Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition

[Rod Nunley]

Amazon just told me today that my book shipped. It says I should see it on or before the 10th of June. I sure hope it's sooner rather than later.

[DanLTaylor]

So... Who in the O.C. area would be interested in playing if there were a game put together?

[The Human Target]

So... Who in the O.C. area would be interested in playing if there were a game put together?

If by the OC you mean Ohio, Columbiana county then yes.

[DanLTaylor]

If by the OC you mean Ohio, Columbiana county then yes.

Orange County, CA

[justjeffery]

Tomorrow! I've got a list of people that I expect to see waiting at the door in the morning...

[The Human Target]

Orange County, CA

Don't call it that.

[J. R. Scherer]

Tomorrow! I've got a list of people that I expect to see waiting at the door in the morning...

Gotta appreciate all those folks willing to support their local gaming shop, despite the online deals that are available everywhere!


(I just got my confirmation from Amazon that my stuff has shipped.)

[Chris McCarver]

Have mine. :)

Comments to follow.

[Good & Evil]

Got the MM delivered today (it's niice) & the DMG supposed to show tomorrow (it's stuck with ups overnight 4hrs from here). The PHB hasn't shipped yet. I'll check it again tomorrow and if it hasnt gone out yet then I'll just snag it from my local gaming store.

[Zulithe]

I hate you all.

[Dave S.]

I don't like how they discourage you from dice rolling for your stats and prefer you use a standardized point system.

[The Human Target]

I don't love the point buy system they use, but I vastly prefer it to rolling for stats.

And I'm glad they ditched rolling for hps as well.

[TheTravis!]

And I'm glad they ditched rolling for hps as well.

What the fuck?

[Hock]

I don't like how they discourage you from dice rolling for your stats and prefer you use a standardized point system.

I actually like that.

[Dave S.]

I don't love the point buy system they use, but I vastly prefer it to rolling for stats.

And I'm glad they ditched rolling for hps as well.

Meh, it's nice to have a little randomness so that all characters don't turn out the same. Most Human rogues will have the same stats. Most Halfing thieves will have the same stats. Less individuality.

[TheTravis!]

Meh, it's nice to have a little randomness so that all characters don't turn out the same. Most Human rogues will have the same stats. Most Halfing thieves will have the same stats. Less individuality.

Plus, knowing the cats I have played with in the past, it's a license to metagame.

"I did 70 hit points of damage! You said he was 7th level! He's DEAD!"

[The Human Target]

What the fuck?

You gain fixed hps based on your class, unmodified by Con, at every level.

Thank Jesus.

[Busman]

Mine still hasn't shipped yet, I'm getting boned!

[The Human Target]

Meh, it's nice to have a little randomness so that all characters don't turn out the same. Most Human rogues will have the same stats. Most Halfing thieves will have the same stats. Less individuality.

Thats what feats, powers, skills, roleplay and flavor are for.

Characters being mechanically uneven isn't my idea of fun.


Plus, knowing the cats I have played with in the past, it's a license to metagame.

"I did 70 hit points of damage! You said he was 7th level! He's DEAD!"

Monsters and NPCs don't work like PCs so thats a non-issue.

And how much do player's in DnD games kill each other?

[TheTravis!]

You gain fixed hps based on your class, unmodified by Con, at every level.

Thank Jesus.

I think that's retarded.

[The Human Target]

I think that's retarded.

I think its fantastic game design, and a sign of WOtC listening to the majority of fans.

[J. R. Scherer]

Meh, it's nice to have a little randomness so that all characters don't turn out the same. Most Human rogues will have the same stats. Most Halfing thieves will have the same stats. Less individuality.

Same hit points is not the same as 'less individuality'.

I can't remember the last time my group rolled up anything characterwise (ability scores, hit points, etc.) It's not fun when you wind up with a much less effective character overall just because some bad dice rolls at character creation or when the character leveled up.

[The Human Target]

Same hit points is not the same as 'less individuality'.

I can't remember the last time my group rolled up anything characterwise (ability scores, hit points, etc.) It's not fun when you wind up with a much less effective character overall just because some bad dice rolls at character creation or when the character leveled up.

DnD isn't supposed to be fun I guess.

[TheTravis!]

DnD isn't supposed to be fun I guess.

:jackoff:

[The Human Target]

:jackoff:

Oh I'm kinda kidding.

But the fact just is that not rolling for ability scores and hp was a very common 3E houserule.

So they included it into the game.

If DnD was a grittier game I'd be fine with rolled HP.

But its not.

[J. R. Scherer]

Oh I'm kinda kidding.

But the fact just is that not rolling for ability scores and hp was a very common 3E houserule.

So they included it into the game.

If DnD was a grittier game I'd be fine with rolled HP.

But its not.

I see no need to roll for hit points even in 'gritty' games. If I want that play style I'm going to use something like GURPS or CoC and those use set values as well.

[J. R. Scherer]

:jackoff:

So what exactly is so retarded about it then?

[Hock]

I was looking through the keep on shadowfell thing, and I was reminded of something looking at some of the maps and such.

http://www.tritex-games.co.uk/images/logos-heroquestmain.jpg

[Zulithe]

fixed hit points is the norm now. is it really fair to roll for hit points? if you have two fighters, is it fair that one may roll a 10 and the other rolls a 2? that puts one at a huge disadvantage in combat, especially at lower levels. What's so fun about that? He's supposed to be a fighter! It is even possible he could roll a 1 (if the DM is strict and forces him to keep his 1) and the party wizard rolls the max on is roll of a 4. Does that make much sense? Not to me.

Also, you can still roll for stats. I've seen the player's handbook for 4e and it still provides rules for rolling as well as point-based stat generation. It is up to you and your DM to decide what method works best for your group.

Personally I more favor the point-based ability generation these days. It is still very flexible but makes all players more or less equal. Remember D&D Is first and foremost a game, designed to create fun for you and the other players. What is fun about another player having vastly superior abilities than you? I think everyone should start more or less on equal ground.

[Busman]

When did gamers turn into such a bunch of whiny bastards? Rolling stats is better because:
1) it creates an opportunity for a player to create something (roleplay) rather than starting the career of their character maximally efficiently.
2) it's faster
3) randomness is part of the game, D&D is not Universalis, it's not just story telling time; dealing with the outcome of random results can create some of the best parts of the game.

[PeteL]

When did gamers turn into such a bunch of whiny bastards? Rolling stats is better because:
1) it creates an opportunity for a player to create something (roleplay) rather than starting the career of their character maximally efficiently.
2) it's faster
3) randomness is part of the game, D&D is not Universalis, it's not just story telling time; dealing with the outcome of random results can create some of the best parts of the game.

Um, forever ago?

Creating a character, without randomness, is much more immersive than tossing a die. It also does not mean that said character will be made with maximum efficiency. A character can be created fairly and fresh without pushing every stat to the max.

It means that the player is allowing themselves to creates their own merits and flaws - a balance that can be created if the GM and the players are open to this.

Of course it could be abused and utlized as a means of creating a bastardly advanced starting character, but if that's the way a group wants to play, so be it.

Or, for that matter, rolling random stats aside (as opposed to creating attributes within a points allocation system) random starting hitpoints is stupid - for many of the reasons already mentioned.

Now, if you want to roll for HP, and your character has a maximum of 3 when the rest of the party has, say, 10 or more, it should be explained as to WHY.

Perhaps the character has been recently wounded, or suffers from some sort of condition which has weakened them.

Anything that would allow for some story behind the character.

For me, storytelling is key to the roleplaying experience and within this is where randomness becomes exciting.

Save the randomness for encounters and combat and attribute checks. I'd rather see a character botch a roll and attack a party memeber instead of a n ogre or fail a dex check and trip over their feet than roll of shitty HP stat.

[J. R. Scherer]

When did gamers turn into such a bunch of whiny bastards? Rolling stats is better because:
1) it creates an opportunity for a player to create something (roleplay) rather than starting the career of their character maximally efficiently.
2) it's faster
3) randomness is part of the game, D&D is not Universalis, it's not just story telling time; dealing with the outcome of random results can create some of the best parts of the game.

1) Sorry, but I'd rather roleplay a badass in D&D over roleplaying a putz. I should decide what sort of character I'm playing, not die rolls.

2) Say what? That's just plain dumb.

3) Randomness during gameplay is awesome. Randomness during character creation/advancement sucks.

[J. R. Scherer]

Penny Arcade/PvP Podcast Episode 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080606)

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/podcast_pa2TH.jpg

[DanLTaylor]

Even though I've got the set coming from Amazon next week, I broke down at hit the local Boarders this morning to pick up the Players Handbook.

I'll be at the bar pouring over it today. Leave a message.

[The Human Target]

I see no need to roll for hit points even in 'gritty' games. If I want that play style I'm going to use something like GURPS or CoC and those use set values as well.

In turht, I don't want to roll for HPs ever.

But in a gritty or realistic game, I find it tolerable if not enjoyable.

[The Human Target]

When did gamers turn into such a bunch of whiny bastards? Rolling stats is better because:
1) it creates an opportunity for a player to create something (roleplay) rather than starting the career of their character maximally efficiently.
2) it's faster
3) randomness is part of the game, D&D is not Universalis, it's not just story telling time; dealing with the outcome of random results can create some of the best parts of the game.

1) Point buy does not equal min maxing or any such thing. In fact, you're much more likely to start the game with lowish and not optimized stats in most point buy systems than you are with rolling systems.

2) No, its not. 4E has either a basic ability score set that anyone can choose to use, or point buy. One is faster than rolling, the other is at least as fast as all the character creation rolls I have ever seen if not faster. Have you never had people be forced to reroll their scores because they're all too low or too high? Or because they don't like them? Or because they want to use their gold speckled black d6s instead of their red and blue swirls dice?

3) Randomness is part of the game. But why should it be part of character creation? Should people be forced to play characters that are mechanically weaker than others or just aren't the kind of character they envisioned in their head? Is that fun, or balanced? If someone wants to play a character with a 6 STR then more power to them. But no one should be forced to because of rolls.

[The Human Target]

1) Sorry, but I'd rather roleplay a badass in D&D over roleplaying a putz. I should decide what sort of character I'm playing, not die rolls.

2) Say what? That's just plain dumb.

3) Randomness during gameplay is awesome. Randomness during character creation/advancement sucks.

You just got a +4 awesomesauce bonus to all Cha checks you make with me.


fixed hit points is the norm now. is it really fair to roll for hit points? if you have two fighters, is it fair that one may roll a 10 and the other rolls a 2? that puts one at a huge disadvantage in combat, especially at lower levels. What's so fun about that? He's supposed to be a fighter! It is even possible he could roll a 1 (if the DM is strict and forces him to keep his 1) and the party wizard rolls the max on is roll of a 4. Does that make much sense? Not to me.

Also, you can still roll for stats. I've seen the player's handbook for 4e and it still provides rules for rolling as well as point-based stat generation. It is up to you and your DM to decide what method works best for your group.

Personally I more favor the point-based ability generation these days. It is still very flexible but makes all players more or less equal. Remember D&D Is first and foremost a game, designed to create fun for you and the other players. What is fun about another player having vastly superior abilities than you? I think everyone should start more or less on equal ground.

You too.

[The Human Target]

Save the randomness for encounters and combat and attribute checks. I'd rather see a character botch a roll and attack a party memeber instead of a n ogre or fail a dex check and trip over their feet than roll of shitty HP stat.

That right there sums it up for me.

[Lab-Rat]

So..I stopped playing around 3.5. I use to hang out with a bunch of guys that played a lot. Moved to Austin and haven't played ever since. Honestly...I not even sure where my D&D books are (they may have been stolen by one of my former room mates...or it's possible they are either in a box in my closet...or at The Afroman's place...not sure.)

We tried to get a game going once before a few years back...but ultimately it died and we all forgot about it.

I'm listening to the PA/PVP Podcast thing for 4th Edition....and I kinda want to play again.

[J. R. Scherer]

In turht, I don't want to roll for HPs ever.

But in a gritty or realistic game, I find it tolerable if not enjoyable.

'Tuhrt' is a funny word.

[simon trent]

Friends are coming over tomorrow afternoon and we're playing until we pass out. Can't wait.

[Lab-Rat]

wow...I'm a little taken back about some people's reaction to 4th edition. I've mentioned to quite a few people that I want to play again an the first words out of their mouth are something along the lines of "I'm not playing 4th edition. fuck that. I will never play that shitty edition of D&D." to witch I then realize they, like me, haven't played it. I'm curious if they've even looked at any of the books. To me it just seems some people hate it cause it's a new edition of the game...not becaus of anything the game actually changes or does.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

wow...I'm a little taken back about some people's reaction to 4th edition. I've mentioned to quite a few people that I want to play again an the first words out of their mouth are something along the lines of "I'm not playing 4th edition. fuck that. I will never play that shitty edition of D&D." to witch I then realize they, like me, haven't played it. I'm curious if they've even looked at any of the books. To me it just seems some people hate it cause it's a new edition of the game...not becaus of anything the game actually changes or does.

