First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Bend bars/lift gates of the Fighter
Lay on Hands of the Paladin
Track of the Ranger
Pick a funky feat (like being able to fall without injury) of a Monk
Nature related abilities of the Druid

First of all, a druid is a primary spellcaster, and primary spellcasters have always been gods. Of the rest, some of them are not "fighting" abilities, but none of them are "roleplaying" abilities -- they're tactical abilities. In addition, I see no evidence that those abilities are gone in 4e.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

You mean explicitly possible within the ruleset or you mean possible only by multiclassing?

Within the ruleset. From what I understand about skill challenges (I don't have the actual 4E books yet, mind you), they encourage the players to come up with new and innovative uses for skills to solve problems, especially out of combat.

[Dagger of Lath]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

That's a bad precedent. It means in effect that they're applying the CCG marketing format to a game that doesn't require it to operate. Another way of looking at it is that WotC is trying hard to make everything a Core rulebook, in effect doing what Gary Gygax tried to do with 1.0 and in Dragon Magazine and make his way the one true faith.

As a reasonably new convert over to GURPS, I've found it simply amazing how much in GURPS core is core. It's a little dissapointing to see D&D go in the opposite direction with everything being core.

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Dagger of Lath

As a reasonably new convert over to GURPS, I've found it simply amazing how much in GURPS core is core. It's a little dissapointing to see D&D go in the opposite direction with everything being core.

I've found that the average player (D&D and GURPS alike) aren't going to be fooled by labeling everything "Core". Chances are that, named core or not, people will end up picking up primarily the books that they need for the games that they intend to run and play in.

-P.

[Dagger of Lath]

Originally Posted by Pmandrekar

I've found that the average player (D&D and GURPS alike) aren't going to be fooled by labeling everything "Core". Chances are that, named core or not, people will end up picking up primarily the books that they need for the games that they intend to run and play in.

I meant less so the labelling of "core" and more the functionality. If I'm looking for a rule in GURPS I look at campaigns 60% of the time, characters 30% of the time and another book maybe only 10% of the time.

In D&D 3.x, until the release of the rules/magic item/spell compendiums there really were no go to resources. The rule you were looking for could be anywhere and you'd have to either have a good memory or go hunting for a long while.

Or for another example White Wolf's NWoD books. All the base "how the world works" rules are in the main book, then the extra rules for being a vampire are in the vampire book, etc.

It seems though that 4th edition will not have a standard "This is the one book you'll ever truely need" system and will just scatter new rules and ideas through every book of their product line.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Dagger of Lath

I meant less so the labelling of "core" and more the functionality. If I'm looking for a rule in GURPS I look at campaigns 60% of the time, characters 30% of the time and another book maybe only 10% of the time.

Well, that was different in GURPS 3E, though admittedly not by design...

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

So his newer novels are actually readable? I've had some bad experiences with some of his earlier works...

It depends. Some people can't stand his style.

I find Cormyr: A Novel and City of Splendour both excellent. Of course, he co-wrote them both with good authors. Death of the Dragon is good too. His short stories I find good also, genereally.

I'll freely admit that the conflict between what he wants to write and what he's asked to write harms his writing immensely, but in Cormyr, for example, he managed to fit in an astonishing amount of 'useless' background information. As a matter of fact, I consider that book the single best RPG novel purchase I've made.

[Bruno]

Sorry about the mass reply here...

Originally Posted by Anthony

They've already pretty much said "Bard == Arcane Leader". Not obviously harder to make functional than the Warlord.

So they've found a way to make them work in a dungeoneering environment! Cool. I guess we'll see them sooner rather than later then.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Rangers are in. Barbs, Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers are out.

My error, I mis-remembered. I know Monks are definitely on the list of "todo later" because they commented on it specifically in the PHB.

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Well, I guess it doesn't bother me so much because I still think of Tieflings from the 2.0 version, which were strictly more Outsiders, and less simply Demon/Devil Spawn.

Ah, I really wasn't introduced to them when I was playing 2e.

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Except that they weren't exactly a core race in 3.5.

So? They're a totally new race to 4e, as far as I can tell (unless they're from Eberron - I'm not really familiar with that setting. I don't have a problem with them introducing new core races. There were certainly enough Half-Dragons floating around in 3e/3.5 that I can see why they chose to make a draconid race "core" - they're less twinky than Half-Dragons but should keep the "KEWL DRAGON" set happy. (I'm one of the KEWL DRAGON set, for reference. I mock myself because I care. :)

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Rangers are in the core book. Barbarians aren't. (Man, I forgot the monk, too.) The thing is, the "Core Books" are what are minimally required for play, so by doing things the way they have, they are essentially recommending that people not bother with Barbarians and Druids and instead try these cool half Dragons and part Demons.

