| Author |
 Topic  |
|
RodOdom
Senior Scribe
USA
509 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Aug 2007 : 22:53:33
|
| Well, maybe it's closer to a fief than an empire. ;) |
 |
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 00:47:25
|
| You know, if I knew all this was going to happen.. I would have read Orc King when I got my hands on the ARC instead of letting two of my friends read it first.. now I need to get it back and read it. :P |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 16:23:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
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 
They aren't?   
I somehow don't believe that 4E will rely on using less minis and battlemaps, since I think the new system is bringing D&D closer to being a wargame than a RPG. How can you even run the encounters in those 'incredibly detailed terrains' unless you use a precise tactical map? And all that talk about more 'closely defined' tactical roles each class will have in battle... don't you think D&D becomes more focused on 'battlefield strategies' using minis more than ever? |
"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 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 16:49:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
I somehow don't believe that 4E will rely on using less minis and battlemaps, since I think the new system is bringing D&D closer to being a wargame than a RPG. How can you even run the encounters in those 'incredibly detailed terrains' unless you use a precise tactical map? And all that talk about more 'closely defined' tactical roles each class will have in battle... don't you think D&D becomes more focused on 'battlefield strategies' using minis more than ever?
I'm not sure we read the same 4E news , because turning D&D into a wargame is clearly not what they are doing, quite the opposite. They are removing AOO, complex grapple rules and the like. The cinematic combat add-ons you are speaking of won't be handled like in a wargame with complex and "realistic" rules. Giving DMs some tools to spice up combats in D&D is certainly not a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 16:54:21
|
Hmm they are bringing back weapon types, which is war game.
They are bringing more clearly definded roles for each class, which is wargame like.
They promise more versitality in what a character can do, but all play tests and design reports focus on combat, IIRC, which lends to impression of war game. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 17:10:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hmm they are bringing back weapon types, which is war game.
They are bringing more clearly definded roles for each class, which is wargame like.
They promise more versitality in what a character can do, but all play tests and design reports focus on combat, IIRC, which lends to impression of war game.
By weapon types, if you are talking about how a fighter will specialize in a weapon and have specific abilities with that weapon, that's not wargame.
Classes and levels are the core of what D&D was and will always be. They are saying in a explicit way what was said in a implicit way for years, nothing really new there.
Wargame is about simulation, D&D 4E is going in the opposite direction, pure "gamism". For example, I'm sure they are dropping emcumberance rules.
If what you are really saying is "I don't like much to do combat every game session", I would answer : D&D is not a one-size-fit-all-RPG* and others RPG exists, some among them focusing less on combat.
*IMHO it doesn't exist. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 25 Aug 2007 17:21:34 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2007 : 18:15:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
By weapon types, if you are talking about how a fighter will specialize in a weapon and have specific abilities with that weapon, that's not wargame.
Weapon types are more realist and a wargame element. quote:
Classes and levels are the core of what D&D was and will always be. They are saying in a explicit way what was said in a implicit way for years, nothing really new there.
They so far are only define combat roles, have for types of combat people.
Defender, Striker, etc. a war game element. quote:
Wargame is about simulation, D&D 4E is going in the opposite direction, pure "gamism". For example, I'm sure they are dropping emcumberance rules.
I have seen no indication of this in the threads I am reading. All I have seen is character wealth will matter a lot less, which could translate into less things to carry.quote:
If what you are really saying is "I don't like much to do combat every game session", I would answer : D&D is not a one-size-fit-all-RPG* and others RPG exists, some among them focusing less on combat.
*IMHO it doesn't exist.
Hey I like combat, but the increased focus on combat only for experience points concerned me. I will grant the 2nd Ed. did not handle roleplay experience well, but instead of fixing that they got rid of it in 3ed. A fanrasy wargame is not the same is replaying the Civil War or any other battle, just because the equipment is different and the abilities are different. Star Trek had a wargame model put out using things that do not exist in RW, but that did not make it any less a war game.
All in all, however we have very little facts as to what 4th will be, yet the blogs indicate that skills might be changed from what they are now play testing. |
"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 |
Edited by - Kentinal on 26 Aug 2007 01:24:14 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 01:11:38
|
Maybe we really are in the minority when it comes to the desire to role-play...maybe most people would rather roll-play?
I just read through the two playtest diaries (or whatever those blasted things are called) and it was basically a retelling of combat, nothing else. Hell, there will always be some things someone will not like...the main thing for me being that I just made the step to 3.5 after long deliberating with myself. I'll stick to the system, because it works for me. It helps me solve my combats without much discussion (e.g. "What?! They are standing in the fireball's radius?" "Yes, the two are in melee!" "Well, then I won't cast fireball.") as for roleplaying, hell, I don't need dice for that.
