| Author |
 Topic  |
|
initiate
Learned Scribe
Canada
102 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:55:10
|
Markustay Wrote:
As one person on the WotC boards put it - they are doing us a favor. If you have no intention of playing 4.0, then you need NEVER purchase another book
again. 3e is done, and you can play until the end of time with what you have. One of the biggest complaints was the never-ending 3e books we needed to
buy to keep up.
Now you don't have to spend anymore money.
As for me, I'll take a look at it, and if I hate it, I will stick with 3e. It's all good.
As one person at the WotC boards said, concerning a run-in they had with Ed in an elevator, Ed said "People will be angry, but just get over it".
Amen to all of this. Wise are the words of Ed of the Greenwood!
I may carp and criticize, [though not to harshly, I hope], but at the end, as Markustay said, its all good. I've got 3E, an edition that works just fine. So I'll look at 4E, and if it turns out I don't like it, I'll go back to 3rd edition, which will support me just fine until the end of days., and confine my following of future 4E products to Realms material.
This is a very liberating feeling...
|
 |
|
|
Darius Talynth
Acolyte
Canada
21 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 01:51:09
|
This is a post I made on the WOTC Boards (where I my handle is the uber original Marty1000) for 4th Edition Rules & Mechanics. Instead of trying to guess what 4th Edition would be like I wanted to try and figure out what makes D&D well "D&D". What are the iconic components of the game.. Here is my post. I hope you find it interesting.
I’m a long time lurker on these boards and I have held back for quite a while. Now with the news of 4th Edition’s ultimate release, the floodgates have opened – all in this one post! - ok i did make a couple other posts too. Sorry in advance for the length of this post!
I am a long time player of D&D, covering 25 years plus, from Basic D&D, to AD&D, to 2E, then 3E, currently 3.5E. Will I add 4E to my list? hmmm… possibly.
I say “possibly” mainly because I don’t play enough any longer to warrant buying a new set of books, but then I do really love D&D through all it’s editions and I’ve purchased many of the core and source books just to keep up with the game and the different settings.
Ignoring Basic D&D, I’ve been thinking about what makes ‘A’D&D “D&D” from a mechanics point of view. I have come up with:
The Books
The dice: D20, D12, d10, d8, d6, d4 and the good ole’ percentile dice
The Abilities – Str, Dex, Int, Cha, Con, Wis – and the 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest) way of rolling up your characters
The Races – Elf, Gnome, Dwarf, Human, Halfling, and Half-Elf.
The core classes – including the controversial Paladin
The Alignments
Hit Points
The magic system – call it “Vancian” if you like
The d20 Combat System and Saving Throws.
Imagination & Role Playing
As I type, these are the iconic elements of AD&D that come to my mind. Others may have a different list and I'm sure I have missed some. I think if you mess too much with these elements, then you run the risk of turning D&D into something else. That doesn’t mean you can’t change them, it just means we have to be careful with any decisions we make to change them.
As it applies to 4th edition, I have read many things I like and others that bother me a bit (yet I retain an open mind). I will try to put my comments in the context of my list of iconic D&D concepts.
The Books
The Core Books are mainstays of D&D. Keep them high quality. Make sure there is great artwork in them. Edit them properly and thoroughly. A real book is vastly superior to an electronic version in every way, except weight.  Try reading a book then try reading the same on a computer screen. The book is truly better. Online enhancements are great ideas but they shouldn’t replace the books they are enhancing. OK, maybe the books don't affect mechanics but referring to them on the fly is part of game play and the D&D experience. I think using a computer during gameplay could be a nice aid for the DM.
The Dice
We need to keep the dice! No I haven't heard that they are getting rid of any or all of them. But they are iconic! Can you imagine playing D&D without them? Most D&D players I know are very proud of their dice collections.
The Abilities
I don’t see any need to change how the ability scores are rolled. 4d6 drop the lowest die has been a staple of the game. Leave a base points system for Online RPGs. Keep the dice for pen and paper!
The Races
I really like all of the races. I left the half Orc off my “iconic” list but many players enjoy this race. The challenge in 4th Ed is to keep the races balanced. Evasion is a very powerful ability for example. Just letting any elf have it could be a little too much. If it was tied into level progression, however, and say an elf gained it at 10th level of whatever class he was, that might be a cool thing.
The Core Classes
Fighter, Ranger, Rogue/Thief, Magic User, Cleric, Druid, Paladin. These all have a place in the game. The game should make room for Barbarian and Bard as well. They also fit into most cultures and settings.
I want to make a comment about the Paladin. I admit it – I love the paladin. I’m biased here. The paladin is the iconic knight in shining armor. It fits in most people’s thoughts of a medieval fantasy setting so IMHO it belongs in the D&D game. In pre 3rd Ed D&D, the paladin had to have a min Cha of 17. This made paladins hard to roll up and thus made them rare. Then you had to role play a Lawful Good alignment with penalties if you didn’t do so. The result was a character with many special abilities who was also challenging to play. It was much more than just playing a multi-player/hybrid fighter/cleric. To bring in the concept of non-lawful good paladins as PCs (which has been done since Dragon #106 and the anti-paladin (NPC) before that) bothers me. Forcing a paladin to be LG imposes a restriction for players to roleplay within. Misbehaving results in loss of powers. What is so hard about playing CG? LE? CE? N? To open the class up to other alignments doesn’t present the same sense of noble cause, discipline, and self sacrifice. I think that the divine champion PrC better represents chosen “warriors” of the different alignments and deities. Leave the paladin LG.
