THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => CLIKC => Topic started by: ackblom12 on 07 Feb 2008, 23:46

Title: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Feb 2008, 23:46
http://dnd4.com/rumors

This page has much of the info that has been released as well some speculation concerning the changes being made.

Personally, I'm pretty excited for the new edition and am looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I like the idea of Talent Trees rather than Feats especially, and the changing of certain Core Races and Classes is to be expected with a new Edition. Also, simplifying grappling will make certain players so much easier to deal with.

So come in and discuss this so I can stop accidentally bringing it up in improper threads.



Official Release date for the 3 Core Books is June 6th. There is also an adventure coming out in May that is basically going to be a lvl 1 - 3 Demo Dungeon introducing the new rules and mechanics if you are so interested called "Keep on the Shadowfell".
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 08 Feb 2008, 06:09
I'm fairly psyched.  Although, my usual DM made a few of these rule changes on his own...still.  Looking forward to it.  Have any of you seen the movie Gamerz?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: OnewingedAngel on 08 Feb 2008, 07:31
"The Shadow?!"

Personally, as a player I am highly against the game. I dislike the rule changes. It's gone from a somewhat challenging game to any 13 year old with  a basic grasp of writing and reading skills can play. It takes away the patience aspect. It is now a pen and paper video game. Somebody bring back THACO.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 08 Feb 2008, 08:45
Ugh. I hate THAC0 and everything it stands for. I grew up with it and all, but 2nd Edition AD&D and previous systems were terrible in many respects. The base combat rules were extremely simplistic which would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the Fighter is standing right there and combat is all he does. It's exactly what led to a metric ton of increasingly ridiculous supplements being released as well as players coming up with tons of goony houserules like critical fumbles that would cause a master swordsman to have a 5% chance to kick his own ass with any given swing. Plus, I seem to remember playing 2nd Edition AD&D; I was 13 at the time, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say it could still be played by 13 year olds, 'cuz I sure as hell wasn't gifted.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 08 Feb 2008, 09:06
I'm just annoyed that new editions come out so frequently. I couldn't even afford to buy the last one. But eventually everyone will be using the new system and it'll be needed.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 08 Feb 2008, 09:58
I can agree with that; the whole 3rd->3.5->4th thing was certain to ruffle a lot of feathers. My old group pooled books together to keep it from being such a huge issue, but honestly, with three overhauls within the span of a decade it's like Wizards is daring people to pirate the damned things.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 08 Feb 2008, 11:43
And I just found out my DM's birthday is June 6th.  I know what I'll be getting him...
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 08 Feb 2008, 11:57
"There will be no d20 System Trademark License for 4th edition."

They're removing d20 from Dungeons and Dragons?

Looks like I'm using 3.5 for a couple years longer.  I have a strong feeling 4th edition is going to flop because they are taking out what makes D&D, D&D.

How the FUCK can you have the nerve to remove Red Wizards?  I'm pretty pissed about this, I have to say.  I don't even own that many of the books, but I liked how things were.  The leap from AD&D to 3rd edition didn't change things too much because really, thac0 and +hit bonuses work out the same.  This is just... it's not D&D.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 08 Feb 2008, 12:51
I'm really psyched.

They're streamlining the fuck out of things and making it easier for newbies to grasp. I play with mostly new people, I think I'm the only veteran (Well, my barbarian played with her family. and my ranger played with me when I first dm'ed, when I didn't know ANY rules (I didnt even know about base attack bonuses back then))


Also, I like the character adjustments. I was disappointed at first that the gnome got kicked out of the PHB, then I meditated on it and decided that, the Halfling needed a better identity. It was too similar to the Gnome's personality.

Also, "conversation battles" are supposed to be better.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Spluff on 08 Feb 2008, 16:24
I liked the idea of the online component, but when I saw 'subscription' I threw up in my mouth a little.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Bearer on 08 Feb 2008, 16:32
As my friend and previous DM said once

Quote from: Bearer's old DM
V4 is what I can use with anyone new playing the game, but 3.5 is what I can bust out with my totally nerd-core friends

I'd have to have a better gasp on all the subtleties of the game to make judgment on anything in the new system, but what I don't like personally is that it might go online.  Also, from what I understand, they're taking the game and changing it to be more friendly to people comming off of World of Warcraft (like dumbing down the rules and such).  I'm all for simplifying things, don't get me wrong, but, I guess I'll have to look at the final product.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 08 Feb 2008, 17:28
Keeping with 3.5 was not an option for Wizards. They make the majority of their money from core books, and at this point most every DM has all the books they need from 3.5 (I know I do) and they aren't making any money at all from supplements. And with WoW pinching the time of fantasy nerds everywhere they can't be seen to stagnate if they want to remain at the vanguard of the RPG niche going into the future.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 08 Feb 2008, 17:38
The problem with most of this stuff is that it's just rumors, right? So, I'm still a bit excited for this. Anything that simplifies combat and all for me is a lot nicer. When it comes to tabletop roleplaying, I'm into the roleplaying bit by a much larger margin. Anything that lets me as a DM have more/easier control over the world we're playing in is a plus for that game, which is why I've been playing some of the Old World of Darkness games recently. I would like to get back to playing D&D, it's my old stomping ground.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 08 Feb 2008, 18:06
They're removing d20 from Dungeons and Dragons?

I'm not sure how you got that out of it. I'm pretty certain it just means you'll no longer require a license when producing you're own system that involves similar mechanics.

I also strongly suspect there will be a free version of the online component made available through 3rd parties relatively soon.

Also, if you want to get into the subscription cost of the online component, you're also getting access to the new Dungeons and the Dragons magazine both, as well as the online board and atever else they're going to be using. Wel, worth it if you want something a little more made for the occasion when you have gaming buddies no longer at home.

Scribbles hit it right on the head for me, in that my main enjoyment from this is that they are simplifying combat from the piece of shit clunky ass goliath that 3.0 and 3.5 made out of it. Just like with 3rd and 4th, if you choose to move on to it you can always home rule things, it just looks like I won't be home ruling in combat anywhere near as much if it does half the things it claims.

Also, Narr, Feats alone changed the entire face of D&D into a munchkin gaming wet dream. 3rd Ed was a huge change from 2nd Ed. This seems to be more streamlining and making the campaign settings their own.

I also think people are tossing the online portion way too far. Wizards is not going to force anyone online if that's what people are thinking. I'm probably not going to be using it much, but I don't se why anyone wouold be weary of having the option of a officially supported online game session room.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 08 Feb 2008, 18:55
I have the soul of pretty hardcore rules lawyer. Thick books and big tables of numbers don't scare me much. I have a rather perverse love for sifting through all those pages and wrapping my mind around the nuances of any given system. I like playing around with the numbers, coming up with munchkiny characters, breaking systems and getting an idea of how to get the most results with the least effort. For god's sake, I've created characters for Shadowrun 4 using excel sheets with the express purpose of tinkering with Build Point-to-Karma ratios in order to figure out the quickest way I can get to X dicepool after Y runs assuming Z Karma per session.

But you know what? Even I realize that none of that crap would make for a better game if it weren't for the fact that I GM rather than play. The idea that it takes a seriously demented person like me to actually -enjoy- some of the crap GMs have to put up with at times isn't some kind of virtue for a game system. I've learned that nine times out of ten "dumbing things down" equals "trimming deadweight," since a lot of the detail in any given system won't lead to meaningful decisions being made. I'm really excited about ideas like more weapon specific abilities and maneuvers because I'd rather see a Fighter take a blunt weapons feat because he'll gain meaningful new tricks in his repertoire rather than just have his bases covered if the random loot table coughs up a +2 Mace. If that takes dumbing down the rules, then so be it. I can always mentally fap off to GURPS character sheets later.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 08 Feb 2008, 19:17
I'm really pumped for online components. I have alot of online friends, and playing DnD with them over the net (using voice chat) would be extremely fun!
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Bearer on 08 Feb 2008, 19:43
That would be awesome actually.  I could totally see a 2D virtual game board, like a grid, where the "DM" would have control over where to put things and all the calculations.  He could have a mute button for everyone else like when things get out of hand (as they often do), and instead of rendered monsters and characters as markers on th grid, it could just be jpgs of bottlecaps, extra dice, crumpled paper and other various thing's we've used to represent us, but the way it was portrayed in the video I saw, it looked more like a turn-based video game being played.  I don't now, maybe I'm just a little skeptical of further distancing ourselves from other human beings for a form of entertainment.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLXuMb6WWw
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 08 Feb 2008, 19:54
I don't really see how it looks like a video game outside of it being a digital form of what you'd be using a map for (assuming you do) in the first place.