Look at the world of darkness stuff, it's all about atmosphere, great for roleplaying, but did you ever do a battle with the storyteller system? The thing is this, combat is not the only thing going on in an RPG, but it is the source of the most discussion and whatnot, AND it is the one thing that needs to be discussed in detail because it really does not matter whether the armorsmith is left or right-handed, unless of course you want to torture him.
I won't make this step to 4e, because 3.5 is, if not perfect, at least usable. Plus I don't wanna spend another couple hundred € on another new set of rules.
As for the Realms... damned if I know. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 01:40:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Maybe we really are in the minority when it comes to the desire to role-play...maybe most people would rather roll-play?
My first reaction was to completly ignore this thread starting now.
But I'll try another time.. Mace please give me your defition of what roleplay is, we will start from there.
(My point being that if you like to "roleplay", 4E will be a better game than 3.x was) |
Edited by - Skeptic on 26 Aug 2007 01:42:39 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 01:51:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Weapon types are more realist and a wargame element.
Class-specific abilities gained at each level is not simulation/wargame, it's D&D.
Detailled rules about what kind of weapons works better agaisn't each armor, based on historical studies, is simulation/wargame.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hey I like combat, but the increased focus on combat only for experience points concerned me. I will grant the 2nd Ed. did not handle roleplay experience well, but instead of fixing that they got rid of it in 3ed.
I don't know if they will create "named" roles outside of combat. But we know that "social interaction" rules are included. (We will talk later of the old roll-play vs role-play). |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 03:57:33
|
I wonder if WoTC has thought of public libraries as customers at all, because Digital Initiative makes it pretty much impossible for libraries to subscribe to Dragon and Dungeon anymore.
As I understand it, the username and password are bought for personal use only, which prevents libraries from giving their users free access to these magazines. No library would be able to prevent their users from downloading and saving the magazines in digital format, even at home, which would violate the copyright law. Yes, it could be done if librarians themselves would log users in every time, but it would be a rather awkward solution. In addition to this, each library should have at least a single computer that does not allow to download or save any files reserved for DI users only (hardly a practical - or even affordable - solution for any library). And there is the moral point-of-view to consider, too, since libraries believe in free access to *ALL* documents in their 'active' collection (thus refusing to support a system like DI).
If I am not terribly wrong, all this will also apply to every 4E book that has additional ('unlockable') online content, but that depends largely on whether this content will be more like web-enhancements or actual ('missing') parts of the books. In the latter case, it'd mean that they'd have to lend incomplete books (for the same reasons as with Dragon and Dungeon) and I couldn't see that happening. This, too, would probably be seen by many libraries as 'restricted access to material' (morally wrong) and thus neither worth the investment or the trouble.
All other issues or obstacles aside, WoTC has already adopted the 'one-product-per-player' attitude, so I don't ever see them allowing free browsing of the books (or the magazines, for that matter) at public libraries.
One thing is certain - they *will* lose a lot of money if public libraries will not be either willing or able to subscribe to the magazines or buy the books. I don't know exact numbers, but my educated guess in dropped sales would be somewhere between 5000-50000 magazine subscriptions and probably about 100000-200000 core books. That'd make some millions of U.S. dollars, and even if they won't lose *any* customers from their current fan base, they still need to be *VERY* successful in marketing their upcoming products. |
"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 |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 26 Aug 2007 04:07:26 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 06:34:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
In addition to this, each library should have at least a single computer that does not allow to download or save any files reserved for DI users only (hardly a practical - or even affordable - solution for any library).
Not really. The right kind of policies could keep users from saving content to the hard drive -- and that's something you can set up in XP, I believe (I don't really play with group policies and such, myself). Only small files would fit on a floppy, and newer computers are shipping without floppy drives, anyway. Put in a regular CD-ROM and they can't burn the files to CD. And I recently wrote a batch file that was only three or four lines, but it nixed saving anything to USB (but left non-storage devices, like USB keyboards and mice, unaffected).
So keeping someone from saving the files can be done on just about any computer, in a matter of minutes. And if you've already got the hardware, which is likely (the machines we're getting at work now don't have floppy drives, and only the laptops can write to a CD or DVD), then it's not a factor, either. |
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! |
|
|
|
Lysander
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 09:20:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Now we can pair off against Alaundo or Sage in a tabletop game without the clunky play-by-post waiting that ruined several on-line groups I participated in over the past few years.
