant role in Khorvaire - changeling, shifter, warforged, gnome - get a solid "How to use these as PCs" treatment in the Monster Manual. My Eberron groups currently include a gnome, a shifter, and two changelings. These races don't get quite as many racial options (feats, etc) from the get-go as those covered in the PHB, and that's the sort of thing you can expect to see in a 4E ECS. But they are certainly completely viable as PCs straight out of the MM. Beyond that, DDI is going to be providing some level of support; I know there's an article on the Warforged coming out in May, and I expect that to provide the same sort of options the PHB races get.

So in terms of basic mechanics and races, you're good to go. But things you'll definitely be missing off the bat are dragonmarks, the artificer, psionics, and the kalashtar. It's POSSIBLE that one or more of these will get coverage in DDI, but I'm not in a position to set odds on that.

With this in mind, you have a few options. I went ahead and whipped up my own version of the kalashtar and least dragonmarks to fill the gap; as a result, I do have a Lyrandar heir in one of my groups. However, in lieu of making house rules or getting DDI support, your best bet is to set these things aside. "But what about my kalashtar artificer?" you say. Well, the first thing I'd advise is that you start a new campaign. If you want to switch over, don't try to do it mid-story. Get to a good stopping point in your 3E campaign and then create an entirely new party of 4E characters. Among other things, low-level play is very different in 4E than in 3E, and you should really give it a try.

I know this may not be what you want to hear. "I've been building a story for two years - now you want me to drop it?" What I'm suggesting is that you put it on hold until you have access to the 4E ECS and have a better chance of a proper conversion. For that matter, you could continue to run that story in 3E while ALSO running a new story in 4E. But consider 4E as an opportunity to try something completely different. Here's your chance to play the all-goblinoid party - the strike force of the Kech Volaar seeking to recover artifacts from the Empire of Dhakaan, to battle the cults of the Dragon Below and engage in military and political conflict with the Kech Sharaat and Lhesh Haruuc. Start a group of adventurers in the Lhazaar Principalities - the gnome warlock from Lorghalen, the changeling rogue from the Gray Tide, the Cloudreaver dwarf fighter, Bloodsail elf wizard, and cleric from the Heavenly Fleet, who have banded together to defeat an evil prince and lay claim to his fiefdom. Try playing Ghaash'kala orcs holding the Labyrinth against the barbarians and fiends of the Demon Wastes. A team of Dark Lanterns of the Citadel, fighting on the front lines of the cold war. All of these could be easily done... and none of them require an artificer, kalashtar, or psionics (though that Dark Lantern team could certainly use some of them!).

Now, artificers, dragonmarks, and psionics aren't going anywhere. All of these things are integral parts of the setting. But you can still have the flavor of the setting even if no PC has access to these things. Don't pretend that artificers aren't there. You can go ahead and use the dragonmarked houses as patrons and story hooks. It just happens that no PLAYER can be a warforged artificer (yet). Again, there's so many possibilities that you can now explore (like the paladin of the Blood of Vol in one of my games) that I believe you can work around these things. As a DM, it's a matter of saying "OK, if psionics aren't in yet, I'll use the Aurum instead of the Dreaming Dark" - it doesn't mean that the Dreaming Dark is GONE, just that you shouldn't make it the basis of your story... yet.

Personally, I'm using Stormreach as the basis for my campaign. I like Stormreach because it's a relatively small town on the edge of the world, close to uncharted lands and even more dangerous than Sharn. It's a place where adventurers can quickly make a mark, because you don't have the established forces of Morgrave, the Citadel, or the like. Beyond this, the City of Stormreach sourcebook says it's going to have 4E support when the rules come out. Now, before someone says "We can't trust anything you say!" I'll point out that I don't actually get royalties from the sale of sourcebooks, so this isn't some ploy to try to get you to rush out and buy CoS (for all that I'm happy with the book). However, if DDI does come through with the promised 4E support, it could be one of the easier places to use.

So in conclusion, if you want to continue the story exactly as you're running it, or if you're set on playing your kalashtar psion or Cannith artificer, you may have to stick with 3E for now. But if you're willing to start a new story and try something new - avoiding the early potholes of psionics, dragonmarks, and artificers - you should be able to start a 4E Eberron campaign right away.