Really, no one is going to be using it regularly unless the group you play with can't play  in meatlife anymore, in which case it would be awesome.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 08 Feb 2008, 19:57
Actually, I might use it.

I dont like the idea of hauling miniatures everywhere with me. That and buying a fuckload just to get 3 koblods. I know you guys are thinking "Just use a piece of paper.." But I'm a purist. It must be uniform.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 08 Feb 2008, 20:07
Shit, I'm just excited by the fact that a decent well-supported online play system means that maybe I could actually just play for once. The potential this thing has for people simply to break out of their ruts and try their hand with a different group for once to see what it's like is immense.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 08 Feb 2008, 20:13
Making the system work online is a good change, for that reason.

But overall, I'm highly dissapointed.  D&D isn't going to be nerdcore anymore.  That bothers me.  Half the reason I enjoyed D&D was the sheer difficulty of it.  The only reason people constantly yell "BUFF FIGHTERS" is because they are too retarded to learn the nuances of D&D's core, magic.  They just want to run up and hit things without thinking about spell balance, item balance, without actually having to outthink their opponent.

I guess I'll just have to leave this as a wait-and-see type of thing.  The fact they are removing D&D's classic spell system again also pisses me the fuck off.  Different levels of spells, memorizing every day what you wanted to be able to do?  That's half the joy of wizardry.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 08 Feb 2008, 22:22
Making the system work online is a good change, for that reason.

But overall, I'm highly dissapointed.  D&D isn't going to be nerdcore anymore.  That bothers me.  Half the reason I enjoyed D&D was the sheer difficulty of it.  The only reason people constantly yell "BUFF FIGHTERS" is because they are too retarded to learn the nuances of D&D's core, magic.  They just want to run up and hit things without thinking about spell balance, item balance, without actually having to outthink their opponent.

I guess I'll just have to leave this as a wait-and-see type of thing.  The fact they are removing D&D's classic spell system again also pisses me the fuck off.  Different levels of spells, memorizing every day what you wanted to be able to do?  That's half the joy of wizardry.

Your friends don't know how to play fighters. Apparently, neither do you.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 08 Feb 2008, 22:47
I'll second that.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 09 Feb 2008, 11:23
I do like Power Attack, Cleave and Power Lunge though.  If a Barbarian/Fighter who pulls out those bad boys with a two handed sword, some Rage, and a charge attack, odds are somebody's gonna die.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 09 Feb 2008, 11:38
I have the soul of pretty hardcore rules lawyer. Thick books and big tables of numbers don't scare me much. I have a rather perverse love for sifting through all those pages and wrapping my mind around the nuances of any given system. I like playing around with the numbers, coming up with munchkiny characters, breaking systems and getting an idea of how to get the most results with the least effort.

You are not spending enough time planning for the inevitable zombie outbreak.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 09 Feb 2008, 15:48
Your friends don't know how to play fighters. Apparently, neither do you.
Tell me something I don't know about fighters, then.

Grapple checks?  Knockdowns?  Bull rushes?  Whirlwind attacks?  Arrows?

Fighters hit things until they die.  End of story.  No tricks.  The only tricks they have is in their equipment and their potions.  It is impossible to play a fighter and beat any caster that's worth a lick of salt.  Planning on trying to cripple me in melee somehow?  Good luck actually hitting through  my thousands of mirror images, buffed armor class, and damage reduction.  Going to try and dispel my stuff through the use of an item?  That's too bad; I've got a spell mantle or two up that'll absorb it.  Actually, fuck all that.  I'll just Dire Charm you right away to make you MY meatshield.

Don't tell me I don't know how to play a fighter.  That's pretty insulting.

The way Pen and Paper is designed, you're pretty much only supposed to have one significant encounter a day.  Fighters are nice buff targets for a party or good to take a few levels in if you want some quick fighter-oriented feats, but that's the end of their purpose.  They're good for campaigns where you slog through lots of meat, as well, because they have longer battle endurance than casters.  I'd still just rather have a cleric or druid tanking, however.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 09 Feb 2008, 17:13
I just dislike your core conceit that people want to play fighters because they don't want to think. I mean, the game's called the grandpappy of hack 'n' slash RPGs, the genre is often called swords and sorcery and warriors are at least as iconic as wizards. It's perfectly understandable that there's some people out there want to do some cool shit that isn't overtly magical in theme, and there is no reason whatsoever they couldn't make playing a dedicated melee character a more involved process, and I know from experience that you can tone down magic a fair bit and still strike a great balance between mages being indispensable despite close combat specialists doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the fighting department (thanks Conan OGL RPG!).
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Feb 2008, 17:31

Don't tell me I don't know how to play a fighter.  That's pretty insulting.



You might take you're own advice and not be insulting towards those who enjoy playing a melee oriented class.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 09 Feb 2008, 20:05
All I'm saying is that the people screaming buff fighters are the same types of people screaming to buff warriors in World of Warcraft.  Sorry I don't find any ingenuity in it.  I'm not going to say they aren't necessary in many cases, but I really wish Wizards of the Coast wouldn't try to shake things up by turning D&D into a pen-and-paper Mumorperger, where everything needs to be balanced so no one feels left out of the loop by not being as powerful as someone else.

edit: For the record, I've probably played more rogues or paladins than any other character in D&D.

Addendum:  I've been talking with a friend about this, and he summed up my feelings better than I could.  "This looks like it's no longer a world you play a game in, but a game you play a world in."
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Feb 2008, 20:55
So... basically,

"It's broken and I'm used to it, so why are bothering to try and fix it?"
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 09 Feb 2008, 21:28
No.

Basically, it's supposed to be a hostile world where every dice count is against you and only those who can think on their feet and plan ahead survive.  That is being removed.  They are turning it into a pen and paper MMORPG.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 09 Feb 2008, 21:37
You don't know if the need for planning is being removed. You know that they're rebranding things and putting an emphasis on class skills/abilities and roles rather than magical equipment and perhaps spells as we currently think of them. While some of the terms and concepts they're using, like "Aggro" and warriors being used as "tanks" for example, clearly draw some inspiration from MMORPGs (and vice versa, might I add), the rest of what you're saying is rank speculation. Certainly the "Per encounter, Per Day and At Will" designations for how often you can use some abilities implies that there will still be some level of planning and risk vs. reward involved.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 09 Feb 2008, 21:39
When 4th edition comes out I will go to my nearest retailer stocking the item and read through it. Surely, complaining about what we do not know for sure is fruitless, eh?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Feb 2008, 21:46
I really don't see how you're coming to that conclusion based on them rebalancing the classes. Especially since most of the changes revealed for the Fighter have been tactical balancing and making them relevant in higher levels and we don't KNOW how the wizard is being changed around yet, with the exception of their magic "memorization" being changed up.

How the game goes (especially the feel of the game) is still going to be dependent on the choices the players make, as well as how the DM handles the campaign and story.

Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 09 Feb 2008, 21:53
All I can say is that all my D&D friends think the changes for 4th edition are the beginning of the end.

Changing spell memorization removes the very soul of D&D for me.  The fact they are straight-up removing spell circles is mind-boggling.  They seriously might as well erase the d20 system while they're at it, as long as they are going to change the very nature of magic.

I don't know how you can be happy with that.

As I've said, they are making a game that a world happens to exist in, instead of making a world in which you can play a game.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 09 Feb 2008, 22:14
As I've said, they are making a game that a world happens to exist in, instead of making a world in which you can play a game.

Ok, since the rest of your quote is simply personal preference, this is what I'll focus on.

What the hell are you talking about.

