| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 02:52:11
Races and Classes
My opening comment shall summarize this book very clearly for me. 4E artists really like bare midriff. Apparently, full shirts and dresses are impossible for women in 4E and this includes Dwarf Lasses.
Which is strange since a lot of the Artistic forces here seem to be women. But yes, once more, we shall not be seeing "realistic armor" anywhere on the women of D&D. However, all of the guys looked like they escaped Gwar anyway so maybe it's for the best.
My overall impressions of Races and Classes is fundamentally that they're trying to recapture a lot of the feel of D&D 1E and AD&D that was lost in the transition to 3rd Edition. It's a rather curious charge but it's one that impresses itself upon me. A lot of the "signatures" of 3rd Edition are eliminated.
1. No Prestige Classes: I was surprised by this move since The Prestige Class was a major cash cow for WOTC. Of course, I always recognized that Prestige Classes were nothing more than "Kits" from 2nd Edition warmed over. Frankly, I won't be surprised if there's something similiar that pops up soon.
2. 0-level Characters: The creation of "classless" characters that was foreshadowed by the SAGA edition of Star Wars was something that I personally disagreed with. While there's no need for the 20th level Commoner, it was understandable why it existed.
3. The Elimination of "Epic Levels": I was surprised by the decision but it seems like an attempt to simplify the rules while simultaneously bringing down the bar. Mordekain and Elminster are all within the 30th level limit, so they're no longer "beyond" player character aspirations.
The choices that are also made regarding the actual races have been discussed to death but there's some definite choices that reflect a Post-3rd Edition and Post-Eberron mentality that I don't necessarilly agree with. Honestly, I think it's more focused on continuing the "Dungeon-Punk" theme that's meant to differentiate D&D fantasy from Tolkien (oddly, it's MORE similiar in some respects).
1. Goodbye Tanis Half-Elven: Half-breeds were the first to get the chopping block in this work and its rather easy to see why. They've been sacrificed to allow for Tieflings to fill in their role as the "romantic outsiders." There's not much point in playing a Half-Orc if you have a genuine Demonspawn to replace your 'child of evil' origins.
2. Saiyanorah Gnomes: Richard talks about what's always been a problem in D&D that no one knows what to do with gnomes. Honestly, when I told Chris at my table, you'd think Richard killed Christ. The irony is, our entire games are BUILT on Gnomes sucking and no one liking them.
We just played it for laughs that they weren't aware of it. But in case you missed it, they just aren't including them in the main book, not eradicating them.
3. Tieflings and Celestials: I like the replacing of the name of the Aasimarr with Celestials for the same reason that Richard gives (it sounds like :censored:). Nevertheless, Demonspawn having their roles so dramatically increased doesn't necessarilly fill me with a lot of joy.
It feels like base D&D becoming more like WOW. There was a time in D&D when Demons were rather rare. Nevertheless, it opens the door for the Fey'ri to be reclassified and made to continue in FR (even though they've been wiped out in canon) since the origin story is so similiar.
4. The Rise of the Sexy Dwarf: I don't think anyone under the age of 35 remembers the "Do Dwarf women have beards" debates unless they heard about them in KODT but clearly Richard thinks the issue needs to be settled. It was a bit of a joke at our table because Philip (our resident Dwarfphile) printed up the pictures. It's kinda weird to be honest. We :censored: him off by suggesting they were just bulky halflings since "Dwarf women don't exist."
Nevertheless, the biggest change is the return of Race Hate. Dwarves HATE Giants and loathe Orcs. Frankly, the origins of the Giant Hate makes Moradin one of the dumbest looking of the gods.
5. The Eldarin Controversy that's not really so controversial: Elves are divided into two particular castes. Their's the hoitey-toity conservative and godlike Eldarin and the "live in forests and party all night long" Elves. If you take a step back, the sudden division between the two types of elves isn't that big of a change at all. I assume that the only difference in FR will be Moon Elves/Gold Elves are Eldarin while Wild Elves are not.
6. Drow are unchanged: I'm surprised that Richard more or less stated this. I thought we'd be seeing surface Drow kingdoms and the like. Instead, they're still Dark Skinned people who are evil and worship Lolth with a matriarchy underground.
7. Halflings are all Brandybucks: Halflings used to be Hobbits in the Shire then they were Kender and now they're Brandybucks. I.e. they're River Hobbits that live in Swampy terrain and probably now all speak with a Cajun accent while eating gumbo. I'm not really sure how Richard thinks this will encourage people to play them.
But I am pleased to know Richard made them as tall as Dwarves.
One MAJOR change, of course, is that Yondalla doesn't exist. They're children of Obad Hai and Sehaine Moonbow.