The Alignments
Often controversial, D&D would not be D&D without the alignments. I think the game needs to do its best to help all players and DMs understand them.
Hit Points
Many players hate the hit point system. “It’s too simple. It’s not detailed or realistic enough.” I think the Hit Point system is good. It’s simplicity speeds up game play and you always know what shape your character is in. A good DM can bring vivid description to combats and fill in the gaps where the Hit Point system is too generic. Keep Hit Points!
The ‘Vancian’ magic system
I have to admit that this week was the first time I ever heard of the term ‘Vancian’. It is definitely not a perfect system but I can understand why it was adopted for a game system: It is simple, it balances the game by limiting how much magic power spellcasting characters possess, and it speeds up game play.
“It speeds up game play? But I have to spend all that time preparing spells in advance” I hear many players exclaim. Yes it speeds up game play because right on your character sheet you have a list of what spells your character has prepared. You look at your list, see what spells you have left, and cast the “best” spell you have available for the given situation. Mark it off your list. Move on. It is good for novice players and it also makes for creative use of spells. My experience with “cast any spell my character knows” systems often ends up with players searching through the various books trying to find and decide what spell they should cast and taking an unreasonable amount of time doing so. A player interested in his spell casting character can make his list of prepared spells, and optimize it, outside of the game session. He need only tweak it here and there as the campaign and adventure needs arise. I don’t think this is too much to expect.
That said, I think it is time to alter the magic system. It is too simple and restrictive. Magic shouldn’t be restrictive, except to achieve and maintain game balance. I like the several ideas presented in this forum:
I like the ‘At will’, ‘per encounter’, and ‘per day’ concepts. This is something that could work and it makes for a flexible system while still placing some limits on casting to achieve balance, and keep the system simple.
Alternatively, a system where you prepare your spells in advance but can use a prepared spell as often as you have spell slots of that level. Example: A wizard knows 4 2nd level spells. He prepares Web, Invisibility, Knock, and Acid Arrow. During the day he could cast 4 Webs, 2 Invis and 2 Knocks, 3 Acid Arrows and 1 web, etc.
Ultimately I am very open to improving the magic system. I think a combination of the traditional D&D magic system and more open/free systems would be a good way to go.
The d20 Combat System and Saving Throws
This is something that 3rd Edition did right. The introduction of the DC for ability checks, skills, saves and Armour Class was a great improvement over 1st and 2nd Ed D&D. The concept that a higher roll on the d20 was better than a low roll simplified things and eliminated any confusion – a low roll was good for ability checks, you wanted to roll high to Attacks or Saves. “What am I doing? Do I want to roll low or High?” 3rd edition really made a good change with this system. 4th Ed. should keep this going.
Imagination & Role Playing
When I first played D&D there was no board. The action was in our minds. We pretended to be our characters. Role Playing was always emphasized. Then we used our first miniatures. They helped to visualize some more complicated situations and combats. With 3.X edition, combat changed and has almost become more of a board game. You almost need to use a board and minis to do combat properly now.. at least by the letter of the combat rules. I think this has slowed the game down. D&D needs to find a happy medium between playing the game in your head and playing it on the table. Other than the DM perhaps deciding to only use minis for real complex encounters and combats, i think the main part of the game should take place in our imaginations.
OK my post is more than long enough. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.
Cheers.
|
Edited by - Darius Talynth on 22 Aug 2007 01:54:36 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 02:17:39
|
Welcome and Wel Met, Darius.
Now, on to my post:
:::::::::::::
Play will extend to 30 levels, per statements I heard while attending the Saturday D&D Seminar.
::::::::::::
All the talk about stable boys and innkeeps being stated out is so much BS, simply because NPCs of that type aren’t required to have full stats per the 3.5 DMG. Dungeon Magazine and FR sourcebooks don’t include stats for these, unless it’s likely a PC will battle such (ergo, class levels).
This exaggerated claim of ‘required stats’ is tiresome and annoying to have to read over and over. Thus, can we keep it real, please?
:::::::::::::::
A core concept of third edition was the idea the game rules should apply equally to NPCs and PCs alike. For the sake of simplicity and streamlined game design, this made perfect sense (and it still does, today).
Consider: It was a great failure of 2nd Edition Realms rules that, due to lore constraints, a great many rules for the Realms applied to NPCs only, or were for things only NPCs could do.
This, quite simply, was dumb.
Enter 3E, which tried valiantly to even things out, without entirely taking away exclusivity from NPCs.