Part of what makes the worlds in D&D worlds, rather than just game environments, is the huge amount of history of the worlds that have been put into them by TSR, Wizards and even individual DM's. The interaction of the players, your imagination and the DM's ability to convey a story will always be the most important part of what makes it a thriving world that you just happen to be playing a game in though, and I can't see how the hell a new edition would suddenly make you stop any of that.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 09 Feb 2008, 22:29
My friend introduced me to whitewolf's Story Telling Adventure System(world of darkness, vampire, warewolf) and I've given up on anything Wizards of the Coast puts out. Dungeons and Dragons has become a convoluted clusterfuck of contradicting rulebooks, and every time i've played somebody has stalled the game by arguing about some stupid rule.
ST system however

"I want to shoot the guy from the motercycle"
"okay your drive is 2 and your firearms is 3. roll 5d10 dificulty is 8"
"6 7 5 4 10"
"one success. you shoot him. roll damage"

SIMPLE! and everything works like that! WotC has stopped giving a shit about its fans and only cares about punping out two or three new books a month, no matter what BS is inside.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 09 Feb 2008, 22:56
Ah yes, the floating TN systems. The history of those things will never cease to amuse me. Check this out:

"Point of historical trivia - Shadowrun, 1st Edition, was designed originally as a d10 system using the same dice-rolling scheme. Very late in the design process a decision was made to change the dice to d6s because... and I think my memory is still clear on this - "... you can buy six-sided dice at a drugstore..." --Tom Dowd

Incidentally, Tom Dowd later moved on to White Wolf, who basically adopted the d10 version of the Shadowrun's primary dice mechanic for their Storyteller system wholesale. The hilarious part is that Shadowrun basically screwed the simplicity of the system up in many ways-- it was a wonderfully easy mechanic to use, even in d6 form, but they then proceeded to use several different mechanics in other areas and boatloads of equipment with minor modifiers, leading to SR gaining a rep for being too crunch-heavy while V:TM went on to become an unmitigated success. The important point to keep in mind here though, is that whether a game is strong or not thematically (since, love 'em or hate 'em, Shadowrun, Earthdawn & V:TM have pretty vivid histories), is largely independent of their mechanics.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 10 Feb 2008, 01:59
Ok, since the rest of your quote is simply personal preference, this is what I'll focus on.

What the hell are you talking about.

Part of what makes the worlds in D&D worlds, rather than just game environments, is the huge amount of history of the worlds that have been put into them by TSR, Wizards and even individual DM's. The interaction of the players, your imagination and the DM's ability to convey a story will always be the most important part of what makes it a thriving world that you just happen to be playing a game in though, and I can't see how the hell a new edition would suddenly make you stop any of that.
Wizards are being nerfed.  Magic is being nerfed.

Magic is being nerfed.

Magic is being nerfed.

Magic is being nerfed.

Magic is being nerfed.

What part of this do you not understand?  How can I make it anymore clear to you that they are designing an MMO style game with the whole class system everyone-has-his-defined role deal they are planning on?  It'll just be Team Fortress 2 with dice instead of running and jumping and shooting.  I don't want, and while I can respect Wizard's desire to make the game more accessible to more people, it ruins the very nature of D&D for me.  Hybrids are half the fun.  Worlds like the Forgotten Realms are dependent on the fact magic is ungodly powerful and cripples mere men.  You take that out so wizards have a defined role as some long ranged damage class instead of masters of all that is the arcane and I resist that because it undermines what I stand for as a gamer.  It offends my design philosophy as to what a true RPG really is, which really bothers me because D&D is what imbued my feelings within me.

If this still makes absolutely no sense to you, then let's just drop it before I get unreasonably angry.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: supersheep on 10 Feb 2008, 04:42
I'm not really a D&D player, but I can see why they might want to do that - a very similar thing happened with Warhammer 40K between 2nd and 3rd edition. See, people have a tendency to go for the overly powerful characters. If wizards are so damn powerful, then they have to be very rare - not the kind of thing you'd see in every adventuring party, but only in climactic life or death things. In 40K, you'd have people fielding all the heroes of their race in a tiny battle, backed up with the creme de la creme of the hard troops - which is not really in keeping with the background of vast crazy conflicts where, powerful as they are, demigod characters are outnumbered a billion to one. If one class is so much better than everyone else, then what's the point in playing any other? Why would you want to play a fighter if you're only going to be useful for the first few levels and then after that you're a meatshield?
Then again, on the other hand, I agree with you on the background side - wizards are supposed to be masters of all that is arcane, not the guy with a magical sniper rifle. Balancing game mechanics with background is ridiculously hard.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 10:36
Man, I don't mean to be a complete dick about my preferences, but Vampire is too angsty (You have an angst meter.) and Werewolf is about environmentalists. Hunter and Mage from Old World are where it is at.

About D&D, I can understand everything you are worried about Narr, but we should be discussing what we would like to see in 4th edition, and not what we are angry about that they are changing, because we don't know anything but rumors. I remember when I was in preschool and we played Whisper Down The Lane to learn about how rumors are spread. Please stop WHISPERING DOWN THE LANE.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Uber Ritter on 10 Feb 2008, 11:54
Man, seeing this comes up reminds me of what a nerd equivilent of an indy rock asshole cliche I can be.  I hear DnD and I have a irrational reaction that makes me flee the other way.  That said, DnD does genuinely turn me off on a personal level, just like many of us are turned off by My Chemical Romance not because it's popular but because it's not our thing.  I just don't like the whole genericized fantasy world thing (though I'm given to understand that many of the alternative settings ameliorate this somewhat.)  At least I'm not the archon of my game club.  He's a cool guy but I think he does more ferretting out cool indie games then he does actual gaming, which is unfortunate because some of the games he uncovers are real gems.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 12:02
I'm not seeing where they're nerfing magic at all really, but I'll leave it alone cause really, I'd like this thread not to explode.

Crit hits - I like the fact they're max damage now rather than multipliers. Besides being seemingly out of place in a system where they tried to turn everything else into simple addition and subtraction, it's not quite as game breaking along with still being a really damn good hit. I'm a little curious how they've been extended since it mentions a fireball critting during playtesting though.


Races - Really, as much as I love gnomes, I do have to agree that either they or halflings had to go to flesh out the other. Overall I think it's a good decision.

Drow look like they will be a core race for the Forgotten Realms, though they are not considered Elves anymore, they are now Fey. I also imagine they will be toned down a bit to fit the core races.

According to the rumors, a toned down Warforged is also being considered for the core book, probably to replace Half-Orcs, and I'd be pretty excited about that as well if it was confirmed.

There's tons of stuff we can be talking about, so lets do it!
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 12:32
It looks like a lot of the old 'alternative' elves are now fey. I feel like the elves are even going to be considered fey now.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 12:35
I know Drow are going to be considered Fey, so it seems very likely.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 12:41
I'm pretty interested in this new edition not because it looks like its being 'streamlined', but this is definitely more of an overhaul than there has been for a while. Reading this
Quote
Personalizing and specializing your character is amped up, it’s one of the most powerful things about 4th edition. If you’re a barbarian, you’re not a frenzied berserker. If you’re a barbarian, you’re a barbarian for your entire career. The frenzied berserker and bear warrior will be at the very end.
. What does this mean?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 10 Feb 2008, 12:44
I know old players who are this close to abandoning D&D because of TSR fully embracing the munchkin races that have been so popular (tieflings & drow) even if they're going to be softened. Priorities, I suppose.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 12:45
The 2nd half I think is just poorly worded. Multi-Classing is still in, so it's not a hint at the death of that.

Maybe just a bad hint at what 2 of the Barbarian style Prestige classes are?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 12:47
Ah, I think I get it now. Even though there will be prestige classes, your barbarian 'whatever you prestige in' will still be a barbarian. Interesting.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 10 Feb 2008, 13:58

Races - Really, as much as I love gnomes, I do have to agree that either they or halflings had to go to flesh out the other. Overall I think it's a good decision.

I'll disagree here for the reason that gnomes and halflings were quite different back in AD&D days.  I don't see what's so difficult about giving them a unique set of racial abilities that sets them apart from halflings, personally.  Give them the old +intelligence, -wisdom thing.

Of course, they are JUST going with + to racial stats now.  (Again, that feels like an MMO mechanism to me, making it so you'll work regardless of what you do instead of making certain races clearly defined for certain roles.)

@ MusicScribbles: I admit I like that change.  I always thought it was kind of funny fighter as a class was only there in so much that it helped you get feats faster to qualify for much better prestige classes.  It sounds like now they are going back to a more AD&D approach where you more or less "kit", which doesn't change the core of your class but adds a little extra.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 10 Feb 2008, 14:51


Races - Really, as much as I love gnomes, I do have to agree that either they or halflings had to go to flesh out the other. Overall I think it's a good decision.


Classic example of anti gnome dissent! Why couldn't the halflings go? who the hell gives shit about hobbits anyway?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 14:57
Personally, I would have been happy either way.

They both DO have some pretty distinct racial abilities, but the player base always has and would have continued just thinking of them both as "the little race".
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 10 Feb 2008, 15:46
Halfling Barbarians are the shit.  I played one once, and bit out the jugular of a dire lion and killed it in one turn.  Picture that in your head.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 15:56
Playing a Halfling Barbarian is one of the greatest experiences you can have, seriously.

At some point, I'm going to have an NPC HB that is going to be carried around in a small chest and unleashed upon the PC's at any given time.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 10 Feb 2008, 16:05
Ghostwise halfling's favored class is Barbarian, just as an FYI.