Except that in useage, as I noted, people don't think of "minimally required for play". Apparently, ANYTHING published by WotC, with the possible exception of campaign specific supplements, is part of the minimal book set to many players. WotC are certainly not recommending that people not bother, so much as they'll have to hold their water and wait until they finish playtesting the classes.

Which is an improvement over the 3.0/3.5 attitude of just publishing whatever and then making more money by publishing a new book in two years that fixes your problems.

It remains to be seen if they actually bother testing their code this time around, or just release it as soon as they finish writing it. 3.0 was especially bad for classes whos tables and text disagreed with each other...

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

I sure hope that most don't consider them canon, because that's a big mistake. I've been playing D&D since around 1979 or 1980, and it was only in the old E.G.G. days did someone (Gary) try to keep house rules and whatnot out of the system. The whole point of the examples of certain things (such as Prestige Classes) in the DMG was to give a few examples to use in your campaign. Just because some data came from a supplement with WotC on the front doesn't make it more a Core rulebook.

Unfortunately you're outvoted by the dollars spent by the teeming hordes of teenagers who are playing the game. I suspect it has a lot to do with the bulk of the D&D market beeing teenagers. I've mentioned it before that part of the fundemental nature of teens is the drive to find out what the rules of being a person are - often by pushing the boundaries to find out where they get yelled at (say, by being gaming munchkins).

However, once teens FIND the boundaries, they tend to viciously enforce them. Witness the continued highschool hostility towards "alternate lifestyle" kids, ethnic or religious minorities, and just plain "weird" folks (like roleplayers!).

The part of your brain that's capable of handling "shades of grey" and contextual rules usually doesn't fully mature until late in the teenaged years, or early in the twenties.

This leads to a lot of fanatical rules lawyering, legalistic thinking,

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

The big thing for me is that if I were DM-ing a campaign in 4.0, there are things in the Core Rulebooks that I would already disqualify (no Eladrin, Dragonspawn, or Tieflings as PCs), and that bothers me. In 3.0, I didn't have those concerns.

I've always had the stance that what races/classes I allow into my campaign is my domain. I've had D&D campaigns where no arcane spellcasting classes were alowed and no pure clerical casters, or where the only race choice allowed was Human (or Elf, in one case). I frequently forbid half-orcs to save on angst over ork stabbing.

Are you disqualifying Eladrin, Dragonspawn, and Tieflings because they don't fit your campaign world? If so, go for it!

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Anthony

First of all, a druid is a primary spellcaster, and primary spellcasters have always been gods. Of the rest, some of them are not "fighting" abilities, but none of them are "roleplaying" abilities -- they're tactical abilities. In addition, I see no evidence that those abilities are gone in 4e.

You asked for non-combat abilities that wasn't a spellcaster or a thief, and all of those are abilities that are non-combat. If you want to break it down, with the exception of things like diplomacy, search or knowledge, most abilities are tactical or can be made so.

--Mike L.

[Flyerfan1991]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sorry about the mass reply here...

Worse things have happened around here. I'm going to snip a bit to focus my comments.

So? They're a totally new race to 4e, as far as I can tell (unless they're from Eberron - I'm not really familiar with that setting. I don't have a problem with them introducing new core races. There were certainly enough Half-Dragons floating around in 3e/3.5 that I can see why they chose to make a draconid race "core" - they're less twinky than Half-Dragons but should keep the "KEWL DRAGON" set happy. (I'm one of the KEWL DRAGON set, for reference. I mock myself because I care. :)

Well, I think I now know why the Dragonlance setting got pulled back into WotC, because they were working on this race. I think part of my chagrin about this is that if the Gnomes were a bit too unbalancing to be a core race, then what the heck are the Dragonspawn then?

Unfortunately you're outvoted by the dollars spent by the teeming hordes of teenagers who are playing the game. I suspect it has a lot to do with the bulk of the D&D market beeing teenagers. I've mentioned it before that part of the fundemental nature of teens is the drive to find out what the rules of being a person are - often by pushing the boundaries to find out where they get yelled at (say, by being gaming munchkins).

There are teeming hordes of teenagers playing D&D out there?

Where?

I thought they were all playing WOW online. ("Hey you kids, get offa my lawn!!")

I've always had the stance that what races/classes I allow into my campaign is my domain. I've had D&D campaigns where no arcane spellcasting classes were alowed and no pure clerical casters, or where the only race choice allowed was Human (or Elf, in one case). I frequently forbid half-orcs to save on angst over ork stabbing.

Are you disqualifying Eladrin, Dragonspawn, and Tieflings because they don't fit your campaign world? If so, go for it!

Well, yeah, but the point is that in just about any campaign I'd create except for specifically "mondo magic" campaigns, I'd ban those three. D&D 4.0 is starting to make the mid- and low- magic campaigns harder to justify. At least in 3.0 and earlier editions, you could accomodate a low-magic campaign a bit more easily.

--Mike L.