This would be the largest factor in accepting the online components. However, nearly all the other parts I can see this far from release date - especially the "pay monthly per online content" component - weighs against. One very big question would be whether the "online tabletop" (oxymoron alert! - Ed.) can work with houserules or not. If it can, they maybe Faolagan can get out of _The Earthen Bones._ If not, well, I do have the old PBP emails...
|
Lysander
Defender of the Second Edition
Moderator, Project Gemengan, Worlds of D&D |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 10:36:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
In addition to this, each library should have at least a single computer that does not allow to download or save any files reserved for DI users only (hardly a practical - or even affordable - solution for any library).
Not really. The right kind of policies could keep users from saving content to the hard drive -- and that's something you can set up in XP, I believe (I don't really play with group policies and such, myself). Only small files would fit on a floppy, and newer computers are shipping without floppy drives, anyway. Put in a regular CD-ROM and they can't burn the files to CD. And I recently wrote a batch file that was only three or four lines, but it nixed saving anything to USB (but left non-storage devices, like USB keyboards and mice, unaffected).
So keeping someone from saving the files can be done on just about any computer, in a matter of minutes. And if you've already got the hardware, which is likely (the machines we're getting at work now don't have floppy drives, and only the laptops can write to a CD or DVD), then it's not a factor, either.
Actually, my local library has the possibility to save files on USB on every computer, because it would be too 'harsh' to prohibit users from downloading attachments from e-mails, for example - not to mention that many people actually come to the library to write their job applications or CVs. Thus, from a practical point of view you would, in fact, need a separate computer that has no USB access or even the possibilty to download or save files (there may be smaller files that WoTC will put there).
Also consider the fact that if a library is paying for a magazine subscription, it'd be against their principal belifs not to offer a possibility to read it in digital format outside their normal 'internet computer booking' system (there is a separate computer at my local library for all those online newspaper databases, too). |
"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 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 10:54:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
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.
I'd hazard a guess that 'Anauroch' will reveal that last phrase to be exactly true, and the 'sundering' refers to Weave's 'unmaking' and 'rebirth' after some kind of Epic Shadow Magic ritual to swallow or destroy the Weave. A logical assumption would be that Mystra sacrifices herself to repair the Weave and the Shadow Weave will probably be completely destroyed and all its users will perish. Even if the Chosen of Mystra survive this 'unmaking', the Spellplague that will follow in its footsteps will kill them - just because too many people have voiced their dislike for Elminster and her "cronies" over at the boards-that-shall-not-be-named.  
This Spellplague will be used to explain away how all the spell-casting classes that don't make the cut (bards, for example) vanish from the Realms. I guess that rogues and rangers will be given some 'extra' skill points to spend on Perform and an obligation to enroll at the deserted bardic colleges so that music doesn't vanish from the Realms, too! |
"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 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 11:07:50
|
| Just curious, has it been revealed anything at all about the Spell plague except for the name? I have a bad feeling about this, but there is always a glimmer of hope. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 12:07:39
|
First of all, Sanishiver, I never said that I'd need complete stats for every 'non-heroic' NPC the PCs are going to meet (and please, please mind the language - this is supposed to be a civil discussion, after all).
What I said was that being a DM who likes to use a a lot of Commoners, Aristocrats and Experts as minor or major villains, I will be very disappointed if I cannot use a logical (mechanical/rules wise) way to stat them if needed in 4E anymore. I have used, for example, 5th level Expert Zhentarim spies and 1st level commoner Dragon Cult agents that my PCs have engaged in battle. Yes, I typically use 'shorthand' descriptions (e.g. "Innkeeper Thurl, N hm Exp7, Prof.(Innkeeper) +14, Diplomacy +11, Cha 15") in my notes, but I'd hate to start 'house-ruling' stats (HPs, Saves, BAB, etcetera) for every non-heroic member of the society in conflicts.
You yourself noted how you hated those 'house-ruled' canon NPC stats, but since AD&D handled NPCs just as poorly as I think 4E will, Ed (and the other FR designers) tried to come up with rather unique ways around this problem. Also note that 3.X edition enabled the designers to do away with these 'unique' NPC powers.
Of course, we could start using NPC villains or minions that have only 'heroic' class levels, but that'd be rather a step backward into those AD&D days, don't you think?