Anyway, I never looked at them both as "the little race."  I always looked at gnomes as slightly smaller dwarves but instead of being gruff and rude, they're just space cadets.  Halflings are sort of just like hobbits to me.  Gnomes = santa's helpers.  Halflings = tobacco pipe sling-wielders.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 10 Feb 2008, 16:07
I once had a scythe wielding pixie barbarian. He was a savage little bastard.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 10 Feb 2008, 17:07
I love how everyone is acting like they HAVE to buy 4.0. If you want to play it, but afraid to buy it. Then rent the books from the library.


If you dont like it, then stick to 3.5.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 18:34
Nobody was really 'acting' that way. People were just getting upset over the 'rumored' changes. We all know (or should by now) that we don't have to buy 4, but for some who don't like the changes it can be pretty disappointing when they've been looking for a new version for a few years. Don't argue this with me because I was not one of those people, I'm just sticking up for them.

I don't think I've ever actually played a gnome before. I'm sure that there is quite the gnome 'fanclub' out there somewhere, and that Dragon magazine will probably end up creating a D&D 4 gnome for those who still want it.

I wonder what 4th edition is going to mean for Eberron. Will Eberron see an overhaul, or just a haul?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 18:45
Dragon only exist in digital form now through the online sub. They disbanded both mags a few months ago.

I can see the Warforged being in open production again in the world story, might also be a interesting explanation for why the Warforged might be showing up in other worlds.

I'm personally hoping against hope that Dark Sun gets an update, but I know it won't.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 10 Feb 2008, 18:47
I'm part of a gaming group at my campus and the way things work it's hard to not buy the new editions. It's quite large for a group, with several games going on at one time with anywhere from 3-12 people. Once a new edition is out it's hard to not buy the books if you want to mix up players from semester to semester because half will be into the 4.0 and the other not owning it yet. Eventually, everyone seems to buy it. I borrowed all of 3.5 and it just became way too much of a hassle.

Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: dalconnsuch on 10 Feb 2008, 19:50
i got depressed when they desided to release 4th edition

i love dnd but ihate scams, and if the game is good just leave it alone okay :( please? for me??? and my level 15 cleric?


iu also hear they're gettin rid of alignments is this true???
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 19:54
Alignments are not leaving from what I can tell, since several things, including teh previews of dragon descriptions mention alignment specifically.

Also, what the hell did you expect? Wizards to support 3.5 for the rest of time? Question Wizard's supplement releases all you like (lord knows I hated the rate they came out) but pretending like 4th Ed should/would never have come along is more than a bit stupid.

Also, as has been stated in the thread, if you don't wanna go to 4th, then don't.

Otherwise play some, and transfer your character over and keep playing and having fun.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 10 Feb 2008, 20:04
They're getting rid of alignment-specific spells.  Not the spells themselves, but the idea that the spells are limited to players of a certain alignment.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 10 Feb 2008, 23:22
Alignment means shit anymore.  It's just what your guy is.  It doesn't mean anything in terms of what I can tell.

For fuck's sake, man, Paladins are no longer holy warriors.  They are just charisma fighters.  SAD.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 10 Feb 2008, 23:28
Paladins have been on the move away from Lawful Good only since 2nd Ed. It's not exactly a new idea for the class.

I'm thinking we might need a "A BLOO BLOO BLA BLOO" macro for this thread.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Storm Rider on 10 Feb 2008, 23:37
(http://www.interloper.org/images/2006/normal_wahmbulance.jpg)
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 11 Feb 2008, 07:23
Your friends don't know how to play fighters. Apparently, neither do you.
Tell me something I don't know about fighters, then.

Grapple checks?  Knockdowns?  Bull rushes?  Whirlwind attacks?  Arrows?

Fighters hit things until they die.  End of story.  No tricks.  The only tricks they have is in their equipment and their potions.  It is impossible to play a fighter and beat any caster that's worth a lick of salt.  Planning on trying to cripple me in melee somehow?  Good luck actually hitting through  my thousands of mirror images, buffed armor class, and damage reduction.  Going to try and dispel my stuff through the use of an item?  That's too bad; I've got a spell mantle or two up that'll absorb it.  Actually, fuck all that.  I'll just Dire Charm you right away to make you MY meatshield.

Don't tell me I don't know how to play a fighter.  That's pretty insulting.

The way Pen and Paper is designed, you're pretty much only supposed to have one significant encounter a day.  Fighters are nice buff targets for a party or good to take a few levels in if you want some quick fighter-oriented feats, but that's the end of their purpose.  They're good for campaigns where you slog through lots of meat, as well, because they have longer battle endurance than casters.  I'd still just rather have a cleric or druid tanking, however.

It sounds to me like a lot of this comes down to the campaign you're playing in. What's your wizard going to do when ambushed or otherwise not allowed to prep (happened in the last two encounters in the campaign I'm playing in). What's your wizard going to do when the enemy has hella spell resistance (last encounter). Fighters are good in different situations from wizards. If you're at range with a good meat shield, then yeah, you're right, you're going to win with a caster.

As for "they hit things until they die", three of the 5 things you mentioned in your list are nonfatal; quite useful when you need to catch a fleeing person and interrogate them. High strength is useful for climbing, swimming, opening, breaking things, etc... High HP lets them take point in case of ambush, or a trap the rogue missed (and the DCs on decent traps are so high, they will be missed), or to cover the squishy caster behind them. High fortitude saves cover those pesky death spells and poisons (Rogues are just no fun as a caster, and Assassins even less so). Along more campaign-specific lines, there's certainly a long history of warrior cultures who would respect a fighter and fear/hate/scorn a wizard (just as there's plenty of examples of magocracies that feel the opposite way).

As for mirror image, buffed AC, and DR, well, let's see... generously speaking* you'll have about 20 AC or so at mid levels, and certainly not more than 10 DR. Honestly not that hard to get through either of those, and you don't have much HP to back it up. To deal with the mirror image, we'll whirlwind attack and/or cleave. For mind-affecting spells, protection from evil does a great job, and is not that difficult to get a means of using.

All that said, I play casters myself. Generally not your typical combat power caster though. My last character was a cleric/fleshwarper focused entirely on self buffs (died on Friday, largely due to not getting prep time :/ ). The one before that was a pacifist sorcerer/bard.

*this is assuming a non-munchkin wizard of course, and campaign power levels similar to what I'm used to. I'm sure it's possible to build one that throws these numbers way off.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 11 Feb 2008, 09:16
I hate alignment.

I'm more of an actor when it comes to DnD. If there wasnt an element of acting, I probably wouldnt love it as much as I do. Alignment just soils that. Its like a cage, I feel confined to the alignment. I feel as though I cant do things my character would do in certain situations. I feel that ever so present alignment breathing down my neck, "Dont kill him even though he threatened your group thousands of times, bring him into the city so the justice system could deal with him!" Alignments are only good for extra spells for clerics, nothing more. If they take out the class features then I'd say "To hell with alignments! Just make a consistent character instead" I hear they are putting a whole page in background in the new Character sheets. Adjectives to describe your character, history, demeanor, looks. This will work better then an alignment system.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 11 Feb 2008, 12:03
It sounds to me like a lot of this comes down to the campaign you're playing in. What's your wizard going to do when ambushed or otherwise not allowed to prep (happened in the last two encounters in the campaign I'm playing in). What's your wizard going to do when the enemy has hella spell resistance (last encounter). Fighters are good in different situations from wizards. If you're at range with a good meat shield, then yeah, you're right, you're going to win with a caster.

As for "they hit things until they die", three of the 5 things you mentioned in your list are nonfatal; quite useful when you need to catch a fleeing person and interrogate them. High strength is useful for climbing, swimming, opening, breaking things, etc... High HP lets them take point in case of ambush, or a trap the rogue missed (and the DCs on decent traps are so high, they will be missed), or to cover the squishy caster behind them. High fortitude saves cover those pesky death spells and poisons (Rogues are just no fun as a caster, and Assassins even less so). Along more campaign-specific lines, there's certainly a long history of warrior cultures who would respect a fighter and fear/hate/scorn a wizard (just as there's plenty of examples of magocracies that feel the opposite way).

As for mirror image, buffed AC, and DR, well, let's see... generously speaking* you'll have about 20 AC or so at mid levels, and certainly not more than 10 DR. Honestly not that hard to get through either of those, and you don't have much HP to back it up. To deal with the mirror image, we'll whirlwind attack and/or cleave. For mind-affecting spells, protection from evil does a great job, and is not that difficult to get a means of using.