This meant, for example, that Elven High Mages were no longer NPC-only. DMs could still rule quite rightly that no character could ever attain the status to become an Elven High Mage in their 3E game because of prior lore, but, if the DM decided otherwise, the rules were structured so that a player could take the EHM (prestige) class and still function during play in a balanced manner, without ever having to shoulder the burden of NPC-oriented rules that would unbalance the character opposite the other players.
3E would have done sooooo much better with its prestige classes and drive to push the idea that mechanics should be absolutely reflective of a setting’s lore, if not for those damned bean counters.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt made it very clear at the D&D Seminar that 4E is not about turning D&D into a tabletop version of WoW....not even by a long shot.
They emphasized the idea that D&D -at its roots- revolved around having a fighter, thief, wizard and cleric. The roles these classes cover (healing, far-away spell hurling, keeping foes off the ‘squishies’ [their term for the mage/possibly the rogue]) were lessened in 3E because of the way encounters ended up working out.
Their example went something like, “The PCs get up at 8 am, memorize spells by 9 am, get to the fight by 9:15 and then the party is done by 9:30 am.” Why? Because the mage has shot his load of spells already and/or the cleric, having healed the Fighter, has few or no spells left.
Now I think this is massively over-simplified, given my experience running the system, but I see where they are coming from.
So characters will now be able to do things on a ‘per’ basis, whether that’s per encounter, per hour or per day.
This way play is extended past the morning hours in whatever game world players find themselves in.
I just hope when they turn out the rules for the list of abilities governing what a mage can do per encounter, per hour and per day that they structure these so that spells can be cast to modify these abilities into different abilities (best way to create a spellmantle in 4E, if you ask me).
:)
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 03:12:54
|
Think about it - when they changed divine spells from 7 to 9 levels, it unified the magic system and made it better over all. Now they are simply taking it to the next level - how much simpler could it be then a 12th level mage casting 12th level spells?
Also, the bard has always been a 'weak' core class, so relagating it to PrC status could also be a good thing. It may prove to be a more viable option that way. In fact, going back to the 'core' classes, and having everything else be a PrC might be the ultimate way to go. You start out as a fighter, and around level three you choose a path to take . That sounds much more in keeping with realism - how many level 1 Paladins could there actually be? A person has to train at being a warrior for years first! Rules CAN be simple, and still reflect reality better; all it will take is a little fine-tuning.
So far, I have heard nothing that makes me want to hold my head and run around in circles screaming (well... there was that 4000th news clip of Paris Hilton).
Seriously, think of how the 'Eberron' crowd must feel! They're setting is only a few years old, and is MARRIED to the 3e rules. We get thet FIRST sourcebook, we get the Living Camapigns, which will generate more lore AND more interest. No longer will we feel like the 'second rate' setting - we are back on top, and that, my friends, is a GOOD thing.
Edit: I don't think Gnomes were a big part of Ed's original campaign, if I remember correctly. Weren't they retrofitted in when TSR bought the rights? That means getting rid of them is more along the lines of "getting back to basics". |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Aug 2007 19:26:53 |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 03:17:36
|
| Just in case anyone didn't know, the D&D choose-your-spells-ahead-of-time system is "Vancian" because it was lifted from the "Dying Earth" stories of the great sf and fantasy writer Jack Vance. And if you haven't read his stuff, you'll be doing yourself a great favor if you check it out. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 03:57:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Just in case anyone didn't know, the D&D choose-your-spells-ahead-of-time system is "Vancian" because it was lifted from the "Dying Earth" stories of the great sf and fantasy writer Jack Vance. And if you haven't read his stuff, you'll be doing yourself a great favor if you check it out.
I was rather surprised that some over at the boards that should not mention it did not know this.
Though are other sources that predate that indicate you needed to plan for spells you were to cast. Of course also predating Vance were spell casters that could tand to cast any spell needed at will, if not fatiged or otherwise distracted. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Na-Gang
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
348 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 08:00:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Seriously, think of how the 'Eberron' crowd must feel! They're setting is only a few years old, and is MARRIED to the 3e rules. We get thet FIRST sourcebook, we get the Living Camapigns, which will generate more lore AND more interest. No longer will we feel like the 'second rate' setting - we are back on top, and that, my friends, is a GOOD thing.
Absolutely! I had been worrying for some time that WotC were starting to sideline our beloved Realms, but now I'm ecstatic that 4e is pushing Faerun (et al.) forward rather than leaving it (them) behind. In fact I feel like Lliira and Sharess exploded in a festhall and showered me with their combined divinity. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 08:22:48
|
I remember there being old Dragon articles by Gygax that explained the decision the use the "Vancian" magic system rather than the Drawing-of-power version as this would heavily overpower the wizard.
Strangely it is one element of the game I never had that much problem with, even if it seems like it, with THAC0, is the most complained about elements of the game. Then again, it may be because I like Vance.
|
|
|
|
dern.whitecinder
Acolyte
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 14:32:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Edit: I don't think Gnomes were a big part of Ed's original campaign, if I remember correctly. Weren't they retrofitted in when TSR bought the rights? That means getting rid of them is more along the lines of "getting back to basics".