Wait... are you saying that some fanboys are being reactionary little piss ants?!?!

That's freaking crazy talk right there.
:no:

[Busman]

I was strong!

I went by Barnes and Noble and flipped through the books and after much struggle put them back on the shelf and decided to wait until Amazon ships mine and I save the 50% on the books.

[J. R. Scherer]

I was strong!

I went by Barnes and Noble and flipped through the books and after much struggle put them back on the shelf and decided to wait until Amazon ships mine and I save the 50% on the books.

Same here. I was just at Borders and they have them on the shelves already. My copies won't arrive until Monday. :sad:

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Same here. I was just at Borders and they have them on the shelves already. My copies won't arrive until Monday. :sad:

I'm getting some freaky shit from Amazon about my order. They're saying that they won't be shipping until June 16 or so.
WTF?
Anybody else getting screwed by amazon?

I'm going to try to find a PHB tomorrow cause I'm supposed to be playing in a couple of weeks. I need to start reading and making characters now!
:-x

[The Hodag]

wow...I'm a little taken back about some people's reaction to 4th edition. I've mentioned to quite a few people that I want to play again an the first words out of their mouth are something along the lines of "I'm not playing 4th edition. fuck that. I will never play that shitty edition of D&D." to witch I then realize they, like me, haven't played it. I'm curious if they've even looked at any of the books. To me it just seems some people hate it cause it's a new edition of the game...not becaus of anything the game actually changes or does.

A fair number of people see it as a money-grab from Wizards of the Coast. They look at their shelves lined with hundreds of dollars of 3.0 and 3.5 - a system many were quite happy with - and I think the sheer weight of their investment precludes thinking clearly about a new edition. Good game or no, it feels "too soon."

[The Hodag]

Incidentally, the new books debuted at the shop I manage today to great success. So much so that, as stocked as we were, we added several boxes more to our daily order from our distributor (happily local, so we can pick 'em up same day) to make sure there was no chance of a run on the product over the weekend. Had lots and lots of people coming in this morning. And as a retailer who's listened to, sometimes endured, lots of dismissive talk of 4th Ed. over the last year, let me just say that it's heartening to see so many customers with nothing but enthusiasm for it.

Anyway, I've got my slipcased edition. I've never created a D&D character with anything but rolled stats, so my heart's with that "side" when it comes to character creation, but I think I might try out the buy-in for a change and just see how it goes.

[Busman]

Incidentally, the new books debuted at the shop I manage today to great success. So much so that, as stocked as we were, we added several boxes more to our daily order from our distributor (happily local, so we can pick 'em up same day) to make sure there was no chance of a run on the product over the weekend. Had lots and lots of people coming in this morning. And as a retailer who's listened to, sometimes endured, lots of dismissive talk of 4th Ed. over the last year, let me just say that it's heartening to see so many customers with nothing but enthusiasm for it.

I think 4e is another Snakes on the Plane, only in reverse. The internet and vocal minority just got it wrong. Sell out of the 1st printing, high ranking on Amazon, and great turn out at stores.

[Zulithe]

Argh. amazon still hasn't shipped to me. And get this... the order status page says it is supposed to ship Jun 6th... even though it been June 7th for more than 3 hours. What's going on, amazon? I know the demand has been high, but I pre-ordered 3 months ago >.<

[Dave S.]

I miss 2nd edition with it's crazy AC rules, and THAC0

[The Hodag]

I miss 2nd edition with it's crazy AC rules, and THAC0

Is that kind of like the longtime inmate who gets out of jail but goes crazy from the lack of structure?

:lol:

[Shawn_Kehoe]

A fair number of people see it as a money-grab from Wizards of the Coast. They look at their shelves lined with hundreds of dollars of 3.0 and 3.5 - a system many were quite happy with - and I think the sheer weight of their investment precludes thinking clearly about a new edition. Good game or no, it feels "too soon."

Yes, that was a big factor in many of my players' guarded reactions. But as DM, I've bought more books than the rest of them, so that defuses part of that argument :)

As I've pointed out to them: in our post-college state, the free time we spend on a weekly D&D game is far more valuable than the monetary cost of a new series of rulebooks. If 4th Edition enhances the experience we have during those hours we can spare, then it is a worthwhile investment.

[Busman]

Well, I just got the "you're boned" email from Amazon. My new estimated ship delivery is the 11th through 16th. And I pre-ordered 4 months ago. *sigh* Maybe I should have broken down and bought them at B&N or Borders or something.

[Shane W]

Well, I just got the "you're boned" email from Amazon. My new estimated ship delivery is the 11th through 16th. And I pre-ordered 4 months ago. *sigh* Maybe I should have broken down and bought them at B&N or Borders or something.

I ordered it Thursday and mine is already shipped. :D

[Busman]

I ordered it Thursday and mine is already shipped. :D

Wow. Ouch. How much did you pay?

[Shane W]

Wow. Ouch. How much did you pay?

$22.00 or so, well, it's just the player's handbook, so that may make a difference.

[Busman]

$22.00 or so, well, it's just the player's handbook, so that may make a difference.

Hmm, that could be, I ordered the core set. *sigh*

Guess it's karma for not supporting my FLGS. But, if I had an FLGS that even gave a 10% discount I may have purchased them there. But I can't justify spending twice as much just to support a business which is there to have me pay full retail no matter how much I support them.

[Shane W]

Hmm, that could be, I ordered the core set. *sigh*

Guess it's karma for not supporting my FLGS. But, if I had an FLGS that even gave a 10% discount I may have purchased them there. But I can't justify spending twice as much just to support a business which is there to have me pay full retail no matter how much I support them.

There's no reason to pay more than you have to, so you wait a couple of extra days, in the long run it's no big deal.

[Busman]

There's no reason to pay more than you have to, so you wait a couple of extra days, in the long run it's no big deal.

Yeah, that's how I'm taking it. Just wanted it for the weekend for some good reading. I guess it'll be next weekend.

[Dave S.]

I've heard the DM guide is mostly common-sense BS stuff, and not really a rule-book per se.

I wish DDI would get online, but that probably won't happen for months yet. I probably won't be able to play until it is.

[Rod Nunley]

I've heard the DM guide is mostly common-sense BS stuff, and not really a rule-book per se.

I wish DDI would get online, but that probably won't happen for months yet. I probably won't be able to play until it is.

So ... D&D Insider isn't online yet?

[Dave S.]

So ... D&D Insider isn't online yet?

Nope. all that they have is online issues of Dragon and Dungeon. They said they would have the rules compendium up, but don't even have that. No release date given for the stuff people actually care about, the character generator and the game table.

[Hock]

Nope. all that they have is online issues of Dragon and Dungeon. They said they would have the rules compendium up, but don't even have that. No release date given for the stuff people actually care about, the character generator and the game table.

and weren't they saying it was going to go live yesterday? Fuck off wizards of the coast.

[J. R. Scherer]

Nope. all that they have is online issues of Dragon and Dungeon. They said they would have the rules compendium up, but don't even have that. No release date given for the stuff people actually care about, the character generator and the game table.

They'll have it up when it's up. I'm not too worried about it. I was stoked for the 4th Ed Warforged article in Dragon.

[Dave S.]

They'll have it up when it's up. I'm not too worried about it. I was stoked for the 4th Ed Warforged article in Dragon.

Well glad it doesn't bother you. but seeing as I'll likely only be able to play online, the longer it takes, the more likely my interest will wane. My schedule will pick up, and I'll be less likely to devote time to it. Whereas if I had started now when my schedule is light, I'd be more likely to prioritize it and find time to keep playing when I got busy.

[Nick Hale]

Argh. amazon still hasn't shipped to me. And get this... the order status page says it is supposed to ship Jun 6th... even though it been June 7th for more than 3 hours. What's going on, amazon? I know the demand has been high, but I pre-ordered 3 months ago >.<

I'm in the same boat, I ordered in Janurary and my order is now listed as delivers June 16-July 1st... This is the second time this year that Amazon has fucked me on a preorder that I made forever ago so this is the last time I pre-order from them. I'll go elsewhere with my preorder business. Unfortunately no online retailers have copies avaliable and msot of them are showign the same sort of time frame... I'm going to Call my LCS and see if they have any copies and just go pick one up on the way in to work if they do tomorrow, if they don't i'll just leave my preorder with amazon for the price and wait it out. I do have digital copies of the books.

[Dave S.]

Arg. I want to play.

[The Human Target]

I've heard the DM guide is mostly common-sense BS stuff, and not really a rule-book per se.

I wish DDI would get online, but that probably won't happen for months yet. I probably won't be able to play until it is.

Its really helpful to people who have never played or ran DnD before.

[Busman]

It also has a small "module" in it. It's good creative juices material. I skimmed it at B&N the other day.

[TheTravis!]

I'll be curious to hear from those who get a chance to play - Does this game support or encourage role-playing at ALL? Or is it kill, fight, loot, raid?

[Chris McCarver]

I'll be curious to hear from those who get a chance to play - Does this game support or encourage role-playing at ALL? Or is it kill, fight, loot, raid?

I did find this one bit in the DMG a bit useful... mainly how to tailor a game for (or at least accommodate) specific player types (hack-n-slashers, powergamers, storytellers, etc.).

[J. R. Scherer]

I'll be curious to hear from those who get a chance to play - Does this game support or encourage role-playing at ALL? Or is it kill, fight, loot, raid?

I think this is the part where we give you one of these: :roll:

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I'll be curious to hear from those who get a chance to play - Does this game support or encourage role-playing at ALL? Or is it kill, fight, loot, raid?

I've just been running Keep on the Shadowfell so far, but I think the ruleset will accomodate this. Some good signs:

1) The return and re-emphasis of story-based XP awards. Sure, lots of us used them in 3.5, but mostly because we remembered them from AD&D.

2) The Skill Challenges have a lot of potential. If you're not worried about spoiling Keep on the Shadowfell, go look up the optional skill challenge article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080522b). It lists multiple skills that the PCs can use to thwart the villain's plans during the final battle.

It's a hell of a lot more versatile than the old "Roll diplomacy to determine NPC attitude" system.

I'll have more feedback in a week or so ... now that my party has TPKed in Keep, I'm gonna start my own adventures beginning next weekend.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

Its really helpful to people who have never played or ran DnD before.

Sure. AND it gives us old-timers an insight into 4th edition rules changes and why they were made ... always a good idea to read the DMG before house-ruling the game to 3.75.

[TheTravis!]

I think this is the part where we give you one of these: :roll:

Yeah. But you're a miserable little sycophant to this new edition who is unwilling to entertain ANY potential criticism.

I'm asking a legitimate question. The only stuff I am seeing about the new edition is the mechanics and the hack and slash shit. I'm wanting the early adopters to talk to me about the role-playing aspects of the game in practice.

So cram your :roll: up your ass.

[TheTravis!]

I've just been running Keep on the Shadowfell so far, but I think the ruleset will accomodate this. Some good signs:

1) The return and re-emphasis of story-based XP awards. Sure, lots of us used them in 3.5, but mostly because we remembered them from AD&D.

2) The Skill Challenges have a lot of potential. If you're not worried about spoiling Keep on the Shadowfell, go look up the optional skill challenge article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080522b). It lists multiple skills that the PCs can use to thwart the villain's plans during the final battle.

It's a hell of a lot more versatile than the old "Roll diplomacy to determine NPC attitude" system.

I'll have more feedback in a week or so ... now that my party has TPKed in Keep, I'm gonna start my own adventures beginning next weekend.

Keep me posted, if you would, on how it develops.

[Busman]

Yeah. But you're a miserable little sycophant to this new edition who is unwilling to entertain ANY potential criticism.

I'm asking a legitimate question. The only stuff I am seeing about the new edition is the mechanics and the hack and slash shit. I'm want the early adopters to talk to me about the role-playing aspects of the game in practice.

So cram your :roll: up your ass.

It may be a legitimate question, but it was so loaded that it didn't really seem worth trying to answer with an earnest attempt. From that and previous posts of yours, you're looking for confirmation of your already held belief that 4e is what you think it is.

There are many things that are better for roleplaying than 3e. It's whole fabric brings a more roleplaying attitude to the table.