All that said, I play casters myself. Generally not your typical combat power caster though. My last character was a cleric/fleshwarper focused entirely on self buffs (died on Friday, largely due to not getting prep time :/ ). The one before that was a pacifist sorcerer/bard.

*this is assuming a non-munchkin wizard of course, and campaign power levels similar to what I'm used to. I'm sure it's possible to build one that throws these numbers way off.
There's plenty of instant-cast spells and I'm a fan of keeping some of my higher level spell slots open to either Quicken Spell or Silent Spell, depending.  Nothing like having a rogue drop out on you from nowhere, just to see you Quicken Haste yourself and sprint away.  As for spell resistance, it's a nightmare to overcome but it's possible.  There's lots of spells that lower enemy spell resistance.  I had to do that once because the DM got tired of me outthinking his rogues so he decided the main baddies for our campaign were Drow at the last minute (I love DMs that adapt).  When every single monster you encounter has SR, it's pretty rough.  Not having a lot of time to rest hurt, too.  It was the druid's glory moment, as he'd just turn into a bear or worse and maul everything that came against us until we finally had a spot to rest.  Pretty fun campaign, if you ask me.

I don't do the typical power caster, either, just as an FYI.  My opposed schools are usually conjuration or evocation, which is where most the big damage spells.  If I have to take another (say, that one time I was a Thayvian wizard), it's usually necromancy.  I love me some enchantment spells.  Nothing like being a high level red wizard enchanter to just lob around Hiss of Sleep over and over and over again, watching hordes of enemies fall asleep in front of you, allowing your team to finish them off without much of a hassle.

I suppose the biggest thing about the changes that worries me is the whole defined roles they're planning.  I don't like that because, basically, I hate relying on other people when it comes to online games.  (In person, it really doesn't matter what anyone is because the DM is going to make things work for you, and it's usually really fun and funny.)  One of the reasons I liked Baldur's Gate so much is that it was fun Multiplayer, because the game was fun Single Player.  It just made it so you didn't have to control the whole team.  Once you start making it so everyone is controlling their one guy who has their one role, it'll be Molten Core all over again.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Border Reiver on 11 Feb 2008, 13:12
Dan , things have changed since the late 80s and AD&D.

Looks like the same acrimony that has accompanied the changes Warhammer Fantasy from ed to edition lives in the other realms of geekdom as well.

Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: dalconnsuch on 11 Feb 2008, 22:44
Alignments are not leaving from what I can tell, since several things, including teh previews of dragon descriptions mention alignment specifically.

Also, what the hell did you expect? Wizards to support 3.5 for the rest of time? Question Wizard's supplement releases all you like (lord knows I hated the rate they came out) but pretending like 4th Ed should/would never have come along is more than a bit stupid.

Also, as has been stated in the thread, if you don't wanna go to 4th, then don't.

Otherwise play some, and transfer your character over and keep playing and having fun.

nah, i'm still gonna play 4.0 when it comes out, and i'm aware of th eimpossibility to support 3.5 forever, but in a perfect world i wish they'd just keep 3.5 and 2.0 forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever

i'm keepin an open mind about 4.0 though
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Feb 2008, 08:16
Alright, so I was playing DnD last night, and our characters were involved in an orgiastic ritual that was interrupted by a huge Lolth-Touched spider.  Our cleric is currently naked as part of the ritual, he casts Dispel Evil (a touch attack), and runs up and cockslaps the spider into another dimension.  I know this is irrelevant, but it had to be said.  Our cleric cockslapped a huge Lolth-Touched spider into oblivion.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 12 Feb 2008, 10:41
Things like that is why I've pretty much always argued that Clerics are probably overall the best class, all things considered.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 12 Feb 2008, 12:59
Actually, I'd consider druids to be better. They don't have quite the same healing ability, but they have better offensive and summoning spells and generally have an easier time than a vanilla cleric stepping into a tank role, especially at higher levels with their shapechange ability. But a Cleric with a PrC and some of the more unbalanced feats can step into multiple roles simultaneously.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 12 Feb 2008, 13:09
But you see, in this case, clerics have god-patented cocks.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 12 Feb 2008, 13:32
Druids are excellent, especially in 3.5, but I'd definitely put Clerics in the top spot for 3.0, and I don't think there's much of a gap in 3.5 either, really. Like you said, an awful lot depends on the PrCs and splat books you're using though, and I'm not terribly familiar with an awful lot of the 3.5 books. My primary group didn't really swap over to 3.5 for quite a while, so that also likley contributes to my rather cleric-centric world view. As far as I'm concerned though, any class that has decent endurance, spontaneous casting and doesn't have to jump through hoops to have a diverse spell catalog is worth playing, and that fits both classes pretty well. I mean, really, if you're a cleric or druid and can't find anything useful to do, you basically have it coming when the rest of the group pelts you with Doritos while screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: dalconnsuch on 12 Feb 2008, 16:02
i have to say i have the most fun playing a cleric, infact other than bards, clerics are the only class i can play without feeling like a douche, even though bards ARE douches but thats what makes them fun! your the instant comic relief of the story!

its disappointing that clerics are always considered giant walking bandaids becuase in my current campaign i'm doin as much damage (or close too) as our fighter/barb while at th esame time still keeping people alive

plus i worship a snail in this campaign its awsum

Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 12 Feb 2008, 16:10
I had a friend who made a cleric of Vecna, he wasn't so much considered a walking bandaid so much as a walking armageddon.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Feb 2008, 19:14
The best part though is that our DM made him role a Con check for dick size (d12) and he got a 12 with a +2 modifier.  So it was a two-handed cockslap.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 12 Feb 2008, 22:07
Deific Cock Slap of Kord

This is now a spell in my campaigns.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Ozymandias on 12 Feb 2008, 22:16
Reading through this thread, all I can tell is that everything Narr is complaining about makes me want to pick up D&D when this comes out.

Cool beans. I might have to bother to play sometime. I have ten thousand friends spread across the country and a dedicated D&D online session sounds fun if I can get enough together.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Bearer on 12 Feb 2008, 22:50
Why not start a forum game?  Get someone here to DM it, I think that'd actually work pretty well...all time-zone differences aside anyway...
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 12 Feb 2008, 22:51
We've attempted it already. Was fun while it lasted, but it died shortly after.

A proper D&D game just doesn't work very well without everyone being there at the same time in some manner.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: DonInKansas on 13 Feb 2008, 00:32
Quote from: ackblom
A proper D&D game just doesn't work very well without everyone being there at the same time in some manner.
I beg to differ. (http://www.dndonlinegames.com)

As someone who has no one within my zip code to play tabletop with, Play by Post has had to do it for me.  Really stretches the creative writing muscle IMO.  It's not the same as rolling dice, attacking the darkness, and chugging Dew, but what is?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 13 Feb 2008, 06:23
Deific Cock Slap of Kord

This is now a spell in my campaigns.

That was in fact his deity, and he yelled it at the top of his lungs after obliterating the spider with his holy member.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Feb 2008, 08:53
I should have known. No other deity is awesome enough to have one of their worshipers Cock Slap a being of evil into oblivion.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 13 Feb 2008, 09:46
Heh, yeah, I would have been shocked had it been any diety but Kord. Maybe Tempus, depending on the setting.... Maybe. But Kord definitely came to mind; I not only imagine him being OK with such an act, but cheering, highfiving the nearest other good aligned diety and then proceeding to crush an entire keg against his forehead with one hand afterwards.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 13 Feb 2008, 12:48
When the new edition comes out I'll totally play with you guys! The QC adventurers. Like, pintsize could be a deity.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: MusicScribbles on 13 Feb 2008, 13:06
If they really do create some terrifically implemented online component, we should create forumite campaign. Ozy has never played before, so he can be the DM.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Bearer on 13 Feb 2008, 21:44
Man, screw DnD, who's up for a round of Trolls and Flamewars?

(http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=176 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=176) for the uneducated)
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 22:21
Man, I fucking hate when companies suddenly change games.

I mean, like, the World of Darkness reboot. I know people who own like, every single old World of Darkness sourcebook. Like, thirty books. Now?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Feb 2008, 22:36
They stick with the edition they have and not bitch about buying every book in a game franchise that they know is guaranteed to be revised at some point?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 22:52
Have you ever met any Vampire: The Masquerade fans? If White Wolf was a person they would want to be sodomised by it. Who's he going to get to play the old system with him?