Ahhh, that brings back fond memories of a couple old Dark Sun campaigns.  |
Dern Whitecinder
ex-Sun Soul monk of Lathander, currently in hiding somewhere in the W. Heartlands |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 15:07:22
|
quote:
Seriously, think of how the 'Eberron' crowd must feel! They're setting is only a few years old, and is MARRIED to the 3e rules. We get thet FIRST sourcebook, we get the Living Camapigns, which will generate more lore AND more interest. No longer will we feel like the 'second rate' setting - we are back on top, and that, my friends, is a GOOD thing.
I never saw Eberron and the FR in competition with each other. Different taste for the palate, more like. Besides, Ebberon is a fixed setting, it's not going to advance in years anytime soon, so a new fluffy book isn't needed for them. It certainly is for the FR though, with the advancement of ten years! We need our lore. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 15:43:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Just in case anyone didn't know, the D&D choose-your-spells-ahead-of-time system is "Vancian" because it was lifted from the "Dying Earth" stories of the great sf and fantasy writer Jack Vance. And if you haven't read his stuff, you'll be doing yourself a great favor if you check it out.
I was rather surprised that some over at the boards that should not mention it did not know this.
Though are other sources that predate that indicate you needed to plan for spells you were to cast. Of course also predating Vance were spell casters that could tand to cast any spell needed at will, if not fatiged or otherwise distracted.
I knew that it related to Vance and that series of books, but, having not read the books (a recent acquisition of mine), I thought that Vancian referred to having spell levels, not the pre-load, fire-and-forget current method. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 18:16:43
|
| The strange thing is that I don't think I would see the link between the way magic functions in the Dying Earth stories and D&D if I didn't know it beforehand. There are a few likenesses, but the D&D version is as much a creature of its own to me. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 19:36:55
|
But you have to admit, the spell names are practically lifted word-for-word.
Ah, memories of the Excellent Prismatic Spray. 
Really, if you are a D&D afficionado, the books are a must. You can almost picture Gygax's mind a-whirl as he flipped through the pages.... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 20:51:50
|
<<There is lots of potetial for this type of creature to appear in Waterdeep. Wasn't there some kind of doubleganger sceme going on?
Doubleganger?? That sounds kinky, but then what isn't in Waterdeep. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Lysander
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 21:10:56
|
Long time no post (It's been a while. I know.)
A friend of mine pointed this out to me the other day, after the announcement: THIS IS NOT FOURTH EDITION (A)D&D. It's actually THIRD EDITION Hasbro Gaming System (Or, WoTC Gaming System) - with "3E" being 1st WoTC and 3.5 being 2nd WoTC. From all that I hear, which admittedly is sparse and incomplete, I may as well move back to TSR AD&D. If the changes are more akin to the TSR-internal changes (1st Ed -> 2nd Ed), or even the WoTC internal changes (the 3.x tinkerings) Then maybe I might consider changing. That can only be seen well after knowing what exactly is in the mix.
I have Monte Cook's _Arcana Unearthed_ and Ed Greenwood's _Castlemourn_, so I have my "alternate systems" for different races and classes. Axing gnomes and bards (as I've heard), if as rumored, don;t leave me feeling happy about it (then again, seeing the truly hideous "promo" video they put out with the Francophone narrator left me completely disgusted so I suppose this is an improvement) If they want to go "back to the basics", They can put out a 9 level progression in Magic-user, Thief, and Fighting-Man, and be done with it.
a footnote:
Since I haven't been keeping up with non-D&D settings.... what *is* Starwars Saga Edition, and/or how is it relevant? |
Lysander
Defender of the Second Edition
Moderator, Project Gemengan, Worlds of D&D |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 21:31:33
|
<<That would be around 120 dollars a year. I used to pay 80 dollars a year for the Dungeon <<and Dragon subscription, and actually, Paizo raised their cover price a few months back <<but wasn't able to stick around long enough to raise subscription rates.
I hear what you're saying Knight, and believe me I respect your opinion (you've really impressed me in what I've heard from you on these boards). Let me throw this out there though. I've bought dungeon magazine for the last 3 years religiously, even though I've only read 1 or 2 of them (woot, my last campaign I got to play and not dm,.... first time in forever, plus life got in the way). Shame on me for not reading them, but I recently stacked them up and decided I was going to check back through them just for the reading fun for the age of worms/savage tide stuff. Its really nice that I was able to not have to dig through some web site to gather all this, then turn around and print them out (at a significant cost) so that I don't have to read them while sitting at the computer.
What does wizards gain from all this? Well, they're not paying for shipping, they're not paying for printing, and they're raising the cost of "the magazines" at the same time. They're providing access to a game table, which from what I can see doesn't look all that special from a software standpoint, and access to a character creator. I've seen their ability to design character creator software in the past.... they didn't impress me, and I really have to question whether they'll be able to keep the character creator software up to date and not full of bugs. I can only hope they learned something from their interaction with codemonkey publishing. Also, if the electronic dungeon magazine comes with pre-made electronic game tables, that might make things a little more worth it.