Some quick roleplaying examples:
- Ability Checks
- DMG pg 42
- Minions
- The restructuring of The Great Wheel
- Story based XP

But mostly, as I already said, it's the attitude of the books, the designers, etc in nearly everything you read.

It's not 3e (or 2e or 1e or 0e for that matter), but it is a fantasy roleplaying game and it has a really fun combat system at it's core as well.

[J. R. Scherer]

Yeah. But you're a miserable little sycophant to this new edition who is unwilling to entertain ANY potential criticism.

I'm asking a legitimate question. The only stuff I am seeing about the new edition is the mechanics and the hack and slash shit. I'm wanting the early adopters to talk to me about the role-playing aspects of the game in practice.

So cram your :roll: up your ass.

You're such a hypocritical ass. I guess you've missed my posts where I said I wasn't pleased with how this new system practically forces you to use minis what with so many abilities forcing movement and so on. You've been against the idea of a new edition from day one and regularly pounce on any excuse to trash it.

The core rulebooks for 3rd and 3.5 edition that you're so keen on all focus primarily on combat and rewards of combat as well. The roleplaying aspects of D&D have always been what individual players bring to the table themselves since the game was invented.

[TheTravis!]

It may be a legitimate question, but it was so loaded that it didn't really seem worth trying to answer with an earnest attempt. From that and previous posts of yours, you're looking for confirmation of your already held belief that 4e is what you think it is.

Not really. I'm looking for confirmation that it ISN'T what I think it is. I'm incredibly jealous of everyone who is gearing up for this new edition and starting new campaigns, and pouring over the web for new factoids about the game. If my question comes off as loaded, it's not intended as such.

[TheTravis!]

I did find this one bit in the DMG a bit useful... mainly how to tailor a game for (or at least accommodate) specific player types (hack-n-slashers, powergamers, storytellers, etc.).

That's exactly what I am interested in. It's the storyteller types in my current gaming group who are the most vocally against the new edition. If there is a way to really gear the game towards their strengths, that would go a long way towards any eventual transition.

[Busman]

That's exactly what I am interested in. It's the storyteller types in my current gaming group who are the most vocally against the new edition. If there is a way to really gear the game towards their strengths, that would go a long way towards any eventual transition.

I've only had minimal play experience (1 session at my local con), but it felt just as able to accommodate roleplaying/story-telling as any previous edition and maybe a bit more than 3e.

I, personally, found 3e to be the most constrictive for roleplaying. It's focus on the rules, the rules, the rules distracted from just playing/roleplaying the game that it sucked the fun out of playing to me.

Drop by your local B&N or Borders or whatever and go skim the DMG (or the internet if you've got that in your blood and the savvy to find it).

The PHB is the core book about the rules. The MM has all the beasties, and the DMG is more about the flavor of the game. Interestingly enough, this is very much like the original white box.

[TheTravis!]

I've only had minimal play experience (1 session at my local con), but it felt just as able to accommodate roleplaying/story-telling as any previous edition and maybe a bit more than 3e.

I, personally, found 3e to be the most constrictive for roleplaying. It's focus on the rules, the rules, the rules distracted from just playing/roleplaying the game that it sucked the fun out of playing to me.

That's so strange to me. A lot of people have said that, and I really felt the exact opposite. I felt that after 2nd edition, 3.0 and 3.5 opened up a lot of possibilities to do whatever you wanted with your character.

[Nick Hale]

Alright I take back my rant about Amazon from earlier, they shipped my books today apparently.

Edit: This post got a little longer than I expected, sorry about that, feel free to ask any questions you may have and I'll do my best to answer. :)

In addition, I got a chance to run my first session of Keep on the Shadowfell yesterday. For the most part everyone liked it, the guy I've been saying is skeptical of 4e a chance actually made a Warlord and gave it a shot, I think he enjoyed it for the most part but he said he still wasn't a big fan.

The party was made of 6 characters, 2 people using pregen's from the adventure; the other 4 made characters themselves. We had a Human Warlord, Dwarf Fighter, Tiefling Warlock, and Dragonborn Mage as the 4 created characters, the two pregens being used were the Halfling Rogue and Dragonborn Paladin.

The biggest surprise I think everyone that I play with had was that combat was a bit more difficult now. They are used to the Kobolds from 3e with next to no HP that are easy to plow through, the kobolds all had more hp than the players for the most part (other than minions of course). That did extend the fights some but it also lead to more interesting battles in my opinion, much more tactical for everyone involved, combat is definitely much more fun in my opinion and the players were, at first level, doing different stuff every round and it was impressive. The way different classes play off each other was awesome.

They did struggle in some of the fights, however alot of that was due to rolling, the Warlords player wasn't rolling well most of the night and in a few of the fights I was rolling high almost every single roll.

Roleplaying wise I gotta say that there are alot of possibilities there, and there was some fun roleplaying that went on, our wizard's player is basically playing him as way unstable and kinda crazy... amongst the party themselves he was basically batshit insane half the time, when talking to npcs he was stately and very intelligent which made all of the other charcaters completely confused and was really funny. As a whole my group tends to be really light and not super serious so I expected as much. Unfortunately there wasn't a whole lot of Roleplaying though, that has more to do with the group than the system, they do tend to enjoy combat more but they did seem to be enjoying the combat alot.

As for the module itself, I'm going to hide the next part in Spoiler tags for anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled:

I had already planned on my campeign being centered around a small city that I made, so I had all of my players be from that city, I went with the Missing Mentor hook to get things started, and made Douven a personality from the town they are from, I also used the modified version of it being his wife that was sending them on the adventure, it was a simple and easy way to hook them in, and I offered them a 75 gold reward for completing the quest, this probably goes outside the bounds of what treasure they should have got but i'm not overly worried as that isn't alot split amongst 6 players.

The first fight went fairly well, though it was a learning experience for all of us the rules are close enough to the previous edition, and the changes are straight forward enough that it wasn't a big deal to learn. At first they thought the kobolds were all the same, as they cut down the minions in the first wave of the fight quick, then the others appeared. Kobolds that didn't go down in a couple of hits was a bit of a shock for them, they had mostly charged north except for the warlock, who suddenly found himseld surrounded by two dragonshields.

Winterhaven itself was pretty straight forward, though they didn't inquire at all about the kobolds so didn't learn about the main camp.

They decided to go the the dragon burial site, and the second kobold ambush really hurt them bad. Because of the way they positioned themselves the warlock was literally right in line of fire of the skirmisher, wyrmpriest and dragonshield to the north and was cut down FAST, the tanks were both to the south end of the road and coudln't get to him quick enough because of the two dragonshields being on top of them. This was the primary fight wehre the rolls were against the players, they kept rolling low and I kept rolling high, I wasn't using a Screen, so I couldn't fudge it to save anyone.

They went back to town after this to rest and learned that the kobold attacks are normal and got the quest to hunt them down. They actualyl chose to do the burial site first however, expecting the kobolds to be a tough fight or at least alot of monsters.

The burial site was a fun fight for everyone, the PCs basically mopped up as my rolls went south fast, though the Agrid the Gnome freaked them out when he went invis after getting hit, he circled around and went after the warlock, who had seperated himself. At this point someone else was playing the character as the guy who started playing the warlock had to leave, thats a whole other story though, but it was nothing bad, just timing issues.

They went on from the Burial site to the Kobold layer, the rogue scouted out pretty well and they got a layout of the number of kobolds there, after seeing the number they expected this was the main fight. I only used half of the map at first so they didn't realize they would be through the waterfall. The wizard immediatly used his Daily power, which was flaming sphere, and he and the fighter learned a new trick, get minions to circle the fighter and then roll the flaming sphere in. That makes for instant minion death on a massive scale. They mopped up the kobolds quick and just barely got the slinger before he got inside the waterfall and after everything was dead outside they decided not to rest and just continue the encounter inside.

This was an epic battle in every sense of the term. They tore through the minions fairly quickly. But when the second wave came out things got crazy. I was basically running three battles at this point; Irontooth and one of the Dragonshields working together to hold a flank on one character or another to the north part of the map against the rogue, fighter and warlord; the paladin, wizard and warlock fighting the rest, the Paladin got beat up on pretty bad but his ability to keep the melee monsters beside him was pretty impressive, eventually the rogue came in to help him out while the fighter and warlord finished off Irontooth.

The Wyrmpriest and one of the dragonshields (the one originally working with Irontooth) ended up working against the two casters as they got in behind everyone else. The Wizard had to run because he got beat up by a skirmisher pretty bad leaving the warlock basicalyl alone to fend off both the dragonshield and the wyrmpriest. The warlock went down again and failed his first two saves. I may not have the death and dying rules down yet as things arn't described overly well in the quick play rules, but he was saved by the warlord at the last second.

Irontooth was a surprise to me, 106HP was alot, he doesn't do much damage though until he gets bloodied. I hadn't acctually noticed that this was a Level 6 encounter with level 1 characters until after the fight began, they made it through it but it was a challenge and in my opinion a much more rewarding fight than most that I've seen in 3rd games based solely on the fact that they really really had to fight hard to win, my experience with 3rd is that either fights are really easy or multiple people die, it seems to be alot easier
to make these challenging fights now but make them doable.

they were all just a bit off level, like 200xp, and because it was technically a quest that they got from an NPC (Paidrag) to wipe out the cave I went ahead and gave it to them to get them all to level 2.


Overall after the game yesterday I can't wait to get back to the table and run the rest of the module and see what happens with them. I also can't wait to get my actual books, I want to sit down and learn the full rules better so I can make sure I'm doing everything right. If anyone has any questions about how things went in any part of the first 3rd or so of the module let me know.

[Busman]

3.0 and 3.5 opened up a lot of possibilities to do whatever you wanted with your character

I totally agree with this. The rules options for the characters in 3e was WIDE open. You could make your character into anything, rules wise. But, I don't know that this makes things more roleplayable.

I'm a believer that people need limits to be really creative. Give someone a snap-on truck filled with tools and they get so caught up in picking the right tool for the job that they lose track of the job in the first place; give that same person just a screwdriver, saw, and hammer and they'll start improvising when those three tools aren't just exactly what is needed.

3e is the snap-on truck for me, same with the maroon books for 2e and even the skills and options for 1e. But, my experience is just that people spend so much time not-playing 3e. It's about making the perfect character. Or the DM making the perfect monster build, etc. I know many people who just spend hours and hours and hours not playing but futzing.

4e is not 0e (my preferred edition) for it's simplicity and ease of play, but it's a step back from the study of D&D that it feels to me that 3e was, and seems more about just getting down and playing. The reports from DMs I've read who have prepped 4e play sessions was amazing: things like 30 mins of prep work for hours of play, for a brand new group, etc.

Now I just need a regular group to play with.

EDIT: Apparently counting to three is beyond my normal abilities.

[Hock]

I need to find a group to play with. And one that will put up with my antics.

[Nick Hale]

I totally agree with this. The rules options for the characters in 3e was WIDE open. You could make your character into anything, rules wise. But, I don't know that this makes things more roleplayable.

I'm a believer that people need limits to be really creative. Give someone a snap-on truck filled with tools and they get so caught up in picking the right tool for the job that they lose track of the job in the first place; give that same person just a screwdriver, saw, and hammer and they'll start improvising when those two tools aren't just exactly what is needed.

3e is the snap-on truck for me, same with the maroon books for 2e and even the skills and options for 1e. But, my experience is just that people spend so much time not-playing 3e. It's about making the perfect character. Or the DM making the perfect monster build, etc. I know many people who just spend hours and hours and hours not playing but futzing.

4e is not 0e (my preferred edition) for it's simplicity and ease of play, but it's a step back from the study of D&D that it feels to me that 3e was, and seems more about just getting down and playing. The reports from DMs I've read who have prepped 4e play sessions was amazing: things like 30 mins of prep work for hours of play, for a brand new group, etc.

Now I just need a regular group to play with.

I agree with you pretty much entirely on this, I enjoy the hell out of 3.5 which is what my crew normally plays and we'll be continuing our 3.5 game for some time I think. But honestly when you boil it down, 3.5 is a game about tweaking things out to find the best possible builds 90% of the time for both player's and the DM.

I've heard alot of people say that 4e takes away alot of your choices and you can't make as diverse characters so this hurts roleplaying choices. I feel the exact opposite, sure craft skills, profession skills, and that sort of thing are no longer there, BUT, now you can just say your character is skilled in that type of area, and a GM will probably help you make it happen. In 3.5 making a character that was good with social abilities, or other things alot of times will hurt you when it comes to combat situations and normal situations. In 4e thats all gone for the most part as every characters abilities make them viable in combat no matter how crazy they go with their build, from what I can tell it's nearly impossible to make a really weak build. That goes for combat or outside of combat.