And what do you mean, gauranteed to be revised? Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay hasn't changed its rules in like, 20 years, and its still better than any D20 system. Doubt GURPS is going to go through any major upheavals soon either.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 13 Feb 2008, 22:55
I nearly died laughing until I realized you said "Fantasy Roleplay" rather than "Fantasy Battle", because yeah, I think the former is like on what, 2nd edition while the latter is like 6 or 7 now. I forget.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Feb 2008, 23:23
And the second edition of WFRP only really changes the setting, which is why I ignore it.

Fantasy Battle must be on seven or eight by now. Changing editions is pretty much why I stopped playing Fantasy Battle and 40k.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Feb 2008, 23:40
To be fair, WFRP went so long without revisions because it was in limbo for so long due to licensing issues. Plus, with their miniatures game being so much more profitable just made them very bleh on bothering.

As for GURPS, Steve Jackson is just made of pure fun and genius. The man seems to be able to do no wrong.

I just really feel no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who buys a large number of books for a popular tabletop game and then gets upset when a new edition comes out.

You can always find people to play older editions. Hell, I still know people who play Basic and 1st Ed D&D, along with the earlier renditions of Vampire, Werewolf and Shadowrun. Whether or not it's worth the effort is an entirely diffferent matter.

The folks who still play 1st Ed Shadowrun are fucking insane by the way.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 14 Feb 2008, 00:13
If they really do create some terrifically implemented online component, we should create forumite campaign. Ozy has never played before, so he can be the DM.

Hahahahahahaha. Wizards of the Coast do something competent with a computer? Everything offline they do is squeaky clean and beautifully designed, but their computer stuff is utter crap.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 15 Feb 2008, 17:24
Agreed, their tools are pretty shitty.

I used the name generator, and they gave me a name for a "Elven Dwarven Defender"
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 28 Feb 2008, 14:51
So I've heard, but I haven't checked, that this newsletter thing (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/news_20080228.zip) contains a preview of the rules. All I know for sure is that the even number-oriented statistics are intact from 3E.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 28 Feb 2008, 18:26
Reading through this thread, all I can tell is that everything Narr is complaining about makes me want to pick up D&D when this comes out.

:(

I realize some of what they're wanting to do in this edition (basically, the MMO aspect of it) is more appealing to a general audience, but it really does ruin the feel of the game for me.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Spluff on 28 Feb 2008, 21:06
Wait, MMO aspect?

I haven't seen any aspects that were massively multiplayer.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 28 Feb 2008, 22:28
What I've gathered is that magic users are being powered down so that, at higher levels, they no longer completely dominate gameplay.  This, plus other changes, will lead to the various classes being more balanced such that play at all levels is a bit more enjoyable.  I've googled and found some comprehensive info, but there's so much of it and rather disorganized that it'll take some time to digest.  But, in addition to the changing of classes and races, there's an addition to the rules of resting such that there's a long 6 hour rest period for a full recharge and a short five minute boosting sort of rest for a limited recharge.

In short, I think the new edition is meant to be more accessible, more balanced, and to expedite the flow of gameplay.  Thus, mumorpeger.

Hm, I just found a review from ain't it cool news. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776)  Note, the reviewer is quite in favor of the new system.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Carpens on 28 Feb 2008, 22:45
In short, I think the new edition is meant to be more accessible, more balanced, and to expedite the flow of gameplay.  Thus, mumorpeger.

Other words that fit here:  fun, appealing, successful, playable, better
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 28 Feb 2008, 22:55
Okay, I found this (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e), which appears to be a collection of information that's also organized and contains citations. 

All told, the changes appear to be pretty good.  It appears to be influenced toward "customize your character" and adding flavor and orientation rather than min/maxing (this may be a big source of complaints.  There are a lot of rules lawyers and minmaxers out there).
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Spluff on 28 Feb 2008, 23:56
Playing a powergamed character is boring and defeats the purpose of the game anyway, imo.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 29 Feb 2008, 00:16
Yes it does.  I tried DMing a game in college where all of us had been away from the game for several years.  One guy was a power gamer and completely ruined it for everyone else.

Okay, I've done some more reading and I think the mumorpeger complaint is based on the online content coming up.  There's an online play feature that will be available for people who can't get together in one spot to game, there's an online character creator, and the errata will be released both in print and in a consistently updated online patch sorta version.  Oh, and all of this will be available for a monthly fee of something like $10-$15.  Given that none of that will be necessary, just helpful, I don't know if it's a big deal.

Everything else seems to be nerfing complaints, mechanics complaints, and "you're making it too easy for people to learn and play!" rather than "you're making it like a memorpurgar!".  I still don't know much of anything about how the actual mechanics will work to be able to judge these complaints, except in one regard; I think wizards got absurdly powerful and broke the game. 

All told, it's looking interesting and good.  For example;
Quote
    *  Mike Mearls:  "[3E]... assumed that the party fought only one monster. In 4th Edition, we’re doing things a bit different. We’re shifting to a system that assumes a number of monsters equal to the number of characters."

    * A hazard simply fits in in the same way that a monster does: "That makes it much easier to design green slime, pit traps, whirling blades, fountains that spray acid, and crumbling stone walls. One such hazard can simply take the place of one monster, leaving you with three or four monsters in the encounter. Since monster level is a more rigorous measure of power, we can turn those measures and scales around and use them to create environmental hazards, traps, set pieces, and other interesting tactical twists. ... A swaying rope bridge battered by howling air elementals fits under the encounter building system. A burning building that collapses around the PCs as they fight the evil hobgoblin wizard fills a similar role, as does a bizarre altar to Vecna that randomly teleports characters around the room. Hazards, traps, and other dangers simply fill in for one or more creatures in a fight."

I can't recall ever encountering a trap and monsters at the same time, despite the fact it would make for a much more dramatic and interesting encounter.  Elsewhere they talk about making a trap a more involved encounter itself with multiple functioning parts with differing initiative rolls and whatnot.  So in addition to balancing classes, they're trying to make the environment a part of the game rather than just colorful background.  Just like they're making characters customizable, I think they're trying to make the world more customizable for DMs.

Also, they're trying to phase out the sweet spot.  You know, the first few levels are a slog where you have to struggle to survive.  Then you hit smooth sailing where the characters are powerful enough to do what you'd wanted without being so powerful it's not fun.  Then you hit the high levels and either the gameplay has changed so much or the characters are so overpowered or complex that it's not fun any more.  They're trying to make it so that every level is fun and interesting, even if they're fun and interesting in different ways.

Again, I don't know how the mechanics will actually work; the sweet spot problem alone would take a lot of effort to avoid.  However, Wizards has got a whole lot of experience with game systems to help them out.  All in all, I'm really looking forward to this (rogues useful in combat at level 3?  Awesome!)
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 29 Feb 2008, 05:57
I don't know man...my particular DM group tends to break the system.  We regularly kill DC 21 creatures in less than 5 turns, and we haven't played a single campaign past 8th level characters.  We're not hardcore players or anything either, we just try the zaniest things and they ALWAYS work.  We might not get 4e right away because of this.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Carpens on 29 Feb 2008, 10:55
Your DM's name isn't Monte, is it?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 29 Feb 2008, 13:49
No, it's Jack.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 29 Feb 2008, 17:05

I can't recall ever encountering a trap and monsters at the same time, despite the fact it would make for a much more dramatic and interesting encounter.  Elsewhere they talk about making a trap a more involved encounter itself with multiple functioning parts with differing initiative rolls and whatnot.  So in addition to balancing classes, they're trying to make the environment a part of the game rather than just colorful background.

Regardless of how it turns out, it does appear that they at least know what needs improvement. I could build encounters like that myself, but balancing them is a tricky business. If this is done well it'll add a lot of variety and interest to campaigns :)
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 29 Feb 2008, 17:22
I have encountered traps and encounters at the same time.  One of our party members was a stone golem something-or-other, so he had a nice strength score.  There was a hallway about 100ft long ahead of us.  So this guy gets the bright idea of throwing me, a halfling, the length of the hallway to check for traps.  I got to the last one (there were four), got hit by it, rolled through the door at the end, into two chain golems.

I might as well say that after killing the chain golems and the lesser demon that followed, one character checked a sarcophagus while another decided to attack a pool of blood that was seen on the floor (he was really stoned).  The end result was he destroyed the philactery of a lich as it was rising from the grave.  My DM, who had spent two weeks planning that encounter, decided to take a break for half a year.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 29 Feb 2008, 18:18
That review is seriously making me reconsider waiting 6 months after release to switch.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 29 Feb 2008, 18:34
I never thought I'd see the day when AICN would giddily hype something.