Finally, is this $10 a month required for all my players if I want to run a game from the game table. I ask because over the last 2 years I've lost 2 of my gamers to moving after hurricane Katrina. There's also 2 more that moved years before that I think I could talk into joining something along these lines, just as a way to keep in touch. However, I don't see these same people paying $10 a month to have this access, as most of them rely on me to buy the class books etc... (their wives would kill them if they spent $50 to $100 a month on game materials like I do). If I'm the DM, could I have the ability to create say 6 "friend" accounts that gives them access to the character creator and the game table (and nothing else)?
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 22:03:22
|
<<My favorite (skewed) archetype has always been the subversion of the classic "wimpy robed <<wizard" trope. Who's to say that a wizard can't have started as a mercenary or a self-<<taught swordsman, or who picked up fencing after their apprenticeship?
Yeah, that was my main complaint when 3.0 came out was there wasn't a strongly viable way to make a fighter-mage. Secondarily was that there was no way to make a cleric-mage, cleric-thief, or mage-thief. You could make a relatively competent fighter-rogue under the base rules however. I would hope that from the get-go there would be some prestige classes geared towards people who take these very standard archetypes of D&D. After all, how many times has a bladesinger been portrayed in FR lore? Who doesn't think that a large portion of Azuth's higher level priests are mystic theurges (praising the god of magic while studying their arcane lore)? Who doesn't think that mask's priest's actually have ability to hide and move silently as good as many a lesser rogue? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 01:00:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Asgetrion - You say you HAVE a WoW account? Yet you do not like how much easier combat flows in a video game? I have an account too (three, actually), and I think moving in this direction may be a good idea, as long as the DON'T take away from the role-play element. That is the one shortcoming with Comp/Vid games - the redundant quests and 2D NPCs.
I love how easily combat (and action in general) flows in a console/computer game! However, like you noted, they are different kinds of experience, and I like to keep it that way - console or computer games cannot ever 'replace' Pen & Paper RPGs, and vice versa. Thus, why would I want to play a P&P RPG that is trying to steal the 'best parts' and simulate the action from these games? It simply cannot capture the experience and excitement the same way.
quote:
It seems the current iteration of the game is just to get to the 'final encounter', which usually takes up at least half the session. If you can show me a set of rules that will give me simple yet detailed combat, so that my players can move on to the next role-play encounter, then so much the better.
You put down WoW quite a bit in your post. yet you play... why? 
Actually, I did not mock WoW (which is a great game) but rather the game designers (and the marketing people) at WoTC, who seem to think that the next generation of RPGs should emulate console games and MMMORPGs as closely as possible ("People love them, so let's make D&D more like them! Take the best parts of the system and paste it on D20 and it will sell.").
Besides, on basis of what I've seen and heard about it, I don't see 4E enhancing (or encouraging) 'role-playing' in any way. They seem to be cutting the 'weak' classes and non-martial ('non-heroic') skills from the game, concentrating instead on emphasizing the importance of military strategies and tactical precision in these combat-heavy encounters. PHB will likely be filled with hundreds of 'ultra-cool' combat-oriented feats and abilities for all the classes, while DMG provides us the 'even cooler' terrain details and tactical modifier tables. 
quote:
If you take out all if its faults (the lack of human-controlled encounters), you have to admit the fighting is more exciting and the Graphics blow-away just about any art I've seen from WotC in a long time. Also, I think it will stimulate party-balance, not enforce it. As a WoW player, you should know that groups 'advertise' for certain classes to finish off their party, like "Need Healer", or "Need Tank". No one forces a group to be balanced, but you trying running an instance with a party of rogues! Its just common sense to balance your party; no-one makes you do it.
Actually, I think we have seen works from the cover artist in several Eberron books. And I have always found his style to be a bit too 'cartoon-like', or even childish, to my taste.
Fighting or combat-heavy encounters have never been the most important thing in my gaming group (occasionally, yes, but not during every session), so maybe you can understand why we are not applauding to learn about these changes. The way I see it, D&D is turning into a glorified board game with loose role-playing elements. I know that the rules or the system doesn't force you to *role-play* in any way, but they are thematically very important, not to mention that several Indie RPGs actually have in-built game mechanics to enhance the game's theme and encourage role-playing.
And we have had campaigns with no clerics, campaigns with no fighters, all-wizards campaigns, etcetera. We always had fun and found ways to survive, even if someone might have considered these groups to be 'unbalanced' in the purely tactical/strategic sense.
While I recognise that these concepts ('tank', 'healer' etc.) work very well in an online computer game, I'd prefer keeping them out of 'table talk' and RPG rules. Yes, I know that they are widely-recognised archetypes, but I still don't like them.
quote:
I will miss the bard, though, but who cares? Did anyone ever use 'bardic Knowledge'? How can you compare that with some of the other class's abilities?