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
(My point being that if you like to "roleplay", 4E will be a better game than 3.x was)
Skeptic, I honestly think that although D&D 3.X edition was innovative in many ways, especially from a DM's point of view, it actually taught many people to 'roll-play' over 'role-play'. My gaming group never 'min-maxed' in AD&D, since there was really no way to do it (because your DM could also control the 'magic item flow' if he wanted to). When 3.X edition introduced a more variation in ability bonuses, a very detailed skills system, a huge number of feats, ever-more powerful prestige classes, and much more powerful spells (especially all those 'boosting' spells) and magical items - that's when all those Cleric(of Solonor)/Wizard/Templar/Arcane Archer or Cleric/Templar/Craftmaster/Hammer of Moradin builds began to appear at our table.
Sadly, DMs are as much to blame as the game products, since the 'official' line seemed to be that every monster and NPC should also have a 'power-up suite' to challenge the PCs more effectively. I can only speak from my own experience, but whenever we met a wizard, he sure as hell had (at least) Haste, Mage Armor, Shield, Cat's Grace and Endurance cast on him - even if the PCs had suprised him! So, we learned the harsh way to use 'boosts' on our characters too, and come up with ever more powerful and creative character builds to have more 'staying power' and 'oomph' in the game. *ONLY* when you felt "safe enough" you could actually focus on role-playing freely. At least, that's how we felt, and I believe this effect is generally known as 'turtling'. So, 3.X actually brought more powerful aspects of *gamism* into D&D.
Based upon what I have seen of this new and 'even more glorious' 4th Edition, I think it'll become even worse. It may not be a 'wargame' (in the true sense of the concept) but it sure as hell feels (to me) more like an evolved version of the D&D Miniature Game Rules ('clearly defined PC and Monster Stat Car... erm... roles' ;)  How will it enhance or encourage role-playing (as in 'character immersion') if they're gonna put more 'crunch' into the system? To actually encourage role-playing (*through the game mechanics*, as you suggested 4E will do) they should go the opposite way. I can hardly see adding Weapon Specific Combat Abilities or 16 new spells levels as being very good examples of that... |
"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 |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 26 Aug 2007 12:09:45 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 14:43:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
In addition to this, each library should have at least a single computer that does not allow to download or save any files reserved for DI users only (hardly a practical - or even affordable - solution for any library).
Not really. The right kind of policies could keep users from saving content to the hard drive -- and that's something you can set up in XP, I believe (I don't really play with group policies and such, myself). Only small files would fit on a floppy, and newer computers are shipping without floppy drives, anyway. Put in a regular CD-ROM and they can't burn the files to CD. And I recently wrote a batch file that was only three or four lines, but it nixed saving anything to USB (but left non-storage devices, like USB keyboards and mice, unaffected).
So keeping someone from saving the files can be done on just about any computer, in a matter of minutes. And if you've already got the hardware, which is likely (the machines we're getting at work now don't have floppy drives, and only the laptops can write to a CD or DVD), then it's not a factor, either.
Actually, my local library has the possibility to save files on USB on every computer, because it would be too 'harsh' to prohibit users from downloading attachments from e-mails, for example - not to mention that many people actually come to the library to write their job applications or CVs. Thus, from a practical point of view you would, in fact, need a separate computer that has no USB access or even the possibilty to download or save files (there may be smaller files that WoTC will put there).
Also consider the fact that if a library is paying for a magazine subscription, it'd be against their principal belifs not to offer a possibility to read it in digital format outside their normal 'internet computer booking' system (there is a separate computer at my local library for all those online newspaper databases, too).
Oh, I'm not arguing the way libraries are set up or their policies... I'm just saying that they could, if they wanted, leave people unable to save files, at no cost to the library. My point wasn't whether or not they would -- only that they could. |
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! |
|
|
|
RodOdom
Senior Scribe
USA
509 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 18:22:32
|
| Thinking about it more, I'm actually looking forward to (what I call) "FR 4". Cities and entire civilizations may have been lost along with countless riches. A new status quo among the gods. Epic wars that could have been fought between the Shade, the Red Wizards and the Zhents. Minor characters and groups that could have risen when the majors fell. New great secrets to replace the old ones that have been revealed (Rage of Dragons, Myth Drannor, etc.) New worlds to replace the somewhat derivative civilizations to the east, west and south of Faerun. If Ed and Wizards can do all that AND make it feel like the Realms we've come to know and love, it will be worth every dollar for me. |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 20:49:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
What I said was that being a DM who likes to use a a lot of Commoners, Aristocrats and Experts as minor or major villains, I will be very disappointed if I cannot use a logical (mechanical/rules wise) way to stat them if needed in 4E anymore. I have used, for example, 5th level Expert Zhentarim spies and 1st level commoner Dragon Cult agents that my PCs have engaged in battle. Yes, I typically use 'shorthand' descriptions (e.g. "Innkeeper Thurl, N hm Exp7, Prof.(Innkeeper) +14, Diplomacy +11, Cha 15") in my notes, but I'd hate to start 'house-ruling' stats (HPs, Saves, BAB, etcetera) for every non-heroic member of the society in conflicts.