I will remain skeptical until I play the game.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 01 Mar 2008, 01:39
Yes it does.  I tried DMing a game in college where all of us had been away from the game for several years.  One guy was a power gamer and completely ruined it for everyone else.
Power gamers die early in my campaigns.  I'm just saying.  Kobolds have an unusually high critical rate against power gamers.

I think I've come across as a powergaming asshole in this thread and I hope that's not the case.  My problem is that, to me, the changes feel like it's inherently changing the game world of D&D.  I will try and create a more eloquent explanation, but that will have to do for now.  The MMO aspect that is alarming to me is that they are going to make each class more specialized, which will result in the Team Fortress effect.  That is, I'll have to rely on other dumbass players to get things done, meaning I end up dying in the process because some jacktard didn't hold up his end of the bargain.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Fletch on 01 Mar 2008, 01:55
Quote
Vancian magic system (Spell slots of the current system) will be dramatically changed. A wizard who casts all his spells will only be at 80% power. A wizard will never completely run out of spells.
Quote
WotC says that what makes a 28th level fighter cool will be the fact that he’s a 28th level fighter.
In general, I like the sound of what they're doing ... there's just a lot of minor things that irk me about WotC & D&D. :roll: (ie; beardless dwarven women-folk ... wtf was that for?)
Quote
Stat bonuses for races won’t be negative and only positive bonuses will be used.
Which probably won't make that much difference, if it means better positives.

Personally, I prefer Legend of the Five Rings. The only time I use D&D is if it's part of a pc game.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 01 Mar 2008, 06:48
The reason there are only positive racial adjustments is because there are no longer items that enhance stat scores.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 01 Mar 2008, 10:33
In general, I like the sound of what they're doing ... there's just a lot of minor things that irk me about WotC & D&D. :roll: (ie; beardless dwarven women-folk ... wtf was that for?)

because, my friend whose a fighter AND a girl would never be a dwarf if they had beards.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 01 Mar 2008, 10:46
I don't know man...my particular DM group tends to break the system.  We regularly kill DC 21 creatures in less than 5 turns, and we haven't played a single campaign past 8th level characters.  We're not hardcore players or anything either, we just try the zaniest things and they ALWAYS work.  We might not get 4e right away because of this.

Kind of like when we strapped my dwarf with powder kegs had me eaten by The Terrasque, i hacked my way out of his gut,and we threw a smalled lit powder keg into the escape hole before it healed over and then ran like hell.

That was one dead Terrasque.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 01 Mar 2008, 10:51
See, you don't have to be a dwarf to pull that off.  You could use any number of creatures up to 10 ft. tall, and that'd be small enough to be gulped down whole. 
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 01 Mar 2008, 11:06
Yeah but my dwarf was the only one who was drunk/crazy enough
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 01 Mar 2008, 12:48
Kind of like when we strapped my dwarf with powder kegs had me eaten by The Terrasque, i hacked my way out of his gut,and we threw a smalled lit powder keg into the escape hole before it healed over and then ran like hell.

That was one dead Terrasque.
It got it to -50 HP and you guys also used a Wish spell to keep it permanently dead?

That's one of those "forgotten" rules about the Terrasque.

Man, your guys stories make me want to make a D&D thread just for telling awesome stories of our groups.  One of the better ones I can think of is when our DM threw an Umber Hulk at our level 2 party.  The Barbarian got a critical hit for something like 46 damage, and then got another critical hit for 30-something.  Two turns, it was completely over-dead.  The DM was like "Well.  I threw that in there to try and get you guys to run away from this situation but that didn't work out too well."  The Barbarian then wore it's head as a helmet.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 01 Mar 2008, 20:07
Then there was the critical miss that ended up beheading one of our party members.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Fletch on 01 Mar 2008, 22:14
because, my friend whose a fighter AND a girl would never be a dwarf if they had beards.
But that was the thing about dwarves - even their women were man enough to sprout beards.
It's just ... like they're afraid to keep the political incorrectnesses in the official game.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Spluff on 02 Mar 2008, 00:00
The whole dwarf beard thing is only part of the campaign setting, not the rules. It's up to your DM (unless they actually decide they'd like to play a forgettable realms campaign).
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 02 Mar 2008, 12:07
I sincerely doubt it has much to do with political correctness. Reducing a race to essentially one stereotypical template for both genders sounds like an interesting wrinkle for game settings in theory but ends up being somewhat limiting for individual players in practice.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 07 Mar 2008, 09:21
I'm just worried that new system is going to mess with my Bard.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 07 Mar 2008, 11:46
Seeing as how the bard isn't included in the PHB this time 'round (probably won't be  released until '09), one could say they're messing with it a bit.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Wyvernhand on 08 Mar 2008, 10:46
So, I went to the D&D eXPerience convention just outside of Wash DC last weekend.  There they had previews of 4.0 including some sample 1st level PCs that could be played in a few premade events.  I thought it was a ton of fun.  It was really nice to be even a 1st level character and have more to do in around than "I attack...again" or "I cast my 1 spell, then shoot my xbow".  All characters have "at will" "per encounter" and "per day" abilities which are very dynamic from "I shoot my bow with a nice bonus to hit and damage" to "I hit him so hard it knocks him back a square".  This was just 1st level play and I already felt like it was very involving, unlike in 3.5 where often times one or more characters couldn't contribute because they lacked spells or abilities to contribute in an encounter.  This just seems like more fun for everyone.

That's my thoughts on 4.0.

And to quote someone's sig I saw a few years back:
How many gamers does it take to change a lightbulb?  Change, we don't need no stinkin change!
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 09 Mar 2008, 11:34
I'll be doing a one-day 4th ed test game next Saturday. I'll post my thoughts afterwards.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 09 Mar 2008, 13:06
If you can post more crunch over at [urel=http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e]EN World[/url] they'll... well they'll tear it apart and the haters will hate on it while the lovers fangasm on it.  In the end it won't make much difference.

But if you get twizzlers and popcorn you can enjoy the show.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 10 Mar 2008, 00:54
Actually I was planning on posting at http://www.dragonavenue.com , then linking here, since some friends of mine run it.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 16 Mar 2008, 11:38
Wooo, that was fun :) More later, busy day today.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 16 Mar 2008, 17:30
Hurry!  The world needs info!
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 19 Mar 2008, 22:37
I'm bumping because I finally played through a test adventure with the 4th ed Monsters and Pre-Mades.

The moment 4th Ed comes out 3.x is getting dropped and I will have some books for donation if anyone wants them.

Seriously, the combat we did, took about the same amount of time as 3.x with none of us being familiar with the rules, and so much more shit happened. It was just plain and simply more fun. It honestly felt like a wonderful marriage of 2nd and 3rd ed.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 20 Mar 2008, 07:47
what kinda of books you got? any Eldritch Might? or Song and Silence?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 20 Mar 2008, 16:22
Unfortunately, my 3.x collection isn't particularly extensive. I got the core trio of course, Magic Item Compendium, Expanded Psionics, and the Eberron Campaign Setting.

As soon as June rolls around They're up for grabs.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 22 Mar 2008, 12:22
I have the entirety of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms campaign setting sitting in a corner of my room.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Narr on 22 Mar 2008, 12:37
You might wanna hold on to those.  Word on the street is that a lot of it is getting cut out for 4th edition so they can focus more on the popular parts.  While that does make for a more compelling setting (as almost everyone sets everything in the sword coast or silver marches), it's depressing for us FR fans that like the jungles of Chult or the strange Pantheon of Mulhorand.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Jun 2008, 16:57
Anyone else get one or more books today?  Anyone of the lucky few who ordered from buy.com and got theirs last week?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 06 Jun 2008, 21:13
Unfortunately, I'm not getting mine in the mail till Monday.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 06 Jun 2008, 21:43
I got the player's handbook today (not expected until June 9) while I was at my friends' birthday, whom I was going to give it to.  Haven't even opened it yet.  By the way, I ordered from Amazon, I got each of them for 22.50 and free shipping.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 06 Jun 2008, 22:58
My overnight delivery didn't show up today. :(
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Trollstormur on 07 Jun 2008, 22:53
my review of 4e:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/sademie/RAAAAGE.png)
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: est on 11 Jun 2008, 03:00
Man, pretty much every conversation I've seen re: DnD eventually devolves into a conversation about fucking Terrasques.  It should be like the Godwin's Law of DnD conversations or something, seriously.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 11 Jun 2008, 07:01
Well, I did see the art for that sucker in the Monster Manual, and I'm sufficiently impressed.  I think that regardless of rule changes, the art has seen at least a small improvement.   I'm probably going to be testing this out with my usual group next week or so.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 11 Jun 2008, 16:37
I've been reading them the last couple days. Outside of possible fluff, my 3rd ed books will never be touched again.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 12 Jun 2008, 23:57
My 4th Edition Thoughts:
I like just about everything about the actual mechanics and gameplay. I really dig the warlord concept-- It's nice to play a cunning support minded combatant without necessarily having to be a zealous cleric/paladin or lugging around something as lame as a magical mandolin.