[Nick Hale]

I need to find a group to play with. And one that will put up with my antics.

Like I said, when DDI comes up you're welcome to play, and if you read my previous post you can see that Antics are something I'm entirely used to. I enjoy groups that make me laugh alot.

[The Hodag]

I need to find a group to play with. And one that will put up with my antics.

What're your antics?

[Hock]

What're your antics?

okay, here are a couple of exams from the last campaign I played. Luckily I had a very understanding DM who could go with the unexpected.

During the campaign our main opponents were this crazy cult . their fighters were a pain in the ass to kill, they were basically ninja's. Not very high HP, but they could move like a mutherfucker and even if you got next to them or had ranged attacks they were a pain in the ass to kill. During the course of the campaign we learned that this crazy cult honoured their dead to a insane degree. So one time 10 of them attacked us, and after we managed to kill one, my turn came around, and I moved beside the corpse, and urinated on it. Because hey, if these guys have so much repect for their dead, what are they going to do when I disrespect them like that. My DM decided that they would go crazy and they all attacked me.

Another time, in the same campaign, we had to gain access to a big office complex for the corporation that was acting as a front for the cult. (we were playing a GURPS game, but it was similar in tone to shadowrun) And we learned that the guy who designed the complex had quit the corporation, and that he might know of a back way into the complex. So my party goes off to talk to the guy, and they completely fuck up the diplomatic approach to getting the information that the DM had set up. and the DM basicall thought that if we fucked that up, we'd have to go in through the front door. I decided instead to tie the guy to a chair and torture him for the information.

[J. R. Scherer]

okay, here are a couple of exams from the last campaign I played. Luckily I had a very understanding DM who could go with the unexpected.

Sounds like pretty standard antics to me. That's the kind of stuff that's expected from everyone in my group.

[Hock]

Sounds like pretty standard antics to me. That's the kind of stuff that's expected from everyone in my group.

Really? because I've played with 4 DM's in my time. And all but one would get pissed off at me if I did something like that that they hadn't planned for. Maybe I've just had bad DM's?

[The Hodag]

okay, here are a couple of exams from the last campaign I played. Luckily I had a very understanding DM who could go with the unexpected.

During the campaign our main opponents were this crazy cult . their fighters were a pain in the ass to kill, they were basically ninja's. Not very high HP, but they could move like a mutherfucker and even if you got next to them or had ranged attacks they were a pain in the ass to kill. During the course of the campaign we learned that this crazy cult honoured their dead to a insane degree. So one time 10 of them attacked us, and after we managed to kill one, my turn came around, and I moved beside the corpse, and urinated on it. Because hey, if these guys have so much repect for their dead, what are they going to do when I disrespect them like that. My DM decided that they would go crazy and they all attacked me.

This seems within reason if it fit your character. I can see being a bit flustered by it if I was GM'ing and trying to run a more classic "heroic fantasy" game because it's a sort of lowbrow move. In a Warhammer Fantasy game? Par for the course. For D&D? Maybe a bit much. But it depends on the game's tone, your character, etc.


Another time, in the same campaign, we had to gain access to a big office complex for the corporation that was acting as a front for the cult. (we were playing a GURPS game, but it was similar in tone to shadowrun) And we learned that the guy who designed the complex had quit the corporation, and that he might know of a back way into the complex. So my party goes off to talk to the guy, and they completely fuck up the diplomatic approach to getting the information that the DM had set up. and the DM basicall thought that if we fucked that up, we'd have to go in through the front door. I decided instead to tie the guy to a chair and torture him for the information.

I'm never big on torture in RPGs if I can avoid it. The threat of? Sure. Actual torture? Kinda kills the fantasy for me as the ultimate example of players giving into their most base natures. It's so rare in fictional stories for the heroes to do it that it's just irksome in an RPG.

But even there, it depends on the game. In a dark, cyberpunk future? Maybe.

[The Hodag]

Really? because I've played with 4 DM's in my time. And all but one would get pissed off at me if I did something like that that they hadn't planned for. Maybe I've just had bad DM's?

DMs definitely need to learn how to roll with surprises.

On the other hand, no one like a persistant rabble rouser. It can be obnoxious.

I'm actually just about to start playing in a 4th Ed game and was listening to one of the other guys talk to the DM. He was kind of joking around, talking about how he loves to annoy the other players with crazy shit, and I'm thinking, "Don't you fuck with my first 4th Ed. game." :mad:

[The Hodag]

Need a little hand here.

I'm working up my first 4th Ed. character and, maybe because it's late and I'm tired, maybe because I'm just sort of dumb, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to fill out the Attack and Damage sections of the character sheet. The seem non-intuitive and clunky.

Are there any scans anywhere of filled-out sheets? I'd be interested to see some sample characters.

Which reminds me: I'd dig hearing about everyone's first new characters. Stats, power choices, history write-ups, all that.

[Hock]

DMs definitely need to learn how to roll with surprises.

On the other hand, no one like a persistant rabble rouser. It can be obnoxious.

I'm actually just about to start playing in a 4th Ed game and was listening to one of the other guys talk to the DM. He was kind of joking around, talking about how he loves to annoy the other players with crazy shit, and I'm thinking, "Don't you fuck with my first 4th Ed. game." :mad:

Well If I was constantly doing shit like that and not talking it seriously I could understand DM's getting pissed. But I make sure it fits in with my characters personality (for the examples image someone like Jayne from Firefly), fits with the tone of the game, and I only do it occasionally.

For an example of actions that's aren't quite so crude, and where the DM got pissed. Medieval Fantasy setting, My character was a Palladin, lawfull, chivalrous, godly, all that jazz. Our group gets framed for murder and were about to get tossed in prison awaiting trial. The DM describes the lord about to toss us in the slammer as an honourable godly man. So I request trial by combat. DM flips out.

[Hock]

Need a little hand here.

I'm working up my first 4th Ed. character and, maybe because it's late and I'm tired, maybe because I'm just sort of dumb, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to fill out the Attack and Damage sections of the character sheet. The seem non-intuitive and clunky.

Are there any scans anywhere of filled-out sheets? I'd be interested to see some sample characters.

Which reminds me: I'd dig hearing about everyone's first new characters. Stats, power choices, history write-ups, all that.

aren't those sections just cheat sheet type things for figuring out modifiers quicker? I don't think you have to have those filled out in advance.

[The Hodag]

Well If I was constantly doing shit like that and not talking it seriously I could understand DM's getting pissed. But I make sure it fits in with my characters personality (for the examples image someone like Jayne from Firefly), fits with the tone of the game, and I only do it occasionally.

That all sounds completely viable to me, then.


For an example of actions that's aren't quite so crude, and where the DM got pissed. Medieval Fantasy setting, My character was a Palladin, lawfull, chivalrous, godly, all that jazz. Our group gets framed for murder and were about to get tossed in prison awaiting trial. The DM describes the lord about to toss us in the slammer as an honourable godly man. So I request trial by combat. DM flips out.

I like this. This is the kind of thing I usually love as a DM, to be honest - surprises that fit the characters and offer up some sort of challenge to my creativity.

Now out of curiosity, do you know if the intent of the scenario was for you guys to pull a prison break or something? Obviously if the DM has all this stuff set up for you guys to run a prison break or meet up with members of a resistance group in prison or whatever...it kind of sucks when someone throws a huge plot curve. But dealing with that stuff IS the DM's job.

If it happened to me, but I wanted to insure the players go to prison, I might have the lord agree...but inform the players they'll be held for a fortnight as per such-and-such legal ruling, giving the lord time to appoint a champion or whatever...and the players would still spend time in prison. Maybe even learn during that time that some legal loophole has turned up such that the Lord isn't obligated to accept the challenge.

As a general rule, DMs shouldn't flip out. ;)

[The Hodag]

aren't those sections just cheat sheet type things for figuring out modifiers quicker? I don't think you have to have those filled out in advance.

I'm just looking for something on the page that's the equivlant of the old character sheet where I can make notes that'll help me during battle - weapon ranges, notes on critical hits, special powers that give me bonuses, all that stuff. The current character sheet just plain seems to be missing a lot of that stuff. Most of it's adequate, but it really needs better slots for weapon notations.

[Hock]

I'm just looking for something on the page that's the equivlant of the old character sheet where I can make notes that'll help me during battle - weapon ranges, notes on critical hits, special powers that give me bonuses, all that stuff. The current character sheet just plain seems to be missing a lot of that stuff. Most of it's adequate, but it really needs better slots for weapon notations.

I don't know. I'm so used to having a pad and paper for writing down all that shit that I don't even really notice when the official sheets don't have them. I guess they expect you to keep referencing the players handbook or something.

[The Hodag]

I know there's already custom character sheets out there, probably some pretty nice ones, and almost certainly better designed than the officials. I'll poke around for 'em tomorrow, though I don't mind jotting down stuff on scratch paper either. I guess I'm just surprised the official one isn't slicker.

On the other hand, I'm already having minor gripes with the organization in the Player's Handbook. Stuff that should be right there in the first few pages of character creation - like how to pick one's Powers - don't appear except in the "Gaining Levels" section. WTF? That's core information! I know all the returning players find this stuff quickly and it becomes common info, but for the noobs this edition so clearly wants to bring in, it's silly that the basics of character creation aren't summarized completely on just a page or two at the beginning. Just simple stuff, like saying you get 100 gold to buy equipment - instead of holding out on that info until page 210 in the equipment chapter - should've been in a good summary.

:mad:

On the plus side, I like having all the class spells right there in the class section. Just wish that philosophy had carried over everywhere.

[Zulithe]

You might like these sheets:
http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showcat=1

the official 4e sheet is here, if noone mentioned it yet:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/charactersheets

you might find the "power cards" (from the first link) of use. basically you would write your at-will, encounter, and daily powers on these. you can flip them over when they are used, so help you keep track. another thing you could do, put them inside plastic protective sleeves and you can write on them with markers. makes it really easy to change damage bonuses, etc.

[TheTravis!]

I totally agree with this. The rules options for the characters in 3e was WIDE open. You could make your character into anything, rules wise. But, I don't know that this makes things more roleplayable.

I'm a believer that people need limits to be really creative. Give someone a snap-on truck filled with tools and they get so caught up in picking the right tool for the job that they lose track of the job in the first place; give that same person just a screwdriver, saw, and hammer and they'll start improvising when those three tools aren't just exactly what is needed.

3e is the snap-on truck for me, same with the maroon books for 2e and even the skills and options for 1e. But, my experience is just that people spend so much time not-playing 3e. It's about making the perfect character. Or the DM making the perfect monster build, etc. I know many people who just spend hours and hours and hours not playing but futzing.

4e is not 0e (my preferred edition) for it's simplicity and ease of play, but it's a step back from the study of D&D that it feels to me that 3e was, and seems more about just getting down and playing. The reports from DMs I've read who have prepped 4e play sessions was amazing: things like 30 mins of prep work for hours of play, for a brand new group, etc.

Now I just need a regular group to play with.

EDIT: Apparently counting to three is beyond my normal abilities.

This makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for your insight.

[DungeonMasterJim]

Damn it,

I ordered a gift set of the three books from Amazon and it's delayed until almost July 1st for some reason.

None of my friends are into 4th being highly upset over another rules set but I'll be looking forward to playing even if I have to wait until my trip to Dragon Con.

DM Jim

EDIT: After reading a previous post I'll have to see if my Amazon order was shipped. They had sent an e-mail saying it wouldn't be until late June or early July.

[Nick Hale]

Damn it,

I ordered a gift set of the three books from Amazon and it's delayed until almost July 1st for some reason.

None of my friends are into 4th being highly upset over another rules set but I'll be looking forward to playing even if I have to wait until my trip to Dragon Con.

DM Jim

EDIT: After reading a previous post I'll have to see if my Amazon order was shipped. They had sent an e-mail saying it wouldn't be until late June or early July.

If you look at my post earlier yesterday I was in the same boat with the Jun 16 - July 1 date, and got an email last night that they had shipped so hold out hope, they could still ship soon.

[xyzzy]

As someone who hasn't played D&D since the early 80s, I have to say what I've seen/read about 4th edition intrigues me. It just seems a lot more streamlined than some of the previous editions. I'll probably still never get back into it, but if they've got me interested, they must be doing something right.

[Rod Nunley]

That's so strange to me. A lot of people have said that, and I really felt the exact opposite. I felt that after 2nd edition, 3.0 and 3.5 opened up a lot of possibilities to do whatever you wanted with your character.

Which (in my opinion) has nothing to do with role playing, and everything to do with roll playing (ie: concentrating on min maxing your character and not on playing the character as a role).