Next I'll talk about why I've done just that - why *I* like running Eberron in 4E. Again, I'm not promising that everyone will like 4E; it's not the magic ultimate system. But I think that it is a good system for Eberron, and next time around I'll tell you why.

[KIDS]

That's both intriguing and encouraging. I mostly agree with the article(s) and look forward to the game - if those things are true at least!

[Indon]

Well, I'll be interested to see how 4'th edition fits into Eberron, or really just any established setting - the impression I have is that 4'th edition simply lacks the tools to convert over a setting from 3.x without potentially losing quite a bit, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Project_Mayhem]

This sounds ... more promising than I'd hoped. As a big Eberron fan, my main concern was that they'd rape the background till it bled (like Forgotten realms). They might still do that of course, but he probably would have mentioned something.

It's annoying, but not unexpected, that we'd have to make-do for a while. However, I don't mind waiting if it means that the stuff will kick arse when it comes out.

[Titanium Dragon]

I have to disagree with the concept of character types being taken from MMOs; MMOs took them from D&D originally. Heck, if you look at 2nd edition, you'll see them:

Warriors - Tanks
Rogue-types (I forget the name) - Strikers (and Skill-Monkeys, something which don't really exist in MMOs)
Wizards - Controllers/Blasters
Priests - Healers

Heck, the original version of D&D had such major archetypes in the first place, and really, RPGs with "classes" in general do (though it depends on the nature of "classes" in the system; Alternity's class-equivalents are a lot less meaningful than D&D's are).

And I'm surprised he isn't working on the new edition of Eberron; I guess he wasn't hired by WotC/doesn't work for them anymore? I knew he got it published via a contest, but I assumed he got a job working with them for some reason.

[Artanis]

Thanks for the heads-up, Sam. It's interesting to see a second review explicitly agreeing with Massawyrm.

And I'm surprised he isn't working on the new edition of Eberron; I guess he wasn't hired by WotC/doesn't work for them anymore? I knew he got it published via a contest, but I assumed he got a job working with them for some reason.

Huh? Where did he say that? I must've missed it.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Trust Keith Baker to come up with one of the more balanced and honest reviews. Good on the man.

[SamTheCleric]

It must seem like I'm pushing 4e on everyone... I promise I'm just tripping over these reviews as I try and take over the Intrawebs.

[Indon]

I have to disagree with the concept of character types being taken from MMOs; MMOs took them from D&D originally. Heck, if you look at 2nd edition, you'll see them:

I disagree. I'd say that MMO's took them from early computer games which took them from D&D.

When you take a class idea from D&D and try to put it into a simple computer or Nintendo game, you have to significantly simplify it. So all the features of all the classes turn into, say, Fighter/Thief/Black Belt/Red Mage/White Mage/Black Mage... for instance. And then those early games developed the mechanics system which more sophisticated computer RPG's borrowed from, eventually leading into MMO's.

[Artanis]

It must seem like I'm pushing 4e on everyone... I promise I'm just tripping over these reviews as I try and take over the Intrawebs.

You aren't pushing it on us, you're just the first to find it

[Behold_the_Void]

I've been wanting to give Eberron a try, maybe I'll run my first 4e campaign with it next year when school resumes.

[SamTheCleric]

I've been wanting to give Eberron a try, maybe I'll run my first 4e campaign with it next year when school resumes.

I've played a total of one game of eberron... in the Xendrik expedition thing... Was a Shifter Druid. I don't think I've been emerged in enough of the setting to really make a judgement...

Maybe I'll put my 4e home game there.

[Hyrael]

While encouraging, I have to say the following: I hate WoW. I hate the idea of class abilities that function only among a group, or classes that are only capable of functioning with other people around.

I realize that no one class archetype can do everything, but when I make a character, i make them self-sufficient. If they're a combat-type guy, I give them some skills so they can talk, run, or sneak out of a bad situation. if I make a caster, they have personal protection spells, or can summon meat-sheilds to distract their attacker while they flee.

and dont talk to me about how bards are useless on their own. bards get pumped by their own music, can buff themselves in combat, and are capable of stabbing.

I dont like focus. I dont like pure, min-maxed combat efficiency. you wind up with fighters who cant put on their own leggings in the morning, or wizards who can decimate swaths of enemies, but are completely foiled by a deep pit they've fallen into, or a npc that has to be reasoned with. All fighters can do is taunt and fight, and take hits. what do they do when there's no one there to take hits for?