Ummm... we did, in every session when someone was playing a bard. IMHO Bardic Knowledge was a cool class feature, because it enabled you to identify magical items (in a limited fashion, but still) and let you recall details about any interesting things that might come up during a session (such as rumours, names on a hand-out, etcetera).
quote:
As one person on the WotC boards put it - they are doing us a favor. If you have no intention of playing 4.0, then you need NEVER purchase another book again. 3e is done, and you can play until the end of time with what you have. One of the biggest complaints was the never-ending 3e books we needed to buy to keep up.
Now you don't have to spend anymore money.
And did someone force you to buy all those 3.X edition books?  We never kept up with the rules, since we are still playing 3.0 edition and it suits us just fine. We only bought the core rulebooks and then some that seemed particularly interesting or benefited our campaigns in some way (e.g. we don't own any of the splat books).
quote:
Besides, could anything ever be as bad as the ToT?
Something known as 'Spellplague'? |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 04:06:39
|
Well Met Darius,
I am on the fence, so to speak. I REALLY enjoy 3.5. It's mechanically sound, and with the right group of people doesn't need the mechanics, but they are there when they need to be. Anyhoo, I'd like to comment a bit within your post (sorry for cutting it all up, in advance).
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Ignoring Basic D&D, I’ve been thinking about what makes ‘A’D&D “D&D” from a mechanics point of view. I have come up with:
The Books
The dice: D20, D12, d10, d8, d6, d4 and the good ole’ percentile dice
The Abilities – Str, Dex, Int, Cha, Con, Wis – and the 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest) way of rolling up your characters
The Races – Elf, Gnome, Dwarf, Human, Halfling, and Half-Elf.
The core classes – including the controversial Paladin
The Alignments
Hit Points
The magic system – call it “Vancian” if you like
The d20 Combat System and Saving Throws.
Imagination & Role Playing
As I type, these are the iconic elements of AD&D that come to my mind. Others may have a different list and I'm sure I have missed some. I think if you mess too much with these elements, then you run the risk of turning D&D into something else. That doesn’t mean you can’t change them, it just means we have to be careful with any decisions we make to change them.
There is the perfect way to describe D&D's elements. The mission of a D&D Designer should reflect pretty much what you posted, although I'm sure there are others here who would like to add things, and that's okay! I tend to like a large number of settings and systems, so adding is okay to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
As it applies to 4th edition, I have read many things I like and others that bother me a bit (yet I retain an open mind). I will try to put my comments in the context of my list of iconic D&D concepts.
The Books
The Core Books are mainstays of D&D. Keep them high quality. Make sure there is great artwork in them. Edit them properly and thoroughly. A real book is vastly superior to an electronic version in every way, except weight. Try reading a book then try reading the same on a computer screen. The book is truly better. Online enhancements are great ideas but they shouldn’t replace the books they are enhancing. OK, maybe the books don't affect mechanics but referring to them on the fly is part of game play and the D&D experience. I think using a computer during gameplay could be a nice aid for the DM.
I like the books. I like to sit down before bed & digest something new before I go to sleep. The laptop at the table is only possible by one of our DM's, and it's good and bad at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The Dice
We need to keep the dice! No I haven't heard that they are getting rid of any or all of them. But they are iconic! Can you imagine playing D&D without them? Most D&D players I know are very proud of their dice collections.
Amen 
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The Abilities
I don’t see any need to change how the ability scores are rolled. 4d6 drop the lowest die has been a staple of the game. Leave a base points system for Online RPGs. Keep the dice for pen and paper!
I actually prefer the 28-32 point buy system in the DMG. It makes character generation even keel for all players. That's not to say I don't like to roll the dice either. It's all about which side of the screen I'm on. However, you are correct about the 4d6 drop the lowest method, it's a great way to make a character and is the one we ALL cut our collective teeth on (at least for D&D). BTW: Yes, my daddy was a gamer.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The Races
I really like all of the races. I left the half Orc off my “iconic” list but many players enjoy this race. The challenge in 4th Ed is to keep the races balanced. Evasion is a very powerful ability for example. Just letting any elf have it could be a little too much. If it was tied into level progression, however, and say an elf gained it at 10th level of whatever class he was, that might be a cool thing.
I think something like evasion in its current form should NOT be determined by race. 20-level "races" have been done, check out Spycraft 2.0 for inspiration. I've theorized that 4e was going to look a lot like SC 2.0, we'll just see. (If it does look like it, then I'm actually NOT worried about 4e at all... well maybe a little). As to the half-orc: I love half-orc Skalds (Barbarian/Bards), and I'd love to play one again (you hear that Knight!)
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The Core Classes
Fighter, Ranger, Rogue/Thief, Magic User, Cleric, Druid, Paladin. These all have a place in the game. The game should make room for Barbarian and Bard as well. They also fit into most cultures and settings.