My few complaints are thematic, and I feel like it'd be a bit out of line to complain too much on that end before they've had a chance to release much more product.

As for the excluded base classes, I don't really miss them much, especially since they'll probably be around soon again anyway. When it comes to bards, I'll concede that the idea of magical music makes sense, but always thought they stretched the concept pretty far when they make them into a base class. I readily admit to personal bias on this one, but I always thought it would have done better as a PrC even back in 3rd. Barbarians aren't really gone, imo. I always thought it was a bad idea to seperate the idea of a savage warrior from the "fighter" umbrella to begin with. As it is now in 4th edition, you can easily create a "Fighter" who doesn't start off knowing how to properly wear heavy plate, starts with Athletics, Endurance and Intimidation skills plus uses such charming powers as Boundless Endurance and Brute Strike in battle. Sounds like a barbarian to me-- toss in a loincloth, a couple grunts and a cleave and people'll be calling you Conan in no time. I have much the same thoughts on sorcerors-- they've always used the same spells as Wizards, and thematically one improvises while the other prepares. It really wouldn't be that bloody hard to roll up a wizard, say he has some inborn talents and call 'im a sorceror. I'll admit to being a tiny bit perturbed by the exclusion of druids though. I mean, I guess you could just generic things up and play a "druid" as a nature themed cleric and say spells like "Astral Defenders" actually summons a couple of dire bears or whatever, but I suspect that kind of monkeying around with names and descriptions would get a bit tiresome after a while. Same story for evil clerics/paladins. I'm just hung up on druids in particular because I always enjoyed turning into a bear and fucking people up.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: KvP on 13 Jun 2008, 01:57
I don't think they're going to open up much on the evil stuff, at least not for awhile, based on what I've read. A lot of people are bawwwing about the books just out and telling readers that they're supposed to play good characters, and it is pretty hilarious, but I guess they're being honest at least.

Response as far as mechanics and such seems to be positive so far, at least from the people whose opinions generally matter.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Jun 2008, 07:43
I don't know, I've always been annoyed by the fact that Barbarian was a class and not a Template.

Personally I love the idea of the ards though. Of course I'm a real sucker for Norse mythology and tales of Nordic Skalds are particularly fascinating to me, but considering how much work the Bard class needed to make it viable in this game setting, I'm glad they're taking their time with it.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 17 Jun 2008, 19:41
I was supposed to play 4.0 today, but it just HAD to be Bradley's (my brother's) birthday.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 17 Jun 2008, 21:08
I am actually playing tomorrow.  Will report on Thursday.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 17 Jun 2008, 22:07
Since my woman is DMing this time around, I got to make my own character and I'm going to get to mess with him next week.

Anthony Stalwart, Human Wizard going for the Battle Mage Paragon path, using the Orb Implement. He is feverishly working on a suit of Plate Mail that he will be able to wear at 4th level and be able to blast foes with many force and fire type spells. Will most likely have Orbs in the palms of the Gauntlets and the chest of the armor.

He will be amazing.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 17 Jun 2008, 22:08
Did you kill Bradley and bury him behind the shed?  You should have.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 18 Jun 2008, 14:45
I get to play in two weeks.  :mrgreen:

I too plan on playing a human mage, but I'll be shooting for a Staff Of Defense wielding Blood Mage and I'll be going for Acid Arrow and ice spells. Should be a nice mix of battle field control and reliable damage, especially if he survives long enough to hit blood mage. I plan on abusing a combination of Winter Touched, Lasting Frost, Action Surge and Blood Action. :D

Haven't decided on a name yet, but he's going to be the scary norse type who spills his own blood before calling down bitter storms to destroy his enemies. He's definitely going to be awesome.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 18 Jun 2008, 20:15
I had this nice long post and my browser crashed and I'm high, so what it boils down to is this:  our previously ridiculous games are made even more ridiculous with this edition, and I rolled a Ranger TANK.  Sucker did 24 damage as a first-level dual-wielding paragon.  But I'm also an elf, so I can still use a longbow, and pretty much dual paragon myself.  We played one fight straight out of the DM guide and decided we loved it entirely.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 19 Jun 2008, 16:47
I'm playing as a pc in another game. I really want to play a weird race/class. Maybe a wizard? Using mostly ice spells? I'm not sure, there isnt enough variety at the moment to do a strange race and class mixture.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 19 Jun 2008, 19:00
I made a dwarven wizard to see what it would look like.  He works surprisingly well.  I think the designers achieved their goals; certain each race will have a better fit for one or more classes (Halfling == rogue), but you won't actually be penalized for choosing an off-optimized race/class.  In fact, now that they're putting in bonuses for well-rounded characters, an off-key class may actually have benefits not expected of a munchkin choice.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Alex C on 20 Jun 2008, 12:42
Yeah, even a dragonborn wizard doesn't look so bad when you realize you could use that strength bonus to be rocking hide armor, a heavy shield and an extra AoE encounter power that only takes a minor action by level 6 while still starting out with a respectable if not spectacular 16 intelligence. Dwarves are probably the worst wizards overall, but hey, when's the last time you heard someone complain about a constitution bonus? It's hard to feel too bad for dwarves when you realize how many fraggin' healing surges they can get (thanks to Dwarven Durability) even as a wizard, plus they make such good paladins and fighters you have to expect them to suffer somewhere.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Jun 2008, 13:48
I made a dwarven wizard with 18 intelligence, 10 dexterity, and 12 everywhere else.  He'll have plenty of opportunities to bump stats, and at level 11 he'll become eligible for all sorts of crazy feats.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 20 Jun 2008, 16:34
my buddy pirated the books, we're torn. one hand the monster manual was awesome but on the other hand everything is so OVER 9000 MUNCHKIN LAZOR!!!!!!!!!1!111
but then again it's no suprise, we're sticking to 3.5 and just making our own stuff.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 20 Jun 2008, 16:51
I think you should at least play a couple scenarios out of the back of the DM guide before you make a decision.  We were very on the fence, too, until our little test game, against 4 kobolds in a room with a slime pit.  Before playing, my DM was upset about the cutting out of several classes and a couple races, and he didn't know what to think about powers.  The only qualm my DM really has now is with the lack of deities.  Which, in all likelihood, is going to be expanded on in a later book.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: frunK on 20 Jun 2008, 17:04
Meh, dieties are easy to ad-lib, i don't see the reason why you need to take them from the players hand book.
Whenever I'm a barbarian I usually worship a force or something anway, like Thunder.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 20 Jun 2008, 18:32
Our DM has a thing for the lore, really.  It doesn't matter to any non-cleric/paladin in our group that much.  But I think he's trying to get us to REALLY play our characters this time, which is why he might be peeved about deities.  He's not in tears over it or anything, though, that's just his last major complaint with the new systems.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Jun 2008, 19:44
His worst complaint is about purely optional fluff?  Seriously?
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Dimmukane on 20 Jun 2008, 20:53
Like I said, it's not much of a complaint.  He originally was angry about the way they set up classes, but he didn't realize how much room they have to breathe until we played a bit. 

He never got a chance to make us play our deities seriously, and now that they've taken away about 75% of them he just wishes they were still there.  I think he was planning on doing that with the last campaign, but that kind of fell apart because of his girlfriend (new to DnD, previously playing NWN2:MotB, and wanting to cast all the crazy spells she didn't have made her not want to play as often, and scheduling issues arose around that).  So I think he means to do it this campaign, and he wanted more options, I guess.  It's more him than anybody else, I think the 15 or so they have is enough for me to choose from, and one of our guys always chooses Kord no matter what he plays, anyway.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: bryanthelion on 27 Jun 2008, 12:42
I cant wait until we have more classes. That way we can be more exotic in our choices. Like in 3.5, "Oh Julia, you're being a changling psychic warrior? How exotic and original!"

4.0 right now is a tad cut and paste, I might chose a race from the monster manual though. That'd give a nice spin on a class.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: ackblom12 on 27 Jun 2008, 17:20
Man, I'm playing Iron Man.

You don't NEED the extra classes to make something a little off, they just help a lot.
Title: Re: D&D 4th Edition
Post by: Catfish_Man on 29 Jun 2008, 22:07
Ran my first 4e session last night. It went great :D