06-02-2008, 10:20 AM | #21 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
__________________
GURPS Repository • Sunken Castles, Evil Poodles - translating German folk tales into English! |
|
06-02-2008, 10:54 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2008, 10:55 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
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. |
06-02-2008, 11:05 AM | #24 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2008, 11:05 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
--Mike L. |
|
06-02-2008, 11:16 AM | #26 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2008, 11:23 AM | #27 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2008, 11:24 AM | #28 | |||||
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
06-02-2008, 11:24 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
06-02-2008, 11:38 AM | #30 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Colorado
|
Re: First thoughts on D&D 4th edition
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|