Wow seems to have this problem, along with many others. its just that. so far, 4E seems to be geared towards dungeon-crawling grind far more than 3rd.

[Titanium Dragon]

I disagree. I'd say that MMO's took them from early computer games which took them from D&D.

When you take a class idea from D&D and try to put it into a simple computer or Nintendo game, you have to significantly simplify it. So all the features of all the classes turn into, say, Fighter/Thief/Black Belt/Red Mage/White Mage/Black Mage... for instance. And then those early games developed the mechanics system which more sophisticated computer RPG's borrowed from, eventually leading into MMO's.

Ultimately, most MMOs are actually descended from Roguelike games, and more specifically ultimately Rogue, which was a 1980 computer game which was basically a direct (if crude) port of Dungeons & Dragons to the computer.

In Rogue, you fight through a series of random dungeons until you finally get to hell, where you kill a powerful wizard and steal their amulet. If this sounds familiar, welcome to Diablo, which was perhaps the most popular of all the rogue-like games. And most modern MMOs are pretty obviously descendents of these earlier games.

WoW in particular is pretty egregious, though to be entirely fair they also steal a lot of fluff from Games Workshop.

[EvilElitest]

I am interested in the Giant's take, i trust him more than Baker. We shall see
from
EE

[RTGoodman]

I dont like focus. I dont like pure, min-maxed combat efficiency. you wind up with fighters who cant put on their own leggings in the morning, or wizards who can decimate swaths of enemies, but are completely foiled by a deep pit they've fallen into, or a npc that has to be reasoned with. All fighters can do is taunt and fight, and take hits. what do they do when there's no one there to take hits for?

Wow seems to have this problem, along with many others. its just that. so far, 4E seems to be geared towards dungeon-crawling grind far more than 3rd.

It's too early and we don't know enough yet, but I doubt that's the case. There's a big emphasis, from what I've read/seen, on personalization. If you don't want to be the Fighter who just focuses of "drawing aggro" or whatever it's called, don't learn those exploits (or powers or prayers or maneuvers or whatever their called for your class). Surely, with as much as their putting into developing these different kinds of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers, I almost guarantee that you'll be able to come up with different types of characters and builds, just like you can in 3.5.

[EvilElitest]

We do have some information from teh preview books however
from
EE

[brian c]

Trust Keith Baker to come up with one of the more balanced and honest reviews. Good on the man.

I'd just like to re-iterate that his name is indeed Keith, not Ken.

I liked his review, although it was a lot about Eberron, obviously, which I don't play. He didn't give much crunch, but I liked the rebuttal of "4e = WoW" ideas.

[Zincorium]

While encouraging, I have to say the following: I hate WoW. I hate the idea of class abilities that function only among a group, or classes that are only capable of functioning with other people around.

Really, that doesn't make sense to me. D&D is fundamentally a social experience, at minimum you need the interaction with the DM and a player but that still isn't as good as several players.

That said, the abilities indicated aren't anywhere near the entire repertoire of the classes we've seen. Yes, a fighter can, like he said, make it difficult for a monster to get past him and bash on a wizard, but that's not his only ability.

On a side note, I don't play Wow and never have. But I'm not bothered by any resemblance.

I realize that no one class archetype can do everything, but when I make a character, i make them self-sufficient. If they're a combat-type guy, I give them some skills so they can talk, run, or sneak out of a bad situation. if I make a caster, they have personal protection spells, or can summon meat-sheilds to distract their attacker while they flee.

and dont talk to me about how bards are useless on their own. bards get pumped by their own music, can buff themselves in combat, and are capable of stabbing.

I dont like focus. I dont like pure, min-maxed combat efficiency. you wind up with fighters who cant put on their own leggings in the morning, or wizards who can decimate swaths of enemies, but are completely foiled by a deep pit they've fallen into, or a npc that has to be reasoned with. All fighters can do is taunt and fight, and take hits. what do they do when there's no one there to take hits for?

Wow seems to have this problem, along with many others. its just that. so far, 4E seems to be geared towards dungeon-crawling grind far more than 3rd.

Er, multiclassing?

Which will be a better option in 4th than 3.x from what they've said?

Have you actually considered that as an option or have you only looked at single-class characters? Because, especially in a roleplaying sense, having a single class is focusing on a specific area and not having versatility.

