Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2008, 10:20 AM   #21
Jürgen Hubert
 
Jürgen Hubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
Concerns:Gnomes are no longer a core race. This is going to make the 4e version of Eberron kind of difficult I suspect. House Sivis is now composed of what exactly?
Apparently, all Eberron PC races are listed in the appendix of the Monster Manual, complete with all required stats. They only list two shifter variants, though (oh, and while changelings are not explicitly listed, dopplegangers are now functionally identical to them, and they are listed).
__________________
GURPS Repository Sunken Castles, Evil Poodles - translating German folk tales into English!
Jürgen Hubert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 10:54 AM   #22
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991
Add to that the dumping of the barbarian, the druid, sorceror and the bard and throwing in the warlord and warlock, it seems that they are fundamentally changing the way characters interact by de-emphasizing roleplaying and emphasizing combat.
Huh? I cannot think of a time when D&D did not emphasize combat.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 10:55 AM   #23
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

I don't particularly see a problem with not listing races suitable for Eberron or any other campaign setting in the core rule book. They can, after all, just add them in the new, updated, expensive, replacement campaign setting book.

I don't mind the inclusion of Tieflings but no other part-outsider. I really have problems with the idea of angels getting nookie, it hurts my brain, and I can't even figure out how a half-elemental works in the first place.

The dragon people are no more draconians than half-dragons were in 3.5; they're dragon people, a concept that's been around the block more than a few times. They'll be draconians when their colour matters and they blow up or turn to stone or whatever when killed.

I see why the gnomes have been left out of the PHB - they've been changed from 3.0/3.5 - they do potentially game-unstabilizing tricks like becoming invisible, and therefore have been left to the "DANGER: OPTIONAL" section.

Monks, barbarians, rangers, and bards have not been exiled from the game - they're just not in the first volume of the PHB. Remember that one of the explicit policies for 4.0 was admitting that the periodic supplements (Masters of the Wild, Sword and Fist, etc) are treated by the player base like required cannonical supplements, so they need to start treating them like it. I expect to find rangers and barbarians in volume 2, and probably monks as well. They may hold off on bards until volume 3, unless they think of some brilliant way to make bards functional in a dungeon crawling environment.

EDIT:

It's a little weird coming from the outside of the D&D community, but most groups really do treat EVERY SUPPLEMENT issued by the original publisher as vital expansions to the core rules, and are automatically allowed in a game unless otherwise specified by the GM.

I'm rather used to treating supplemental books as not allowed, by default, and require explicit permission to use. D&D players, as a demographic, are the other way around - by default they're used, unless explicitly forbidden.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
A neglected GURPS blog

Last edited by Bruno; 06-02-2008 at 10:58 AM.
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:05 AM   #24
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
They may hold off on bards until volume 3, unless they think of some brilliant way to make bards functional in a dungeon crawling environment.
They've already pretty much said "Bard == Arcane Leader". Not obviously harder to make functional than the Warlord.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:05 AM   #25
Flyerfan1991
 
Flyerfan1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Huh? I cannot think of a time when D&D did not emphasize combat.
Considering it's roots, that's not a shocker. However, D&D now seems to be emphasizing combat more than 3.0 did. Getting rid of some of these pesky "lesser" classes make it easier to balance out combat so that everybody is equal.

--Mike L.
Flyerfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:16 AM   #26
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan1991
Considering it's roots, that's not a shocker. However, D&D now seems to be emphasizing combat more than 3.0 did. Getting rid of some of these pesky "lesser" classes make it easier to balance out combat so that everybody is equal.
The "lesser" classes in many cases didn't have any sort of non-combat abilities that balanced them out -- they were just flat inferior. In addition, those classes that did have non-combat abilities were often so overwhelmingly superior that everyone else might as well go to sleep.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:23 AM   #27
Crakkerjakk
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
 
Crakkerjakk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Monks, barbarians, rangers, and bards have not been exiled from the game - they're just not in the first volume of the PHB.
Rangers are in. Barbs, Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers are out.
__________________
My bare bones web page

Semper Fi
Crakkerjakk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:24 AM   #28
Flyerfan1991
 
Flyerfan1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I don't particularly see a problem with not listing races suitable for Eberron or any other campaign setting in the core rule book. They can, after all, just add them in the new, updated, expensive, replacement campaign setting book.

I don't mind the inclusion of Tieflings but no other part-outsider. I really have problems with the idea of angels getting nookie, it hurts my brain, and I can't even figure out how a half-elemental works in the first place.
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.

Quote:
The dragon people are no more draconians than half-dragons were in 3.5; they're dragon people, a concept that's been around the block more than a few times. They'll be draconians when their colour matters and they blow up or turn to stone or whatever when killed.
Except that they weren't exactly a core race in 3.5.

Quote:
I see why the gnomes have been left out of the PHB - they've been changed from 3.0/3.5 - they do potentially game-unstabilizing tricks like becoming invisible, and therefore have been left to the "DANGER: OPTIONAL" section.
That's why I thought of them as taken them or leave them.

Quote:
Monks, barbarians, rangers, and bards have not been exiled from the game - they're just not in the first volume of the PHB. Remember that one of the explicit policies for 4.0 was admitting that the periodic supplements (Masters of the Wild, Sword and Fist, etc) are treated by the player base like required cannonical supplements, so they need to start treating them like it. I expect to find rangers and barbarians in volume 2, and probably monks as well. They may hold off on bards until volume 3, unless they think of some brilliant way to make bards functional in a dungeon crawling environment.
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.

Quote:
EDIT:

It's a little weird coming from the outside of the D&D community, but most groups really do treat EVERY SUPPLEMENT issued by the original publisher as vital expansions to the core rules, and are automatically allowed in a game unless otherwise specified by the GM.

I'm rather used to treating supplemental books as not allowed, by default, and require explicit permission to use. D&D players, as a demographic, are the other way around - by default they're used, unless explicitly forbidden.
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.

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.

--Mike L.
Flyerfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:24 AM   #29
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk
Rangers are in. Barbs, Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers are out.
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.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 11:38 AM   #30
Warlockco
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Colorado
Default Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
That seems to be part of their motivation. HASBRO wants a monthly subscription, online tools, D&D Online to compete with WoW. So they're probably giving more consideration to computerizing the system.
minor correction
Warlockco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.