[artimoff]

if you have two fighters, is it fair that one may roll a 10 and the other rolls a 2?

Why has anyone expected "fair" from their rpg's?


wow...I'm a little taken back about some people's reaction to 4th edition. I've mentioned to quite a few people that I want to play again an the first words out of their mouth are something along the lines of "I'm not playing 4th edition. fuck that. I will never play that shitty edition of D&D." to witch I then realize they, like me, haven't played it. I'm curious if they've even looked at any of the books. To me it just seems some people hate it cause it's a new edition of the game...not becaus of anything the game actually changes or does.

To me, Travis seems to be the only sane one.

Our greatest Rp sessions come out of the fact that we have to rp the rogue with a 5 charisma & mage who is stronger than he is smart. I liked having the 5th level mage apprentice who would run to the hallway to cast into the room because she rolled all 1s on her hitpoints.

[The Hodag]

Our greatest Rp sessions come out of the fact that we have to rp the rogue with a 5 charisma & mage who is stronger than he is smart. I liked having the 5th level mage apprentice who would run to the hallway to cast into the room because she rolled all 1s on her hitpoints.

I've definitely had fun with that kind of game, and in some ways it's pretty much the classic tradition for D&D. At the same time, many people play D&D wanting to experience vicariously stories like Lord of the Rings, wanting a sense of empowerment and effectiveness - which is hindered when you have characters dealing with decidedly non-heroic weaknesses.

That said, I kind of hate min-maxers.

I like a balance of effectiveness and character-defining quirk.

[The Human Target]

Why has anyone expected "fair" from their rpg's?

Because RPGs are games and thus supposed to be fun?

And a tenant of fun games is that everyone starts out basically equal, before random chance and skill have a chance to change things.

Its like letting someone start out with 7 cards in poker when everyone else has five.


To me, Travis seems to be the only sane one.

Our greatest Rp sessions come out of the fact that we have to rp the rogue with a 5 charisma & mage who is stronger than he is smart. I liked having the 5th level mage apprentice who would run to the hallway to cast into the room because she rolled all 1s on her hitpoints.

Thats a very old school way to play the game, and a very small percentage of gamers still do things like that.

If someone wants to have an uncharismatic rogue or a brawny wizard thats all well in good.

But it shouldn't be forced on them.

As to the highpoint thing.... ugh.

I'm sure that persons going to have fun rolling up a new character after she takes more than five points of damage.

And I hope the DM has fun introducing a new character into the game.

[J. R. Scherer]

Which (in my opinion) has nothing to do with role playing, and everything to do with roll playing (ie: concentrating on min maxing your character and not on playing the character as a role).

I disagree. It's both. You have more flexibility to create the character you want to roleplay and, yeah, min-maxers happen to be given more tools to work with as a side-effect. Those guys are missing the point of the game, though, at least in the way that my group plays.

[The Hodag]

I disagree. It's both. You have more flexibility to create the character you want to roleplay and, yeah, min-maxers happen to be given more tools to work with as a side-effect. Those guys are missing the point of the game, though, at least in the way that my group plays.

:nods:

[J. R. Scherer]

Why has anyone expected "fair" from their rpg's?

I find it absolutely ridiculous not to expect that kind of fairness in an rpg. It means that the douchebag that always rolls well or cheats on his rolls is going to have a character phenomenally more effective than the rest of the party. If that happens then the rest of the party basically becomes sidekicks to a douchebag. More importantly, though, it means that I don't get to choose the character I want to play.


To me, Travis seems to be the only sane one.

Our greatest Rp sessions come out of the fact that we have to rp the rogue with a 5 charisma & mage who is stronger than he is smart. I liked having the 5th level mage apprentice who would run to the hallway to cast into the room because she rolled all 1s on her hitpoints.

If I want to play a wizard I shouldn't be stuck with one that's a retard. If I decide that I want to play a retard or a pussy that's fine, but, again, I shouldn't be stuck with playing one.

[Busman]

If I want to play a wizard I shouldn't be stuck with one that's a retard. If I decide that I want to play a retard or a pussy that's fine, but, again, I shouldn't be stuck with playing one.

Would you ever pick a wizard with more strength than intelligence?

[Rod Nunley]

I disagree. It's both. You have more flexibility to create the character you want to roleplay and, yeah, min-maxers happen to be given more tools to work with as a side-effect. Those guys are missing the point of the game, though, at least in the way that my group plays.

Except that in my experience the one or two min maxer players ruin the game for the rest of the group and we'd be better off without that aspect to the game with respect to role playing.

[Lab-Rat]

Something else I've noticed. I've noticed a lot of people playing with miniatures and dungeon placemats and the like...I have never played with any of those....I was actually taken aback by it a bit the other day when talking with a co-worker who had just gone out and bought a bunch of miniatures to play 4th Edition. I honestly didn't know people still did that. It's weird. Seeing miniatures being used to play D&D almost makes the game seem foreign to me....it's odd.

He also found it odd that I had never been exposed to that form of playing D&D.

I find it interesting that there are so many different ways to play.

[J. R. Scherer]

Would you ever pick a wizard with more strength than intelligence?

Depends on my character concept.

[TheTravis!]

Something else I've noticed. I've noticed a lot of people playing with miniatures and dungeon placemats and the like...I have never played with any of those....I was actually taken aback by it a bit the other day when talking with a co-worker who had just gone out and bought a bunch of miniatures to play 4th Edition. I honestly didn't know people still did that. It's weird. Seeing miniatures being used to play D&D almost makes the game seem foreign to me....it's odd.

He also found it odd that I had never been exposed to that form of playing D&D.

I find it interesting that there are so many different ways to play.

I cannot even wrap my head around the idea of NOT playing with minis. 3.5 is so firnly based on positional tactics. I have no clue how you would play without some sort of markers.

Having said that, I used to use glass beads as markers, until a guy joined my gaming group who is a huge minis collectors.

[Lab-Rat]

I cannot even wrap my head around the idea of NOT playing with minis. 3.5 is so firnly based on positional tactics. I have no clue how you would play without some sort of markers.

Having said that, I used to use glass beads as markers, until a guy joined my gaming group who is a huge minis collectors.

I've never done that. I've never even used markers. It's mostly been all more free-form I guess.

I mean...I wouldn't be against miniatures if I was asked to play with them...but I will admit that it would be very odd for me at first.

[Busman]

I have never played with minis either. On rare occasion we had a battlemat for a room and really basic positioning as in "the party enters here" "the monsters start here" but definitely not any sort of I'm 5 feet from this guy, or where do you place your fireball, or am I flanking this guy, sort of a thing.

[The Hodag]

I know I've asked this before...in this very thread even...but I forget the answer...

So I agree that 3rd Edition onward is very miniatures-oriented, very tactical as far as combat goes. It's the only way I've ever played it. What I want to know is, if you're NOT using minis...how do you determine the more tactical aspects of the combat rules?

How do you know if a monster or player if flanked?

How do you know how many monsters the fireball hits and if any players are threatened?

How do you deal with attacks of opportunity or do you at all?

I'm totally sympathetic to the notion of playing without minis, as generally speaking I prefer more imaginative scenarios...it's just that d&D has never seemed to accomodate such an approach, at least in the short time I've been playing (3.0 onward).

[J. R. Scherer]

Except that in my experience the one or two min maxer players ruin the game for the rest of the group and we'd be better off without that aspect to the game with respect to role playing.

Those are the guys who also somehow always rolled up a fighter with 18/00 strength as well. At least with a point build you can hold them accountable.

[TheTravis!]

Those are the guys who also somehow always rolled up a fighter with 18/00 strength as well. At least with a point build you can hold them accountable.

It's how 3 CHA, 18 STR, 18 CON fighters are born.

[J. R. Scherer]

I've never done that. I've never even used markers. It's mostly been all more free-form I guess.

I mean...I wouldn't be against miniatures if I was asked to play with them...but I will admit that it would be very odd for me at first.

I prefer the more free-form style of play, myself. 4E has so many powers and abilities that based on movement or moving an opponent, though, that it seems those days are mostly over for me.

[Busman]

It definitely comes from having started with od&d white box then ad&d and bringing that mentality with me always.



How do you know if a monster or player if flanked?

Did the player state that intention in their actions? Was there anything that prevented them from accomplishing it? If yes and no, they're flanked. And sometimes if it's no and no they can still be flanked. Depends on the situation and what makes sense, how the battle is going, etc.



How do you know how many monsters the fireball hits and if any players are threatened?

With fireball, it's pretty easy, everyone gets fried unless there's a LOT of room. I haven't looked up the rules for 2, 3, or even 4e yet but 33,000 cubic feet is specifically listed in the AD&D rules. That's 33 10'x10' squares of volume covered.

If there is plenty of room it's situational. Are the players right next to the monsters engaged in combat? Then they are affected. If not, then they aren't. If it's questionable, then it depends on how the flow of the battle is going. What's the most fun?




How do you deal with attacks of opportunity or do you at all?

If the player attempts to run, or switch targets, etc. then they get the AoO on them, and vice versa.

It's really just a matter of letting precision go and letting the flow of the battle and good time rule. Is it going to just piss everyone at the table off if you surprise them that the fireball the wiz just let go is going fry everyone? Mention it to the wiz, or let him pull some cool shot off that blocks a lot of the fireball. But, if the barbarian rushes forward and is smack in the middle of the pack of gnolls and the wiz rolls his lighting bolt on despite a warning of possible damage then go for it.

[Busman]

Those are the guys who also somehow always rolled up a fighter with 18/00 strength as well. At least with a point build you can hold them accountable.

Simple solution: have him roll again at the table, even make the rolls very favorable to them. It's always the DMs prerogative to just not allow a particular character.

[J. R. Scherer]

It's how 3 CHA, 18 STR, 18 CON fighters are born.

I don't know of any point build system for 3/3.5 that would allow multiple scores of 18 and attributes that low, certainly not with the 'high-powered' 32 point buy system. You could more easily roll up those stats randomly with 3d6.

[The Hodag]

It definitely comes from having started with od&d white box then ad&d and bringing that mentality with me always.


Did the player state that intention in their actions? Was there anything that prevented them from accomplishing it? If yes and no, they're flanked. And sometimes if it's no and no they can still be flanked. Depends on the situation and what makes sense, how the battle is going, etc.


With fireball, it's pretty easy, everyone gets fried unless there's a LOT of room. I haven't looked up the rules for 2, 3, or even 4e yet but 33,000 cubic feet is specifically listed in the AD&D rules. That's 33 10'x10' squares of volume covered.

If there is plenty of room it's situational. Are the players right next to the monsters engaged in combat? Then they are affected. If not, then they aren't. If it's questionable, then it depends on how the flow of the battle is going. What's the most fun?



If the player attempts to run, or switch targets, etc. then they get the AoO on them, and vice versa.

It's really just a matter of letting precision go and letting the flow of the battle and good time rule. Is it going to just piss everyone at the table off if you surprise them that the fireball the wiz just let go is going fry everyone? Mention it to the wiz, or let him pull some cool shot off that blocks a lot of the fireball. But, if the barbarian rushes forward and is smack in the middle of the pack of gnolls and the wiz rolls his lighting bolt on despite a warning of possible damage then go for it.

Yeah, that sounds pretty workable. And in some ways closer to where my instincts are than those of the groups I usually game with.

But combat sessions with hordes of bad guys sound like a bear. :)

[Busman]

I don't know of any point build system for 3/3.5 that would allow multiple scores of 18 and attributes that low, certainly not with the 'high-powered' 32 point buy system. You could more easily roll up those stats randomly with 3d6.

The chance of rolling 18 with 3d6 is 0.46%, same with 3. To get all three is .097% or 1 in over 1000.

[emeraldsundae]

Check this video out:
http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/332/inside_dampd_4th_edition

A great bunch of guys from Victoria that put together awesome videos every week. I'm a big fan of theirs.

[J. R. Scherer]

How do you know if a monster or player if flanked?
Easy. If two or more characters are fighting on opponent their controller will say, "I move into flanking position".



How do you know how many monsters the fireball hits and if any players are threatened?
Depends on the environment and the encounter. Players with area of effect abilities need to ask more questions before casting them, basically.



How do you deal with attacks of opportunity or do you at all?

Personally, I despise attacks of opportunity and would just as well do away with them. You take your actions on your turn. That's what turns are for. You want to hold or ready your action so you can attack someone out of sequence then that's a bit different.

[Busman]

But combat sessions with hordes of bad guys sound like a bear. :)

Not really. Goes faster than what I've seen mini guys doing by many factors.