Of course, we could start using NPC villains or minions that have only 'heroic' class levels, but that'd be rather a step backward into those AD&D days, don't you think?
I agree with you on this, maybe 90% of people in a world are from NPC classes, I found the addition of them to be one of the most sensible and useful introductions in 3.x. Just to check though, has it been confirmed somewhere that they won't be in the game at all, or just that they won't necessarily be there from the start?
I'm also not at all keen on the fact that it seems likely some of the core races and classes will be dropped. I'm sorry, but all of the bards and druids (to name two that are rumoured not to be making the initial cut) simply vanishing is utterly ridiculous. I know we might see them in a future PHB (which seems likely), but does that mean they either don't exist, or that any existing characters of that class will be given new levels? Or would, say, Storm still be listed as having bard class levels with a note saying that the class has yet to appear in print yet? That would at least be acceptable, but I'd much rather have all of the core classes and races from the current PHB available from the start. I don't see any of them as disposable really and those changes, if handled badly, would greatly annoy me in the way they affect the Realms.
4E has the potential to do some very good things, there are things that sound like sensible, positive changes, but there are also things I'm not so keen on. Whether I make the conversion remains to be seen, I'll certainly have a look, but I agree that the focus does seem to be moving towards a combat-focused game. I'm all for streamlining combat, but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of storytelling. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 21:10:39
|
It should go without saying NPCs will exist, perhaps as NM (Nirmal Man) again as a "monster" of a prior edition.
I do not see how Realms can torally remove clases, but the classes in Realms that do not become PCs will likely become NPC clases like the Drawf Cleric was in prior editions. After all Storm and the rest of the sisters are NPCs.
All in all we and even they do not know what the final list of classes will be from what I am seeing. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 21:17:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
What I said was that being a DM who likes to use a a lot of Commoners, Aristocrats and Experts as minor or major villains, I will be very disappointed if I cannot use a logical (mechanical/rules wise) way to stat them if needed in 4E anymore. I have used, for example, 5th level Expert Zhentarim spies and 1st level commoner Dragon Cult agents that my PCs have engaged in battle. Yes, I typically use 'shorthand' descriptions (e.g. "Innkeeper Thurl, N hm Exp7, Prof.(Innkeeper) +14, Diplomacy +11, Cha 15") in my notes, but I'd hate to start 'house-ruling' stats (HPs, Saves, BAB, etcetera) for every non-heroic member of the society in conflicts.
Of course, we could start using NPC villains or minions that have only 'heroic' class levels, but that'd be rather a step backward into those AD&D days, don't you think?
I agree with you on this, maybe 90% of people in a world are from NPC classes, I found the addition of them to be one of the most sensible and useful introductions in 3.x. Just to check though, has it been confirmed somewhere that they won't be in the game at all, or just that they won't necessarily be there from the start?
I'm also not at all keen on the fact that it seems likely some of the core races and classes will be dropped. I'm sorry, but all of the bards and druids (to name two that are rumoured not to be making the initial cut) simply vanishing is utterly ridiculous. I know we might see them in a future PHB (which seems likely), but does that mean they either don't exist, or that any existing characters of that class will be given new levels? Or would, say, Storm still be listed as having bard class levels with a note saying that the class has yet to appear in print yet? That would at least be acceptable, but I'd much rather have all of the core classes and races from the current PHB available from the start. I don't see any of them as disposable really and those changes, if handled badly, would greatly annoy me in the way they affect the Realms.
4E has the potential to do some very good things, there are things that sound like sensible, positive changes, but there are also things I'm not so keen on. Whether I make the conversion remains to be seen, I'll certainly have a look, but I agree that the focus does seem to be moving towards a combat-focused game. I'm all for streamlining combat, but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of storytelling.