I want to make a comment about the Paladin. I admit it – I love the paladin. I’m biased here. The paladin is the iconic knight in shining armor. It fits in most people’s thoughts of a medieval fantasy setting so IMHO it belongs in the D&D game. In pre 3rd Ed D&D, the paladin had to have a min Cha of 17. This made paladins hard to roll up and thus made them rare. Then you had to role play a Lawful Good alignment with penalties if you didn’t do so. The result was a character with many special abilities who was also challenging to play. It was much more than just playing a multi-player/hybrid fighter/cleric. To bring in the concept of non-lawful good paladins as PCs (which has been done since Dragon #106 and the anti-paladin (NPC) before that) bothers me. Forcing a paladin to be LG imposes a restriction for players to roleplay within. Misbehaving results in loss of powers. What is so hard about playing CG? LE? CE? N? To open the class up to other alignments doesn’t present the same sense of noble cause, discipline, and self sacrifice. I think that the divine champion PrC better represents chosen “warriors” of the different alignments and deities. Leave the paladin LG.
I like paladins, too. BUT I want the stand on the ground crusader AND the knight in shining armor on his noble steed. I hope they make that a choice in the new edition. On to the Bard: He's been considered weak by many people's accounts, but I don't think in the right party a Bard is a weakness. Matter of fact, I think the designers forgot that there are some classes that are there as ROLE-playing tools, rather than "I just killed my 3000th evil monster" classes. The bard has his place, so does the Barbarian. I hope that they keep them both. What worries me is that so many get upset by the fact that they "Can't have a +20 BAB/20th level Wizard/Barbarian (AT 20th level)" without the dreaded gestalt. I'm sorry, but the only BAB "fix" I'm thinking of involves spell targeting & Sorcerer base attack bonus.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The Alignments
Often controversial, D&D would not be D&D without the alignments. I think the game needs to do its best to help all players and DMs understand them.
Agreed. Lawful good is not equal to Lawful Stupid. Just like Chaotic Evil is not Chaotic Insane (although they borderline). They have a decent description in the PHB right now, but all too often it's misunderstood. I have seen more people confuse LN with LG than I'd care to say.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Hit Points
Many players hate the hit point system. “It’s too simple. It’s not detailed or realistic enough.” I think the Hit Point system is good. It’s simplicity speeds up game play and you always know what shape your character is in. A good DM can bring vivid description to combats and fill in the gaps where the Hit Point system is too generic. Keep Hit Points!
All in agreement here.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The ‘Vancian’ magic system
I have to admit that this week was the first time I ever heard of the term ‘Vancian’. It is definitely not a perfect system but I can understand why it was adopted for a game system: It is simple, it balances the game by limiting how much magic power spellcasting characters possess, and it speeds up game play.
“It speeds up game play? But I have to spend all that time preparing spells in advance” I hear many players exclaim. Yes it speeds up game play because right on your character sheet you have a list of what spells your character has prepared. You look at your list, see what spells you have left, and cast the “best” spell you have available for the given situation. Mark it off your list. Move on. It is good for novice players and it also makes for creative use of spells. My experience with “cast any spell my character knows” systems often ends up with players searching through the various books trying to find and decide what spell they should cast and taking an unreasonable amount of time doing so. A player interested in his spell casting character can make his list of prepared spells, and optimize it, outside of the game session. He need only tweak it here and there as the campaign and adventure needs arise. I don’t think this is too much to expect.
I agree about the vancian system, it is simple and makes it easier for novices to pick up. I have also been intrigued by other ideas, rampantly speculating (see 4e=SC2.0) the more I see (mostly lurking). Think about a wizard who doesn't need a 19 intelligence to cast a spell. Think about a spell point system (such as in UA, for example). Okay, this wizard with 14 intelligence has x spell points, but can only memorize up to 14 spells per day. That's right, spells memorized=intelligence score. Boom, 14 spells becomes awfully tricky at low levels, but at high levels it's a hard decision. Above all, this means that Vancian magic is still bowed to, but they are expanded to say the wizard can cast only a limited number of spells that must be prepared in advance. This makes those lower intelligence wizards possible again (same goes for Clerics & Sorcerers, too). I'm sick of one-trick ponies, and I don't believe that every high level wizard in existance is above a super-genius intellect. This applies also to the idea you presented to alter the magic system (obviously  )
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Ultimately I am very open to improving the magic system. I think a combination of the traditional D&D magic system and more open/free systems would be a good way to go.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
The d20 Combat System and Saving Throws
This is something that 3rd Edition did right. The introduction of the DC for ability checks, skills, saves and Armour Class was a great improvement over 1st and 2nd Ed D&D. The concept that a higher roll on the d20 was better than a low roll simplified things and eliminated any confusion – a low roll was good for ability checks, you wanted to roll high to Attacks or Saves. “What am I doing? Do I want to roll low or High?” 3rd edition really made a good change with this system. 4th Ed. should keep this going.
Thank you for stating this. There are some that say 3.x is a slow system, I believe it is only if you allow it to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
Imagination & Role Playing
When I first played D&D there was no board. The action was in our minds. We pretended to be our characters. Role Playing was always emphasized. Then we used our first miniatures. They helped to visualize some more complicated situations and combats. With 3.X edition, combat changed and has almost become more of a board game. You almost need to use a board and minis to do combat properly now.. at least by the letter of the combat rules. I think this has slowed the game down. D&D needs to find a happy medium between playing the game in your head and playing it on the table. Other than the DM perhaps deciding to only use minis for real complex encounters and combats, i think the main part of the game should take place in our imaginations.