8. Humans are....well....Humans: I do like Richard explicitly saying that its a Human Racial Trait that we're drawn to Evil. Apparently, Humans are naturally cursed to give into temptation.
So there's some controversial and not so controversial choices to be made there.
9. Dragonborn: To be honest, they worked in Dragonlance but arguably only in the War of the Lance. I've never really been able to get much out of Dragonborn despite my best efforts. They just don't seem that interesting and their role as the "Children of the Dragons" doesn't really grab me. They're not even Half-Dragons with all the ick that it implies.
It's really like making Lizardmen a PC race. However, if this will end the attempt to make Kobolds into Dragonkin, GOD BLESS HIM. They're DOGS, *MAN*, get over it!
Now onto the class changes.
1. Every Fighter is a Warblade: The Book of Nine Swords is apparently something that's going to be with every fighter. They'll be lots of manuevers and special moves. I think that they'll probably be toning down the supernatural aspects of move them to "Mageblades" (whom I assume will be the more anime style swordsmen). Frankly, I approve but it adds a lot of AD&D style complexity to combat.
2. Monks still suck: There's no sign they can use weapons from what I can tell and no real changes.
3. Paladins are going to be all Alignments: It was practically hand-stamped in D&D anyway, it'll now just be official. This makes sense in a world where Angels are Evil as well as good.
Worryingly, Richard seems to indicate Paladins will have varities of Smite. I keep imagining "Limit Breaks"
4. Every Mage is an Island: No more Vancian spell-system, well there's a toast to you but I can't say I'll miss you. Unfortunately, details are very vague on what's replacing it and I have to confess that I'm worried. As Final Fantasy and other RPG games attest, the Vancian system works even if there's no damn good storytelling reason for it.
Sorcerers will also be making an appearance and Warlocks. Frankly, I don't think that either are necessary if they REALLY overhaul the system.
5. Barbarians are missing: At least as far as I can tell.
6. Clerics are Nerfed: Richard spends pages extolling his Cleris but since Alignment is going to be mostly non-existent (or more precisely "Neutral" as "Unaligned" will be replacing most alignment) and there won't be any spells against Evil subtypes.....basically, most of their spell list is gone.
Frankly, I don't think whatever he creates as a substitute will be the same.
7. Rogues seem about the same: Except, a lot of the skills will be combined and Backstab will be more useful. I'm pretty sure that most of the changes will be non-controversial. However, Richard's statement that everyone will be able to deal with trap is troubling since it removes one of the Core things that a Rogue does.
Might as well give Swords to Wizards.
8. Druids are going to be Shapechanging more: Whoop de do. Sorry, Richard, I don't think that really invokes much. I suppose I should be grateful you're not dumping the class into the Cleric (though that's always been a valid choice in my opinion since they're really just a variant class of them----arguably so is Paladin).
But overall, I'm very impressed with this work and it seems the Core Rules will not be that problematic.
Still, I think 3rd Edition will be hard to top as this is much more complex whereas simplicity was the name of the game in 3rd.
7/10 |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 23:13:01
quote:
Understood, but blowing words up like that would be considered by many posters to be aggressive, even though that wasn't how you intended to come across.
True enough. I'll make sure not to do it, again. I just wanted to make sure Wooly saw it this time as I'd already posted that, and he apparently missed it, and I was now posting it a second time. Thought it best to make that part stand out so that it wouldn't be missed, again. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 23:05:12
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Wooly apparently missed those two words with his previous reading, and I wanted to make sure he saw them, this time.
Understood, but blowing words up like that would be considered by many posters to be aggressive, even though that wasn't how you intended to come across. |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 23:01:34
I wasn't yelling. Wooly was misreading the quote, and I wanted to make sure he read the relevant part, this time. This is what he said.
quote:
But it still says that a wizard who casts all of his spells is still at 80% strength. It doesn't matter how you split them up. At will, per day, etc -- those are all still memorized spells.
That would be true if the quote read as follows.
"a wizard who casts all his memorized spells should be at about 80% of power."
But that's not how it reads. It reads as follows.
"a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
Wooly apparently missed those two words with his previous reading, and I wanted to make sure he saw them, this time. |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 17:21:46
quote:
But it still says that a wizard who casts all of his spells is still at 80% strength. It doesn't matter how you split them up. At will, per day, etc -- those are all still memorized spells.
You misread it again, Wooly. Here it is, again.
"a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
Besides, we don't know if the At Will and Per Encounter spells are memorized or not. Considering that they've said that vancian magic is mostly gone, my guess is that those spells don't have to be memorized. Just the Per Day ones.
quote:
And tossing them off doesn't appreciably weaken the wizard. No matter how you want to slice it, that's a radical recasting of the class, and it definitely turns them into something they weren't.