[Indon]

I give them some skills so they can talk, run, or sneak out of a bad situation...

I dont like focus. I dont like pure, min-maxed combat efficiency. you wind up with fighters who cant put on their own leggings in the morning, or wizards who can decimate swaths of enemies, but are completely foiled by a deep pit they've fallen into, or a npc that has to be reasoned with.

And yet, I'm not sure you'll like what they did with the skill system, by reducing the difference between trained and untrained skills, and consolidating skills, it's easy for any character to be somewhat capable outside of combat even if you're a complete combat monster.

I suspect you dislike not having the option to generalize, more than you dislike focused characters.

[Titanium Dragon]

And yet, I'm not sure you'll like what they did with the skill system, by reducing the difference between trained and untrained skills, and consolidating skills, it's easy for any character to be somewhat capable outside of combat even if you're a complete combat monster.

I suspect you dislike not having the option to generalize, more than you dislike focused characters.

Actually, given his preference for having generalized characters, he'll probably enjoy it; trying to tell him what he'll enjoy, though, is a fool's game.

[Mewtarthio]

I note that everyone seems to be missing the big news here:

Positive confirmation that the gnome will be in 4e core as a playable race! As well as shifters, warforged, and changelings, of course, but everyone really cares about the gnomes.

[Artanis]

I note that everyone seems to be missing the big news here:

Positive confirmation that the gnome will be in 4e core as a playable race! As well as shifters, warforged, and changelings, of course, but everyone really cares about the gnomes.

Gnomes were confirmed as playable a long, long time ago.

[KIDS]

Funnily enough Hyrael, these are the exact things I dislike in our current 3.5 edition. At least without a big amount of optimization, there are very little ways to get this self-sufficiency or versatility. From what I see, while roles in 4E are basic intent of class, note that each has a wide array of stuff to cross into another role if desired.

But right now (example), if I want for my Rogue to learn some distruption tehcniques ala Iron Guard's Glare, in core I have absolutely no way to do it and out of core it takes an obscure combination of 3 PrCs with ludicrous prerequisites that come loaded with stuff you don't want. I look forward to just taking one level of fighter or even a fighter training feat - of course, I could be wrong and multiclassing might not work like that. Who knows.

[Starsinger]

I note that everyone seems to be missing the big news here:

Positive confirmation that the gnome will be in 4e core as a playable race! As well as shifters, warforged, and changelings, of course, but everyone really cares about the gnomes.

And goblinoids and orcs.

[ladditude]

I personally like the roles. I want to have 3 or 4 core class choices for any basic idea that I want to fulfill. In 3.5 I feel like it is Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer/Wizard and Barbarian/Fighter for your group. Any other selection hurts your groups well roundedness. Thus, classes like Bard, Ranger, Druid, etc. become useless without ridiculous min-maxing or crazy multi/prestige classing or having 5+ party members.

Sure it may resemble WoW, but it allows you to have a functional party while playing any of the core classes.

[Charity]

Er, multiclassing?

Which will be a better option in 4th than 3.x from what they've said?

Has anyone actually seen any of the multiclassing crunch?

I am very keen to see how they have addressed multiclassing.

[Kizara]

I personally like the roles. I want to have 3 or 4 core class choices for any basic idea that I want to fulfill. In 3.5 I feel like it is Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer/Wizard and Barbarian/Fighter for your group. Any other selection hurts your groups well roundedness. Thus, classes like Bard, Ranger, Druid, etc. become useless without ridiculous min-maxing or crazy multi/prestige classing or having 5+ party members.

Sure it may resemble WoW, but it allows you to have a functional party while playing any of the core classes.

Heh, shows what you know.

"Druids are useless" heh. Dude, druids ARE A PARTY:

Animal companion = fighter
Summons= gets past traps
Decent social and wild skills= other skillmonkey needs
Spells= any last skillmonkey needs, battlefield control, healing, disables
Wild Shape= even more versitility and melee presence

Really, the only thing a druid can't do is be a wizard. Mind you, he can try to and still be wizardy, but won't really match a real wizard.

[Attilargh]

Heh, 3.5 is a bit like a square hole; A well-rounded peg doesn't really fit.

[SamTheCleric]

I'd just like to re-iterate that his name is indeed Keith, not Ken.

Oops! Fixed :) thanks for pointing that out.