Thank you again.
quote:
Originally posted by Darius Talynth
OK my post is more than long enough. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.
Cheers.
Yes, I read the whole thing. I actually agreed with most of it. Thank you very much for posting, and I hope I am found to be constructive and not a mule (well, I can't very well say the other word.
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 05:21:25
|
As with many things 4th Edition, I don't know if this is comforting or not, but according to some gleanings that some people have put together, instead of having a "complete" series, there is already a plan to have regular Player's Handbooks. If I understood what was being said, these will function as regular PH, but they will have different races and classes in them, so that even if a race or class doesn't make it in the "first cut" Player's Handbook, they may make the next Player's Handbook that comes out.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 05:40:24
|
| There already was talk of PHP2 in 2009 and PHB3 in 2010. I believe was WotC statement of plans, but not sure of that right now. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 05:53:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
There already was talk of PHP2 in 2009 and PHB3 in 2010. I believe was WotC statement of plans, but not sure of that right now.
That's correct. One per year, if the info James Wyatt gave out at the Seminar stays accurate. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Victor_ograygor
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1073 Posts |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 14:00:49
|
>>I just want to let you know that there is someone out there (me) who agrees with you on >>this. Heck, more people besides me, too. More on the point of NPCs not being "unimportant >>fodder", though, regardless of the way they are built.
>>The PCs aren't the be-all end-all of the setting.
Yeah, when the town innkeeper is a 7th lvl expert and the party is a group of 4th lvl jack asses who think they can push their way around town... wow, you've got the stats that would show that this guy actually could somewhat stand up to them (at least one of them, anyway). I never much liked the idea of the warrior class, but the others pretty much made sense. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 15:53:28
|
<<In fact I feel like Lliira and Sharess exploded in a festhall and showered me with their combined divinity.>>
Ok, that just put visions in my head.... shameful, dirty, filthy visions.... I like it. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 16:20:46
|
<<Greetings
<<I gathered some information on the future of Forgotten Realms but there are many spoilers <<in it, so I am not going to post them here. If you are interested in getting a little <<information on whats going to happen in 4E you just follow the link.
Hmm, I may need to catch up on all the drizzt books.
Spellplague... bah, I hope this doesn't turn into something like the ToT where they come in and wipe all the major players of the realms. I can see it now, the Shades do something that begins to unravel the weave using the shadow weave, which causes the spell plague and Mystra is now dying/dead. Maybe one of them uses shadow weave magic to try and recast Karsus' spell or somesuch. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Victor_ograygor
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1073 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 21:01:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
<<Greetings
<<I gathered some information on the future of Forgotten Realms but there are many spoilers <<in it, so I am not going to post them here. If you are interested in getting a little <<information on whats going to happen in 4E you just follow the link.
Hmm, I may need to catch up on all the drizzt books.
Spellplague... bah, I hope this doesn't turn into something like the ToT where they come in and wipe all the major players of the realms. I can see it now, the Shades do something that begins to unravel the weave using the shadow weave, which causes the spell plague and Mystra is now dying/dead. Maybe one of them uses shadow weave magic to try and recast Karsus' spell or somesuch.
Spellplague hmm.. yes .. I updated the link
|
Victor Ograygor The Assassin and Candel keeps cellar master
Everything I need to know about life I learned from killing smart people.
Links related to Forgotten Realms
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9571
Adventuring / Mercenary Companies / Orders / The chosen from official sources
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11047
Priests in Forgotten Realms.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9609&whichpage=1 |
|
|
|
Ardashir
Senior Scribe
USA
544 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 21:56:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But you have to admit, the spell names are practically lifted word-for-word.
Ah, memories of the Excellent Prismatic Spray.
Really, if you are a D&D afficionado, the books are a must. You can almost picture Gygax's mind a-whirl as he flipped through the pages....
Back when I finally got a copy of Vance's The Dying Earth, my eyes almost fell from their sockets when I read the spell names. I immediatly pulled my Player's Handbook out just to be sure of them.
Ah, those were the good old days. |
|
|
|
RodOdom
Senior Scribe
USA
509 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2007 : 19:02:09
|
I've just found out about 4E, and I briefly skimmed through this thread, including the Drizzt spoilers on the other site. IMHO, it's OK if they turn the clock way ahead so long as the new products are authentically Realmsian in feel, logical in evolution, full of history and culture not just numbers and plastic minis, and GOOD.
|
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2007 : 19:09:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
I've just found out about 4E, and I briefly skimmed through this thread, including the Drizzt spoilers on the other site. IMHO, it's OK if they turn the clock way ahead so long as the new products are authentically Realmsian in feel, logical in evolution, full of history and culture not just numbers and plastic minis, and GOOD.
Have you read Mike Mearls blog? Where he says that 4E relies less on a battlemap with minis than 3.x did ?
I'm so tired of "WoTC is the empire of evil" thing  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