Yeah, it turns them into actual Wizards. Not commoners who can cast two or three spells a day before having to rely on a crossbow for the rest of the day. If it's a choice between a guy who can cast spells all day, and actually BE a Wizard, and a guy who casts two or three spells, and then spends the rest of the day fighting it out with crossbow in hand, then I choose the former. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 17:07:47
I agree with that.
But at the same time, I agree that having to whip out a crossbow was rather silly, too. The point is that wizards should always be able to use magic (the thing that makes them wizards in the first place). Also, I recall reading that a wizard's weakest spells aren't as powerful as a fighter's blow with a weapon. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 11:11:33
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
Obviously not, if that's only a fifth of the wizard's strength.
Only once did I play a single-class wizard, and that was because I hated the "oh, I've tossed my three spells, now I'm useless" aspect of wizards, particularly at low levels. But come on, now spells are only 20% of their strength? In other words, what previously defined wizards is now almost a footnote. Give them a boost or something, sure, but don't make the defining characteristic of the class become an afterthought. You wouldn't strip a warrior of his weapons and armor and expect him to still be at 80% capability...
You misread that, Wooly. The quote is "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power." That doesn't mean, however, that 80% of the Wizard's power doesn't derive from spells. And when they say 80%, what they mean to say is that after expending all your memorized spells, about 80% of your spells will still be available to you. That doesn't mean, however, that the other 20% of spells are weak.
Every class in 4E has At Will, Per Encounter, and Per Day abilities. For the Wizard, these abilities will be spells. The memorized spells will likely be the Per Day abilities. And yes, they are the Wizard's most powerful spells. That's why you'll only be able to cast them once per day. And they've actually said as much. Here's a quote. "Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuff, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples)."
Here's a specific example of spells under the new system in this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcw/20071214. In this article, you have a Wizard who selects the spells Magic Missile and Fireblast (At Will), Burning Hands (Per Encounter), and Sleep (Per Day). Once the Per Day spell, Sleep, is cast, that Wizard will be at about 75% of her power, still have 3-out-of-4 spells she can cast. That doesn't mean, however, that Sleep isn't more useful then Magic Missile, or that the Wizard will have to rely on abilities other then magic. They've even said "a wizard should never have to rely on a crossbow because he's out of spells".
Wizards will still rely on magic. Some of them, like Magic Missile, will be spells they can cast all day long, whenever they want to. Other spells, like Burning Hands, can be cast once per encounter. And other spells, like Sleep, are spells that the Wizard has to memorize. They can be cast once per day, and are the most powerful spells available to the wizard.
But it still says that a wizard who casts all of his spells is still at 80% strength. It doesn't matter how you split them up. At will, per day, etc -- those are all still memorized spells. And tossing them off doesn't appreciably weaken the wizard. No matter how you want to slice it, that's a radical recasting of the class, and it definitely turns them into something they weren't. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 09:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Sounds like they've made spellcasting terribly complicated.
Nono ... you must have missed something! Ahem ... 
Is it just me ... I can read about 10 sentences of these mission / playtesting reports before getting lost or rather ... disinterested? |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 05:36:31
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Sounds like they've made spellcasting terribly complicated.
How complicated is it? You've got spells you can cast whenever you like, spells that're once per encounter, and spells that're once per day. Is that really so complex? |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 05:34:13
Sounds like they've made spellcasting terribly complicated. |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 05:23:41
quote:
Obviously not, if that's only a fifth of the wizard's strength.
Only once did I play a single-class wizard, and that was because I hated the "oh, I've tossed my three spells, now I'm useless" aspect of wizards, particularly at low levels. But come on, now spells are only 20% of their strength? In other words, what previously defined wizards is now almost a footnote. Give them a boost or something, sure, but don't make the defining characteristic of the class become an afterthought. You wouldn't strip a warrior of his weapons and armor and expect him to still be at 80% capability...
You misread that, Wooly. The quote is "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power." That doesn't mean, however, that 80% of the Wizard's power doesn't derive from spells. And when they say 80%, what they mean to say is that after expending all your memorized spells, about 80% of your spells will still be available to you. That doesn't mean, however, that the other 20% of spells are weak.
Every class in 4E has At Will, Per Encounter, and Per Day abilities. For the Wizard, these abilities will be spells. The memorized spells will likely be the Per Day abilities. And yes, they are the Wizard's most powerful spells. That's why you'll only be able to cast them once per day. And they've actually said as much. Here's a quote. "Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuff, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples)."