I completely agree with all you said  , although I might be a bit more reserved in my attitude towards 4E. As for Storm, I suspect that she (and the other Chosen) will fall prey to the Spellplague, although this is only my speculation and not a confirmed fact. All the bards might perish, too, unless WoTC is going to include them in PHB II (in which case they only went into hiding until the Spellplague has passed ;). Or maybe all the bards will indeed be statted as Fighter/Rogues in 4E?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 21:27:03
|
One of them, WotC persons said if Bard did not make PHB1 they would be in PHB2 , at least as plans.
Plans rarely survive contact intact though, so indeed it is a wait and see. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 23:46:41
|
The way I see it is this. Both Gnomes and Bards have doubts about being in the PHB. However, they are rather important in the Realms, with one whole nation of them, Lantan, and one huge organisation based around them, the Harpers. They may not be in the PHB, but they may very well be in the FRCS. Hopefully!  |
|
|
|
Chosen of Moradin
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1120 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 00:59:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The way I see it is this. Both Gnomes and Bards have doubts about being in the PHB. However, they are rather important in the Realms, with one whole nation of them, Lantan, and one huge organisation based around them, the Harpers. They may not be in the PHB, but they may very well be in the FRCS. Hopefully!
Agree!
Probably they will appear in those FR Classes and Races books that George mentioned in the FR Seminar scroll...  |
Dwarf, DM, husband, and proud of this! :P
twitter: @yuripeixoto
Facebook: yuri.peixoto |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 01:13:11
|
I'm sure I read somewhere that there were only going to be eight classes in the PHB - given there are eleven currently, and there is speculation about this new Warlord class, that's potentially four that don't make the initial cut. I'm not sure if the number eight has been confirmed or merely rumour though.
Same with the races, I don't want to lose gnomes or any other race. If they have to bring in tieflings as a core race (which I have no real objection to), why does it have to be at something else's expense? And why not aasimar too?
As for the potential loss of the Chosen... don't get me started. Pandering to people who think they're overpowered munchkins and don't understand the reason for their existence is no reason to get rid of them. Having already lost two of my favourite characters recently in Khelben and Syluné (albeit handled pretty well), along with Halaster, I don't want to see wholesale changes of personnel. Granted, I like moving the timeline forward, though given the Realms *is* the people, killing off, or shuffling offstage some of the most well-loved characters seems a little weird. I have mixed feelings towards the ten year jump that's coming, it's a bit different and could be very interesting, but I don't like change for its own sake. The plus side is the ability to play in the past still remains, as does the option to ignore things you don't like, but I do like to see the place treated with the respect it deserves. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 01:30:34
|
Logan has comfirmed there will be 8 classes in PHB, not which they are.
Another spokesperson did leave open perhaps up to 11.
Playtest has a warlock in one game, warlord was presented at GenCom.
It appears possible Bard will might PHB if balanced enough.
All in all, things are very much still in design stage that I do not believe any from WotC can say with certaincy how many classes, or which they will be, will be in the PHB. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Darius Talynth
Acolyte
Canada
21 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 02:06:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
One of them, WotC persons said if Bard did not make PHB1 they would be in PHB2 , at least as plans.
Plans rarely survive contact intact though, so indeed it is a wait and see.
I personally don't think they should drop Bard as a class. The Bard, in some shape or form, has long been associated with a medieval fantasy setting. It is interesting though that in 1st Ed the way one became a bard was very similar to the prestige class concept that didn't really take form until 3rd ed.
I hope they keep the bard. It is a good role. A good class and the class itself emphasizes role playing. Save the Bard!
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 06:05:56
|
I heard a few rumors to the effect that we will see proffessions as well, similar to the old 'kits' from 2e. Some other system uses them curently (modern? Saga?), and they take into account how silly it is for a 3rd level adventurer to be a better blacksmith then a level one guy in some village who has been doing it for 50 years.
Since they seem to be moving away from fully stated PCs, perhaps professions will be the way to give them the skills they need?
And of course, PCs will have them as well, which will allow a person to take one particular skill far higher then normally allowed.
Has anyone else heard anything like this, or has anyone played in one of the two systems I mentioned so we can find out a little more about this? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 27 Aug 2007 06:07:52 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 06:19:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
I'm also not at all keen on the fact that it seems likely some of the core races and classes will be dropped. I'm sorry, but all of the bards and druids (to name two that are rumoured not to be making the initial cut) simply vanishing is utterly ridiculous.
To be quite honest, losing druids doesn't bother me. I came up in 2E, when druids had to be true neutral. And because of that, I tend to still think of them that way, even though 3E widened the alignment options for them. I just don't see much reason for a defender of a particular natural area to have to leave that area long enough for regular adventuring... I think druids are great as NPCs, just not as PCs. |
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! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