That said, I've purchased some minis to try out some mini play with 4e to see how it works. If it's great, I'll consider it. If it changes to people worrying more about tactics, then out they go.

Also, limiting player time is a big help. Give each person 15 seconds or something to say what they are doing. Don't let the combat devolve into some metagame of perfect tactics that everyone pulls off. It keeps things moving along very nicely.

[J. R. Scherer]

The chance of rolling 18 with 3d6 is 0.46%, same with 3. To get all three is .097% or 1 in over 1000.

And it's impossible with the 28 or 32 point buys systems.

But really, what's so bad about letting a person have control over creating the character they want to play? A bit of min-maxing is to be expected, but easy enough to curb the type that sucks the fun out of a game as well.

[Busman]

And it's impossible with the 28 or 32 point buys systems.

But really, what's so bad about letting a person have control over creating the character they want to play? A bit of min-maxing is to be expected, but easy enough to curb the type that sucks the fun out of a game as well.

If someone has some master plan ahead of time and really has a great idea for a character they want to play, sure go for it.

Most of the time, people don't, has been my experience. The random stats gives them some constraints against which to start applying their creativity. It's a creativity catalyst. Otherwise you get people sitting there going... uhh... let's see... what do I want to play? hmm... well... what's everyone else playing?... hmm... well I'm always going to want a good con.. lemme put some points into that.... etc.

Not to mention everyone always comes in with even stats except the one that can't be even. Meh.

Hit points, sure, give em max at first level or whatever. But after that, it's fine.

[J. R. Scherer]

Not really. Goes faster than what I've seen mini guys doing by many factors.

That said, I've purchased some minis to try out some mini play with 4e to see how it works. If it's great, I'll consider it. If it changes to people worrying more about tactics, then out they go.

Also, limiting player time is a big help. Give each person 15 seconds or something to say what they are doing. Don't let the combat devolve into some metagame of perfect tactics that everyone pulls off. It keeps things moving along very nicely.

Yeah, pretty much. Bigger battles take friggin' forever with a battle map and everyone trying to figure out the very best tactics every single turn. Doesn't mean they can't be a lot of fun, and a lot of players do seem to require that sort of visualization aid.

[J. R. Scherer]

If someone has some master plan ahead of time and really has a great idea for a character they want to play, sure go for it.

Most of the time, people don't, has been my experience. The random stats gives them some constraints against which to start applying their creativity. It's a creativity catalyst. Otherwise you get people sitting there going... uhh... let's see... what do I want to play? hmm... well... what's everyone else playing?... hmm... well I'm always going to want a good con.. lemme put some points into that.... etc.

Not to mention everyone always comes in with even stats except the one that can't be even. Meh.

Hit points, sure, give em max at first level or whatever. But after that, it's fine.

Basically it's different strokes for different folks. Everyone in my group will come up with a concept, character personality, etc., first, then collaborate with the other players to try and fit into the party, and then, except for one player, will simply have me make up the character for them, whether I'm DMing or not, since I know the rules better than the rest of them and I make up balanced characters that are good at their specialty but don't also completely suck at everything else. So I min/max, but only in order to serve the character concept, party role, and overall game balance.

[Busman]

Basically it's different strokes for different folks.

Aye.

[Arion]

Yeah, pretty much. Bigger battles take friggin' forever with a battle map and everyone trying to figure out the very best tactics every single turn. Doesn't mean they can't be a lot of fun, and a lot of players do seem to require that sort of visualization aid.

I think you are right.

[TheTravis!]

I don't know of any point build system for 3/3.5 that would allow multiple scores of 18 and attributes that low, certainly not with the 'high-powered' 32 point buy system. You could more easily roll up those stats randomly with 3d6.

I honestly never use point buy systems. My house rule is that everybody gets 80 points to distribute amongst their stats as they see fit.

[TheTravis!]

It definitely comes from having started with od&d white box then ad&d and bringing that mentality with me always.


Did the player state that intention in their actions? Was there anything that prevented them from accomplishing it? If yes and no, they're flanked. And sometimes if it's no and no they can still be flanked. Depends on the situation and what makes sense, how the battle is going, etc.


With fireball, it's pretty easy, everyone gets fried unless there's a LOT of room. I haven't looked up the rules for 2, 3, or even 4e yet but 33,000 cubic feet is specifically listed in the AD&D rules. That's 33 10'x10' squares of volume covered.

If there is plenty of room it's situational. Are the players right next to the monsters engaged in combat? Then they are affected. If not, then they aren't. If it's questionable, then it depends on how the flow of the battle is going. What's the most fun?



If the player attempts to run, or switch targets, etc. then they get the AoO on them, and vice versa.

It's really just a matter of letting precision go and letting the flow of the battle and good time rule. Is it going to just piss everyone at the table off if you surprise them that the fireball the wiz just let go is going fry everyone? Mention it to the wiz, or let him pull some cool shot off that blocks a lot of the fireball. But, if the barbarian rushes forward and is smack in the middle of the pack of gnolls and the wiz rolls his lighting bolt on despite a warning of possible damage then go for it.

That sounds like a LOT of shit to keep track of. More power to you!

[TheTravis!]

Not really. Goes faster than what I've seen mini guys doing by many factors.

That said, I've purchased some minis to try out some mini play with 4e to see how it works. If it's great, I'll consider it. If it changes to people worrying more about tactics, then out they go.

Also, limiting player time is a big help. Give each person 15 seconds or something to say what they are doing. Don't let the combat devolve into some metagame of perfect tactics that everyone pulls off. It keeps things moving along very nicely.

If you end up not using your minis, I will take them.

[TheTravis!]

So I've read through this whole thread twice. And I'll admit. I'm semi-intrigued. You guys have sort of sold me. I'm curious enough to maybe buy the PHB and see what I think works and doesn't work.

I still call bullshit on dragon-men, and on the lack of half-orcs, monks, and bards, though.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I'll be curious to hear from those who get a chance to play - Does this game support or encourage role-playing at ALL? Or is it kill, fight, loot, raid?

I'm gonna try to answer this question for you once I've got a few sessions under my belt. But first I wanna be sure what you're asking ... in what ways do you feel that the 3rd edition rules actively support / encourage role-playing? More or less so than, say AD&D 2E? I just need a frame of reference to answer your question properly.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

So I've read through this whole thread twice. And I'll admit. I'm semi-intrigued. You guys have sort of sold me. I'm curious enough to maybe buy the PHB and see what I think works and doesn't work.

I still call bullshit on dragon-men, and on the lack of half-orcs, monks, and bards, though.

The essential rules for Orc PCs are in the back of the Monster Manual. It's not like you *really* need a 2-page writeup on half-orc's place in the game world, right? You have all those old books for that.

I will tell you that my longest-serving player (since 1993) has always preferred clerics, and enjoyed he enjoyed playing his 4th Edition cleric more than any in recent memory.

[J. R. Scherer]

I still call bullshit on dragon-men, and on the lack of half-orcs, monks, and bards, though.

I'm with you on these and will also add druids and barbarians.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I'm with you on these and will also add druids and barbarians.

Wait, you don't want dragon-men?

YOU?

It's the lack of purple underwear, isn't it? ;)

[TheTravis!]

I'm gonna try to answer this question for you once I've got a few sessions under my belt. But first I wanna be sure what you're asking ... in what ways do you feel that the 3rd edition rules actively support / encourage role-playing? More or less so than, say AD&D 2E? I just need a frame of reference to answer your question properly.

I really haven't been clear on a lot of my concerns.

I haven't seen much about this edition that discussed anything except game mechanics. And what I have has said things like "Pass out 3x5 cards that remind your players what they're supposed to be doing." A lot of the people I have seen discussing the game liken it to World of Warcraft or something similar. I have been playing sicne 1st edition, and some of my favorite game sessions have been those where the players never even made it out of the fucking tavern. I'm basically asking if the game supports that sort of story-based play, or if it is 100% goal oriented - "Go, Do, Kill, Loot, Win" - style of play.

That aside, there is a "flavor" to this new edition that makes it feel "Not my D&D". I hated warlocks in 3.5. I was never a big fan of Tieflings. Warforged are ridiculous to me. Dragonborn look really stupid to me. I want gnomes and half-orcs. I want bards and monks. I know the promise is that all of these things will show back up in later revisions, but I want the things that I love, to paraphrase Patton Oswalt.

Plus, I am wary that I am going to give this new edition a shot and then they will drop 4.5 on me in 5 years.

[TheTravis!]

I'm with you on these and will also add druids and barbarians.

I forgot about barbarians. I want barbarians.

I don't really care about druids, because of how much I hate hippies.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

all those classes and races will be in the game eventually. It's just a matter of time.

[Dave S.]

So I've read through this whole thread twice. And I'll admit. I'm semi-intrigued. You guys have sort of sold me. I'm curious enough to maybe buy the PHB and see what I think works and doesn't work.

I still call bullshit on dragon-men, and on the lack of half-orcs, monks, and bards, though.

Hey, the Dragonlance setting had Dragon-men for ages.

[TheTravis!]

Hey, the Dragonlance setting had Dragon-men for ages.

And I am comfortable with them, provided their exclusive use is for stabbing and beheadings.

Bitches always turning to stone around my sword.

[TheTravis!]

all those classes and races will be in the game eventually. It's just a matter of time.

Yes. And fuck that shit. I understand it will be a while before my drow ranger fix can be fulfilled. But GNOMES?!?!?! I have to wait for GNOMES!?!?!?

[Dave S.]

And I am comfortable with them, provided their exclusive use is for stabbing and beheadings.

Bitches always turning to stone around my sword.

Fair enough.

Man, I wish I had an outlet to play though. My half-elf fey pact warlock is itching to go.

[TheTravis!]

Fair enough.

Man, I wish I had an outlet to play though. My half-elf fey pact warlock is itching to go.

Don't they have that online dealie?

[Dave S.]

Don't they have that online dealie?

Didn't we already establish that the online tools weren't released on time and probably won't be for months?

[TheTravis!]

Didn't we already establish that the online tools weren't released on time and probably won't be for months?

Clearly not well enough that I could be prevented from mentioning them.

Jesus. If you're THIS sensitive, no WONDER you can't find a group to play with.

[Dave S.]

Clearly not well enough that I could be prevented from mentioning them.

Jesus. If you're THIS sensitive, no WONDER you can't find a group to play with.

:cry:

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Yes. And fuck that shit. I understand it will be a while before my drow ranger fix can be fulfilled. But GNOMES?!?!?! I have to wait for GNOMES!?!?!?

Yeah, one of my buddies is bemoaning the absence of gnomes as well. He has an iconic gnomish character named Gnick Gnack the Gnome (all three G's are hard) who he likes to always trot out when he plays.

Really I think their absence is mainly due to the fact that they are too close to halflings.

You know how it is though... If they had put gnomes in then something else would have been dropped.
And let me tell you... you ain't seen emo until you've seen the tiefling crowd pissing and moaning.
:nonono2:

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I really haven't been clear on a lot of my concerns.

I haven't seen much about this edition that discussed anything except game mechanics. And what I have has said things like "Pass out 3x5 cards that remind your players what they're supposed to be doing." A lot of the people I have seen discussing the game liken it to World of Warcraft or something similar. I have been playing sicne 1st edition, and some of my favorite game sessions have been those where the players never even made it out of the fucking tavern. I'm basically asking if the game supports that sort of story-based play, or if it is 100% goal oriented - "Go, Do, Kill, Loot, Win" - style of play.

That aside, there is a "flavor" to this new edition that makes it feel "Not my D&D". I hated warlocks in 3.5. I was never a big fan of Tieflings. Warforged are ridiculous to me. Dragonborn look really stupid to me. I want gnomes and half-orcs. I want bards and monks. I know the promise is that all of these things will show back up in later revisions, but I want the things that I love, to paraphrase Patton Oswalt.

Plus, I am wary that I am going to give this new edition a shot and then they will drop 4.5 on me in 5 years.

Fair enough.

1) 4th Edition marketing has had lots of mechanics, sure. But if I dig into my Dragon back issues circa 261-273, I'm pretty sure I'd see the same thing. At the end of the day, the ruleset is what unites every D&D game, so it makes sense to focus on that from a marketing perspective.

2) Ah, the quest cards article. I remember your vitrol well. :) I think that segment was clearly aimed at new DMs in an attempt to give structure. It was probably a poor choice for a website article that only the hardcore would read.

3) World of Warcraft ... well, they are definitely targetting the WoW audience in part; at 10 million strong, they'd be crazy not to. And yeah, I think a few of the 4th Ed mechanics and terms were clearly inspired by MMOs.

