First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I thought we'd determined that Magic Missile wasn't Magic Missile anymore? That it actually wasn't any more effective than a crossbow?

Wizard with MM: Int vs Reflex, 2d4+Int
Ranger with Bow: Dex+2 vs AC, 1d10+Dex, +1d8 with Hunter's Quarry. If using Careful Strike, becomes Dex+6 vs AC.

AC is usually slightly higher than Reflex, but probably only averages 2 points higher, so the Ranger looks solidly better.

[Jonathan Willis]

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

I strongly disagree here. Of the six D&D groups I have played with over the last 2-3 years, none considered anything more than the 3 core rulebooks required to play. In most groups you didn't even need that; in casual games only one or two players actually owned the rules. Even the two groups I played with that I would describe as hard core D&D fans (i.e. all players owning at least the core books, and pretty much all supplements available around the table) fully respected the GMs right to veto material unsuitable for the campaign, and they certainly wouldn't expect a new player to own anything more than the PHB. Now I don't disagree that WotC isn't doing anything to dispel the idea that you need all the books to play. They are a business, why on earth would they? But they haven't pushed the idea all the books are compulsory either.

It seems fairly clear that this PHB2, PHB3, ...PHBn approach is just marketing, trying to remove the core/supplement distinction so as to improve the sales of supplements. The trouble is, that distinction is a very natural one in RPGs - things like the combat system, how to roll attributes, etc. are truely "core" in the sense that everybody who plays the game will need to know, whereas classes/races and so forth are material you only need if you are using that particular class/race. I will be interested to see exactly what is in future PHBs, but for the moment I'm considering them as "un-themed supplement of random ideas", and I'll buy them or not on that basis.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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...

While I agree this is a major problem, its hardly unique to WotC - the same complaint has been made by roleplayers about Mongoose, WW, Palladium, and by wargamers about Mongoose (again), GW, and Battlefront. Both RPGs and wargames require a high standard of accuracy across many tables of data, and achieving that over a large product is difficult. See for example the time it is taking to produce GURPS VDS.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

Agreed, and all the groups I've played with have respected this. Even for the classes/races in the 3.X PHB, many groups disallow the Monk class for example. In this regard 4e is no different from earlier versions; the classes/races presented in the core rulebook do create an implied setting, but the GM can use or ignore this as they choose.

[Xplo]

I'm amused by the comments that D&D 4 is heavily combat-oriented and makes roleplaying difficult; I've been saying this about the previous versions for some time now. Admittedly, 3.x did seem to offer more options for people who wanted to be something different from a bog-standard [insert class], but in practice I found the choice largely illusory.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Um, see above comment. Something not being in PHB1 doesn't mean it's been banished from the game, it just means that it isn't yet supported.

considering the will not be supper for 1 two 2 years, that a long way to play any social charcer, they are for all inversive peruses "out of the game"

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

considering the will not be supper for 1 two 2 years, that a long way to play any social charcer, they are for all inversive peruses "out of the game"

"Social character" isn't what was being discussed -- you can play a social character in 4e just fine (just take a character with social skills as trained skills). As far as that goes, D&D 4e has made an explicit design decision that all player characters should be useful in a fight, and has made some effort to make sure that all player characters are at least somewhat useful in a social situation as well.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

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.

Um. Ok, see, as far as I can tell, the "point" of D&D 4.0 is "EVERYBODY HAS MAGIC! WEEEE!"

So yeah, the game basically gives more modest campaign ideas the finger and runs cackling off into the sunset.

[Gamer_Zer0]

Originally Posted by Bruno

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...

Acturally from the talk aorund the water cooler, being thire forums,which my name is vastaly different from the name here; Several of the rules for 4e were droppingot the new star wars game as a test run and then re-wroekd to fix of to make better or left alone,but I couldn't tell you which rules exactly til I see the core books. Which I don't mind there being three, one players and one for GMs and one for both GM and players(monster manual which GURPS needs IMO,a nice collections of things already done all in one book)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Um. Ok, see, as far as I can tell, the "point" of D&D 4.0 is "EVERYBODY HAS MAGIC! WEEEE!"

No, the point is "All PCs have Kewl Powerz". Frankly, in a game where Kewl Powerz are available to at least some PCs, giving them to all PCs is probably a good move.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

Yes, but the entire concept of the Feywild and the Warlock's Pact emphasizes a certain aspect to a campaign that a low magic campaign simply would have to throw out or modify heavily to make work. The same thing with the Dragonborn and the Tiefling; in a low magic campaign their very presence doesn't work very well without quite a bit of slight of hand by the DM.

In the past, D&D settings had no problems with altering or writing out races and classes. Dark Sun had neither gnomes nor paladins, for example. So that, in itself, does not strike me as a problem. The Dragonborn and the Tieflings can be safely tossed out of your game (if you want replacements, just pick some of the humanoid races which have stats for PCs in the MM - or you could require human-only PCs). Same for the Warlock. Either rewrite the Fey Pact so it has a different origin, or toss it out - there are three other pacts to choose from. Or just throw out the Warlock class itself. Heck, there are already two Striker classes in the PHB, so it's not as if it's needed.

Or just toss out all the non-martial classes and keep the rituals for low magic flavor. Then the PCs could still use magic if they buy the appropriate feats, but it will require a lot of time and effort and won't happen during combats very often. So running D&D 4E as a low-magic game shouldn't be very difficult at all.


None of the high magic options seem to be truly essential to 4E, from what I know so far. And you really don't have to permit any of them in your game, just as you don't have to permit your players to purchase Social Status 7 in a GURPS game and become President of the United States.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991

not to mention kenderizing the Halflings,

Please tell me you're kidding. Or exaggerating. Or something.