Here's a specific example of spells under the new system in this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcw/20071214. In this article, you have a Wizard who selects the spells Magic Missile and Fireblast (At Will), Burning Hands (Per Encounter), and Sleep (Per Day). Once the Per Day spell, Sleep, is cast, that Wizard will be at about 75% of her power, still have 3-out-of-4 spells she can cast. That doesn't mean, however, that Sleep isn't more useful then Magic Missile, or that the Wizard will have to rely on abilities other then magic. They've even said "a wizard should never have to rely on a crossbow because he's out of spells".
Wizards will still rely on magic. Some of them, like Magic Missile, will be spells they can cast all day long, whenever they want to. Other spells, like Burning Hands, can be cast once per encounter. And other spells, like Sleep, are spells that the Wizard has to memorize. They can be cast once per day, and are the most powerful spells available to the wizard. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 04:55:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You wouldn't strip a warrior of his weapons and armor and expect him to still be at 80% capability...
Hm . . . they did mention a fighter maneuver that let them do their str damage even if they missed in one of the podcasts . . .  |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 04:54:01
I actually kind of liked the reserve feat idea they had in Complete Mage, where if you had the fire feat (can't remember names at the moment), if you had a fire spell and you didn't use it, you could hit a 5 foot square with a 1d6/fire spell in reserve level, 1/2 with reflex save.
I think that things like this let the wizard still use magic against relatively minor opponents without wasting their fireball spell, but still contribute. I had thought, when I first read that wizards would be able to do "something" every round, that it would be more along this model, making perhaps the reserve feat idea more of a standard class feature. Instead they seem to have gone for a major overhaul. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 04:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
bother with memorizing spells, if they are such a small part of what a wizard can do?
Because the spells which comprise that 20% are going to be the most powerful spells in the Wizards arsenal.
Obviously not, if that's only a fifth of the wizard's strength.
Only once did I play a single-class wizard, and that was because I hated the "oh, I've tossed my three spells, now I'm useless" aspect of wizards, particularly at low levels. But come on, now spells are only 20% of their strength? In other words, what previously defined wizards is now almost a footnote. Give them a boost or something, sure, but don't make the defining characteristic of the class become an afterthought. You wouldn't strip a warrior of his weapons and armor and expect him to still be at 80% capability... |
| Venger |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 01:41:26
quote:
bother with memorizing spells, if they are such a small part of what a wizard can do?
Because the spells which comprise that 20% are going to be the most powerful spells in the Wizards arsenal. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 00:41:03
I never said they were gone.
In fact, I actively said they weren't :-)
However, they didn't seem to be in the mainbook. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 22:11:08
Much like gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs aren't necessarily "gone", they'll just appear later. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 21:41:22
I have been corrected on Barbarians (I can't believe I missed that) being in 4E and the Far Realms were by Bruce Cordell. I should have given it a second read (and since have).
Thanks Richard.
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 21:39:23
So when it comes to the clerics, we are no wiser then before. Well well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 21:35:19
I was reading the other day that the idea for 4E wizards is that after tossing all their spells, they'll still be at 80% capability!
Now, I've no problem with leaving wizards able to do something after dumping all their spells... But still being a 80%? That, to me, is insane! Why bother with memorizing spells, if they are such a small part of what a wizard can do? I think this ruins the entire wizard concept. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 19:42:32
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Might as well give Swords to Wizards.
They already gave the armors -- if I've understood correctly, Arcane Spellcasting Failure is gone in 4E. All it takes for your STR 10 wizard to cast spells in Full Plate (in addition to its cost, of course ;)) is to burn a Feat. Considering that most "AC-buffs" are most likely gone in 4E, I think it's a significant advantage -- especially as the characters will probably get a Feat at every level.  |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 18:32:32
Right, and when 3E started they said there wouldn't be "Kits" anymore.. but there of course were, just renamed to Prestige classes. :)
Look at Swordmages for example. They mention Bladsingers and dwarven runic warriors in the same sentence as examples of them. I can't think of two chracters anymore different. So SOMEWHERE along the line the two have to become different, it makes sense I suppose for level 1-10 being the basics for sword & sorcery, and then from there up, focus on the "style." :) |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 17:28:13
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
1. No Prestige Classes: I was surprised by this move since The Prestige Class was a major cash cow for WOTC. Of course, I always recognized that Prestige Classes were nothing more than "Kits" from 2nd Edition warmed over. Frankly, I won't be surprised if there's something similiar that pops up soon.
Actually, Rich Baker has stated that there will be "paragon paths" which fulfill the role of PrCs but will not be available until you read the paragon tier (levels 11-20), and I am not sure but I think that "epic destinies" are basically the same thing for when you reach the epic tier (levels 21-30). |
|
|