But seriously ... where else are they gonna go? Other than D&D, the Pen and Paper Fantasy RPG market is dead, dead, dead. There's Exalted, GURPS Fantasy ... and not much else. So really, the major two sources of rules innovation I see are:
- late D&D 3.5
- MMOs

D&D doesn't really have any competitors anymore in the PnP market. And I don't think it benefits the game to turn D&D design completely inward. That's the kind of thinking that led to a dozen campaign settings in the mid-90's.

4) Theme / world design : you're right, the 4e setting is a drastic departure from the Great Wheel and Greyhawk default of 3rd. Some parts actually work much better for my campaign setting ... but I'm definitely approaching it with a "take what I like" approach.

It also helps that my current campaign setting still has big undefined regions that I can drop the new races into. :)

WotC did promise a while back that all 3.5 PHB race/classes would have 4th edition conversions within a year, so hopefully the growing pains will stop soon.

4) v4.5 - I honestly don't think that will happen as long as the current guys stay in charge. They were brought in after the 3.5 management was ushered out, and have spent the last few years dealing with 3.5 rancor/fallout. They don't wanna deal with that again. :)

[TheTravis!]

Yeah, one of my buddies is bemoaning the absence of gnomes as well. He has an iconic gnomish character named Gnick Gnack the Gnome (all three G's are hard) who he likes to always trot out when he plays.

Really I think their absence is mainly due to the fact that they are too close to halflings.

You know how it is though... If they had put gnomes in then something else would have been dropped.
And let me tell you... you ain't seen emo until you've seen the tiefling crowd pissing and moaning.
:nonono2:

Well, I just realized that all my hemming and hawing don't amount to anything. Until they do psionics for 4th edition, the guy who hosts our weekly game won't convert.

[TheTravis!]

WotC did promise a while back that all 3.5 PHB race/classes would have 4th edition conversions within a year, so hopefully the growing pains will stop soon.

And how so? Strictly through the online content? Or through additional releases.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

Yes. And fuck that shit. I understand it will be a while before my drow ranger fix can be fulfilled. But GNOMES?!?!?! I have to wait for GNOMES!?!?!?

Ironically, you'll get the drow first this fall. :)

But the warforged got a PC race article on launch day, I could see the gnome getting similar treatment if they don't save it for PHB II.

[The Human Target]

So I've read through this whole thread twice. And I'll admit. I'm semi-intrigued. You guys have sort of sold me. I'm curious enough to maybe buy the PHB and see what I think works and doesn't work.

I still call bullshit on dragon-men, and on the lack of half-orcs, monks, and bards, though.

All things Dragon related were really popular last edition.

Half-Orcs, gnomes, monks, and bards weren't.

Thems the breaks.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

And how so? Strictly through the online content? Or through additional releases.

I think it will all be in print eventually ... I am concerned that they might use the annual PHB to collect material from the Dragon PDFs though. Time will tell.

[The Human Target]

And how so? Strictly through the online content? Or through additional releases.

Both.

[TheTravis!]

I think it will all be in print eventually ... I am concerned that they might use the annual PHB to collect material from the Dragon PDFs though. Time will tell.

That would actually work well for me, as I don't think I'd be subscribing to Dragon even if I DID eventually shift over.

Of course, Shawn, if you wanted to send me copies...

[Shawn_Kehoe]

All things Dragon related were really popular last edition.

Half-Orcs, gnomes, monks, and bards weren't.

Thems the breaks.

Supposedly the "Dragon Magic" supplement was inspired by a meeting where marketing determined that products with the words "Magic" or "Dragon" sold much better than everything else that was non-core.

[TheTravis!]

All things Dragon related were really popular last edition.

Half-Orcs, gnomes, monks, and bards weren't.

Thems the breaks.

Which is why I hate young people. Fucking up my D&D with their stupid dragon-men.

[TheTravis!]

I paint miniatures for every character I play. Until Reaper puts out something that works, I could never play a Dragonborn.

[The Human Target]

To be fair, you can play Gnomes and Half Orcs and Drow and Dopplegangers and a bunch of other shit already.

Its in the back of the Monster Manual.

I think more old school PC Gnomes are going to hit in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.

[TheTravis!]

To be fair, you can play Gnomes and Half Orcs and Drow and Dopplegangers and a bunch of other shit already.

Its in the back of the Monster Manual.

Hopefully better than the methods 3.5 offered of converting a monster into a PC race.

[Busman]

I'll admit all of the things that the anti-4e crowd is saying is true to some extent, it's just not soul crushing and deal breaking as they make it out to be.

If you're one of those people that will focus in on one single thing that bugs you and let it ruin your whole day, then it's very possible 4e will drive you batty.

They've changed a lot some of it is really great, some of it people will just not like, and some of it will need FAQs and we will see errata in the yearly core books that get released.

[The Hodag]

I paint miniatures for every character I play. Until Reaper puts out something that works, I could never play a Dragonborn.

Reaper's got some good Lizardman minis, right?

[The Hodag]

Well, I just realized that all my hemming and hawing don't amount to anything. Until they do psionics for 4th edition, the guy who hosts our weekly game won't convert.

That...

Is weird.

Is this one of those guys who writes the naughty mind-control stories?

[J. R. Scherer]

Wait, you don't want dragon-men?

YOU?

It's the lack of purple underwear, isn't it? ;)

Actually, it's the Predator-hair I don't care for. I was thinking that it'd be fun to play a dragonborn (named, yes, Foom,) but I'd have him look more like a Lizard Man or 3rd Edition half dragons more than the 'official' look of dragonborn.

[J. R. Scherer]

To be fair, you can play Gnomes and Half Orcs and Drow and Dopplegangers and a bunch of other shit already.

Its in the back of the Monster Manual.

I think more old school PC Gnomes are going to hit in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.

I liked how Dopplegangers were pretty much Changelings from Eberron. I dig that quite a bit. Much more than the telepathic freako from earlier editions.

[J. R. Scherer]

Hopefully better than the methods 3.5 offered of converting a monster into a PC race.

You mean Savage Species or ECL stuff? Hell, yes, it's better. Drow are playable characters at level one and don't have the sort of experience penalties that 3E's Drow with ECL +2 would have, for example.

[J. R. Scherer]

I paint miniatures for every character I play. Until Reaper puts out something that works, I could never play a Dragonborn.

I really like these guys' minis. I'm seriously thinking of placing an order for several pieces.

http://www.shop.magnificentegosminis.com/main.sc

[J. R. Scherer]

That aside, there is a "flavor" to this new edition that makes it feel "Not my D&D". I hated warlocks in 3.5. I was never a big fan of Tieflings. Warforged are ridiculous to me. Dragonborn look really stupid to me. I want gnomes and half-orcs. I want bards and monks. I know the promise is that all of these things will show back up in later revisions, but I want the things that I love, to paraphrase Patton Oswalt.

Man, I love Warforged. To be fair, though, I don't use the existing 'origin' for them. My current character was a human cleric of a war god that was killed in battle, and later resurrected by having his soul placed in a construct. Just used Warforged stats instead of human.

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/87387731330.378.gif http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/87387731330.381.gif

[J. R. Scherer]

I really haven't been clear on a lot of my concerns.

I haven't seen much about this edition that discussed anything except game mechanics. And what I have has said things like "Pass out 3x5 cards that remind your players what they're supposed to be doing." A lot of the people I have seen discussing the game liken it to World of Warcraft or something similar. I have been playing sicne 1st edition, and some of my favorite game sessions have been those where the players never even made it out of the fucking tavern. I'm basically asking if the game supports that sort of story-based play, or if it is 100% goal oriented - "Go, Do, Kill, Loot, Win" - style of play.

Try this review in Wired:
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/dungeons-dragon.html

Excerpt:

Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition is a fitting tribute to Gygax and Dave Arneson's original vision of a game built around a story with few mechanical supports. D&D, when it was first released, was little more than a few dozen pieces of paper stapled together. They were the barest bones of a game system, requiring players and DMs to fill in the blanks to create fun experiences. D&D 4th Edition returns to those early roots by freeing the participants from boring mechanics and petty arguments about rules, by allowing them to focus on what's truly important.

[The Hodag]

Man, I love Warforged. To be fair, though, I don't use the existing 'origin' for them. My current character was a human cleric of a war god that was killed in battle, and later resurrected by having his soul placed in a construct. Just used Warforged stats instead of human.

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/87387731330.378.gif http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/87387731330.381.gif

I briefly played in an Eberron campaign and considered playing a Warforged, but it seemed too much like playing a robot or something to me. Even though they were thinking, feeling beings, I couldn't get past the sort of inhumanity of them to wrap my mind around playing one.

[J. R. Scherer]

I briefly played in an Eberron campaign and considered playing a Warforged, but it seemed too much like playing a robot or something to me. Even though they were thinking, feeling beings, I couldn't get past the sort of inhumanity of them to wrap my mind around playing one.

I'm making them more like the Vision in my Eberron campaign, where they require that someone's personality ('brain engrams') be imprinted upon them during their creation.

And, of course, the character I'm playing now isn't technically a warforged, since his origin is entirely different.

[DungeonMasterJim]

Originally Posted by Wired
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition is a fitting tribute to Gygax and Dave Arneson's original vision of a game built around a story with few mechanical supports. D&D, when it was first released, was little more than a few dozen pieces of paper stapled together. They were the barest bones of a game system, requiring players and DMs to fill in the blanks to create fun experiences. D&D 4th Edition returns to those early roots by freeing the participants from boring mechanics and petty arguments about rules, by allowing them to focus on what's truly important.

A friend has been playing D&D since the early or mid 1970's where the rules were called Chainmail and were three pamphlets. He runs ConnCon which is probably the biggest gaming con in CT and has been going on for 20+ years I believe.

I was rather stunned when he told me that Gygax meant the game as a tabletop miniature game. He had met Gygax several times through the years. I readily admit this is heresay but my friend has nothing to gain by lying about it.

And I always found the role-playing was up to the individual. I just get disappointed when a 'role-player' is put down by a 'roll player' for purposely not taking the best advantages especially when some of that knowledge is something the character being played should never know.

DM Jim

[Busman]

I was rather stunned when he told me that Gygax meant the game as a tabletop miniature game. He had met Gygax several times through the years. I readily admit this is heresay but my friend has nothing to gain by lying about it.

It's really a bad mischaracterization to say that he meant it as a tabletop miniature game. Here's a quote from page 5 of Men & Magic (the original PHB in the whitebox set):


Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing; similarly, unit counters can be employed — with or without figures — although by themselves the bits of cardboard lack the eye-appeal of the varied and brightly painted miniature figures.

Chainmail was certainly a miniatures game, which is where D&D got it's origins.

But D&D was definitely meant to be a step away from the miniatures game. This is in large part due to Dave Arneson who, though he can't say as such, is the guy who created D&D as we know it in play style. His group wasn't using miniatures at all. It was these ideas that were codified into D&D by Gary Gygax when he wrote the rules and published them.

If you're really curious, you can get PDFs of all of the original materials at RPGNow: http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?cPath=3938 It's only $5.99 for the whitebox set. You can get all of the original PDFs for only $29.99.

[The Human Target]

For JR...


Keith Baker's LiveJournal

Quote:
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/11006.html

Just as a quick note, it sounds like it's confirmed that there will be a working version of the artificer presented in next month's Dragon - so you've got a month to wait there, but it's not a matter of waiting until 2009. More information to come as I get it confirmed.

[Dave S.]

I find Psionics tend to annoy me the most. They just don't seem to fit with the setting. Dragonborn fit a lot better than psionics, imo.

[The Hodag]

I find Psionics tend to annoy me the most. They just don't seem to fit with the setting. Dragonborn fit a lot better than psionics, imo.

Yeah, always felt too sci-fi to me. Was its original inclusion in D&D a spin-off of 70s fascination with ESP, I wonder?

I suppose I do like it well enough coming from Mindflayers, always more like aliens than traditional black magic monsters, but...not much else.

Too sci-fi.

[The Human Target]

I loved 3.5 psionics.

But they're kinda superfluous.

[The Hodag]

I loved 3.5 psionics.

But they're kinda superfluous.

How ya mean? Duplicating stuff magic already does, or...?

I've never read up much on 'em in D&D, though psionics have made their way into games I've played in in minor ways.

[The Human Target]

How ya mean? Duplicating stuff magic already does, or...?

I've never read up much on 'em in D&D, though psionics have made their way into games I've played in in minor ways.

Yeah, for the most part you can make a "psionicist" in 3E without actually using new rules.

Take a wizard or sorcerer, choose some non-firebally mind control spells.

Done.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

Yeah, for the most part you can make a "psionicist" in 3E without actually using new rules.

Take a wizard or sorcerer, choose some non-firebally mind control spells.

Done.

Which is why the Wizard has so few mind-control powers in 4th.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

You mean Savage Species or ECL stuff? Hell, yes, it's better. Drow are playable characters at level one and don't have the sort of experience penalties that 3E's Drow with ECL +2 would have, for example.

Speaking of drow, you may want to wipe out any local enclaves of them BEFORE your DM converts to 4th ... the basic drow warrior is a level 11 monster, and they just get nastier from there.

The days of a drow being equivalent to a couple of orcs are long gone...

[The Human Target]

Which is why the Wizard has so few mind-control powers in 4th.

I think that was a good move on their part.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I think that was a good move on their part.

Yeah, I think the traditional spellcasters are more in-line with the other classes now. Spell memorization and rituals still give the wizard a slight edge in flexibility, but not an overwhelming one.

[DanLTaylor]

I just got my order update email from Amazon this morning. They're telling me that my books won't ship until mid-July now.

Cancel order.

I had already broken down and gotten myself the Player's Handbook on Friday which I'd rationalized as having a second copy available for players (as if I'd ever get a group together to play). Looks like I'll have to pick up the other two core books the old fashion way -- brick and mortar stores.

[J. R. Scherer]

For JR...

Suh-weet! Thanks!

I was already working on my own home brew version of them a bit in my head (just enough to take a few multiclass feats to give the artificer feel, more than anything else.)

[J. R. Scherer]

I just got my order update email from Amazon this morning. They're telling me that my books won't ship until mid-July now.

Cancel order.

Man, that sucks.

[The Human Target]

Suh-weet! Thanks!

I was already working on my own home brew version of them a bit in my head (just enough to take a few multiclass feats to give the artificer feel, more than anything else.)

I'm really interested to see how they look.

Like I said before, I didn't think it was a class that would update well.

But now that I've looked through the books, I kinda see some ways of making it work.

Having powers that let them use items in expanded ways would be neat.

[Shane W]

Well, I kinda had it in my mind that I was going to play a Bard.. But it looks like that's not an option. What else is a fun character to play? Now I'm leaning towards a Warlock.

Also, are any of the other books compatible with 4, or just the three that was released last week?

[J. R. Scherer]

Having powers that let them use items in expanded ways would be neat.
That, and making them better at taking existing items and turning them into other items, etc. I imagine they probably get more residuum out of items than other characters, that sort of thing.

[J. R. Scherer]

Well, I kinda had it in my mind that I was going to play a Bard.. But it looks like that's not an option. What else is a fun character to play? Now I'm leaning towards a Warlock.

Also, are any of the other books compatible with 4, or just the three that was released last week?

A warlord with the inspiring leader build could be very bard-like, imo.

Right now I see a whole lot of fun options in all of the classes, but rogue might be a good way to go if you thinking of making a charismatic sort of character with a bard.

[MAK15]

so I hear Half Orcs aren't a PC race no more?
what's up with that?

[The Human Target]

That, and making them better at taking existing items and turning them into other items, etc. I imagine they probably get more residuum out of items than other characters, that sort of thing.

Oh yeah, thats a good point.

I had forgotten you could break down items.






Well, I kinda had it in my mind that I was going to play a Bard.. But it looks like that's not an option. What else is a fun character to play? Now I'm leaning towards a Warlock.

Also, are any of the other books compatible with 4, or just the three that was released last week?

Just those 3 books. Thats all of 4E right now.

As to a character, it totally depends on what you like.

Plus its hard for most of us to even give personal opinions, as few of us have even played 4E yet and I don't think any of us have played more than one character.

What do you like/dislike playing in WoW?


so I hear Half Orcs aren't a PC race no more?
what's up with that?

They were replaced by other races that were judged to be more popular really.

Orcs exist as a playable race in the MM. I'm sure a half orc race will show up eventually.

[MAK15]

They were replaced by other races that were judged to be more popular really.

Orcs exist as a playable race in the MM. I'm sure a half orc race will show up eventually.

the half dragon things?

hmm... I guess I could use tha Orc race, but they're negative 4 charisma is a bummer, man.

[The Human Target]

the half dragon things?

hmm... I guess I could use tha Orc race, but they're negative 4 charisma is a bummer, man.

Uhhh dude 4th Edition is really different.

Orcs as PCs get a +2 Str and a +2 Con.

No negatives.

Plus they get a bonus to speed while charging, and a special power that lets them attack and heal as a standard action.

[Nick Hale]

Uhhh dude 4th Edition is really different.

Orcs as PCs get a +2 Str and a +2 Con.

No negatives.

Plus they get a bonus to speed while charging, and a special power that lets them attack and heal as a standard action.

Yeah in crusing the wizards boards I've noticed most people are going with Orc as their race and flavoring them as half orcs. It really works out imo, I didn't really think it ever made a whole heck of a lot of sense for the two races to be as different as they were in 3e.

[The Human Target]

Yeah in crusing the wizards boards I've noticed most people are going with Orc as their race and flavoring them as half orcs. It really works out imo, I didn't really think it ever made a whole heck of a lot of sense for the two races to be as different as they were in 3e.

I'm big on half races being templates.

So you make a half elf or half orc by taking an elf or orc and slapping the human template on em.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

OK, I've got a (very) rough outline of my campaign:

Part I (Heroic Tier) - the PCs begin in prison, having been sentenced to death after a wrongful accusation of treason. They get "lucky" and escape alongside someone who actually IS guilty of treason. He tells them that their wrongful conviction was designed to cover-up a security bungling by an important noble, and recruits them to hunt for artifacts from an old war that he wants to keep out of imperial hands.

After a few weeks of this, the PCs are contacted discreetly by the Imperial Spymaster. He reveals that he orchestrated their conviction because his spy network has been severely compromised, and he needed trustworthy agents who could be disavowed if they failed. He promises them a full pardon and honours if they return the items to him.

I'll play with the shifting loyalties and paranoia for a bit, and probably put the party through 3 major dungeons on their way to the artifacts. By the end they can choose to stand with the resistance or be reinstated as citizens of the empire. Or they may discover secrets that cause them to side with neither side.

Part II (Paragon Tier): And boy, they aren't nice secrets. This little civil upheaval is the latest move in a centuries-old struggle between two liches with a serious vendetta. One is a mindflayer lich, the other is probably a human or elf that is affiliated with Vecna.

Here the PCs get to do the X-Files thing and peel away the layers of the conspiracy. There will still be dungeons, probably in the form of Underdark crawls. The human lich has probably enlisted Dark Elves in his struggle against the mindflayer ... or living mindflayers that reject the MF lich as an abomination. Eventually the PCs may uncover one or both of the masterminds, and deal with them. There will be lots of globe-trotting.

Part III (Epic Tier) - This really depends on the players. If they only eliminate one of the masters, the other can finally turn his attentions to greater plans than petty revenge ... gates to the Far Realm or the Shadowfell are possible.

[MAK15]

Uhhh dude 4th Edition is really different.

Orcs as PCs get a +2 Str and a +2 Con.

No negatives.

Plus they get a bonus to speed while charging, and a special power that lets them attack and heal as a standard action.

damn!
that's awesome!
thats really awesome!

now if I could figure out how to make a bardesque class I could play my Half-orc Clown in 4E

[J. R. Scherer]

damn!
that's awesome!
thats really awesome!

now if I could figure out how to make a bardesque class I could play my Half-orc Clown in 4E

Rogue with the brawny scoundrel build is what comes to mind first for me.

[MAK15]

Rogue with the brawny scoundrel build is what comes to mind first for me.

hmmm...I mights need ta look up these new 4E books some time...

if only Wizard you give us the gallery for them!

[The Human Target]

OK, I've got a (very) rough outline of my campaign:

Part I (Heroic Tier) - the PCs begin in prison, having been sentenced to death after a wrongful accusation of treason. They get "lucky" and escape alongside someone who actually IS guilty of treason. He tells them that their wrongful conviction was designed to cover-up a security bungling by an important noble, and recruits them to hunt for artifacts from an old war that he wants to keep out of imperial hands.

After a few weeks of this, the PCs are contacted discreetly by the Imperial Spymaster. He reveals that he orchestrated their conviction because his spy network has been severely compromised, and he needed trustworthy agents who could be disavowed if they failed. He promises them a full pardon and honours if they return the items to him.

I'll play with the shifting loyalties and paranoia for a bit, and probably put the party through 3 major dungeons on their way to the artifacts. By the end they can choose to stand with the resistance or be reinstated as citizens of the empire. Or they may discover secrets that cause them to side with neither side.

Part II (Paragon Tier): And boy, they aren't nice secrets. This little civil upheaval is the latest move in a centuries-old struggle between two liches with a serious vendetta. One is a mindflayer lich, the other is probably a human or elf that is affiliated with Vecna.

Here the PCs get to do the X-Files thing and peel away the layers of the conspiracy. There will still be dungeons, probably in the form of Underdark crawls. The human lich has probably enlisted Dark Elves in his struggle against the mindflayer ... or living mindflayers that reject the MF lich as an abomination. Eventually the PCs may uncover one or both of the masterminds, and deal with them. There will be lots of globe-trotting.

Part III (Epic Tier) - This really depends on the players. If they only eliminate one of the masters, the other can finally turn his attentions to greater plans than petty revenge ... gates to the Far Realm or the Shadowfell are possible.

That sounds pretty cool.

Do you know what the artifacts are going to be yet?

[Zulithe]

First round of 4e errata (which apparently they will now refer to as an 'update' instead of 'errata.') Enjoy!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

[The Human Target]

First round of 4e errata (which apparently they will now refer to as an 'update' instead of 'errata.') Enjoy!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

More than I like to see but not as bad as I feared.

They should just release a text only version of all their products to 20 nerds a month before it goes to the printer.

A lot of basic shit would have been caught.

[Zulithe]

very true, The Human Target. There was an errata thread on enworld (hugest D&D fan community) full of corrections within days of the release. WotC staffers culled the majority of the errata from there.

[Hock]

the more I learn about dungeons and dragons insider the shittier it seems.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

That sounds pretty cool.

Do you know what the artifacts are going to be yet?

Not necessarily Artifacts ala the Hand of Vecna or Rod of Seven Parts ... it may just be collecting fragments of a manuscript that describe a very evil/powerful ritual.

[Busman]

the more I learn about dungeons and dragons insider the shittier it seems.

Oh yes.

[DanLTaylor]

Poured through much of the Dungeon Masters Guide last night. The new edition definitely has a more "formula" approach to creating encounters, adventures, monsters, etc... Not necessarily better or worse than before. Seems to be designed with very specific modular type creation and advancement. A lot different than back in the days when I DMed. Though it does seem like adventure creation will be a whole lot easier and streamlined once you get a feel for how the mechanics work. This I like.

The one thing they really seem set on though is that this is a game for four to six players which gives it more of a Gauntlet (the old video arcade game) feel to me as much as the MMORPG direction that they're heading.

I'm not sure if I like it more or less than previous editions, but after having culled through the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide my interest has increased. Monster Manual next.

Now, if they'd only release that damn GSL.

[The Hodag]

Playing in a Keep on the Shadowfell game tonight. Been playing around with character creation and generally having a good time, but I've hit some points that make me nervous as well - especially about how well the system accomodates/promotes roleplaying.

But I'll know tonight.

Cover me, boys, I'm going in!

[DanLTaylor]

Playing in a Keep on the Shadowfell game tonight. Been playing around with character creation and generally having a good time, but I've hit some points that make me nervous as well - especially about how well the system accomodates/promotes roleplaying.

But I'll know tonight.

Cover me, boys, I'm going in!

I think any component DM can accommodate/promote roleplaying well enough, and it seems as if the DM Guide points that out. Do what works best for you. I think the 4th Edition can work well for the no-frills bare-boned hack-n-slash game as well as the game with an emphasis on roleplaying with the new (or modified) mechanics allowing more concentration on roleplaying if that's the gamers' choice.

(I swear I'm having deja-vu typing this post.)

[TheTravis!]

OK. I need to know who is going to be subscribing to D&D Insider. Because apparently, they're going to do an adventure path sequel to Red Hand of Doom in Dungeon. And I NEED to have it.

[J. R. Scherer]

OK. I need to know who is going to be subscribing to D&D Insider. Because apparently, they're going to do an adventure path sequel to Red Hand of Doom in Dungeon. And I NEED to have it.

I probably will, at least for a while, to feel it out.

[TheTravis!]

I probably will, at least for a while, to feel it out.

I don't suppose I could score PDFs off of you for the adventure oath content?

[Busman]

No rush, DDI isn't going to launch for months and months, at the earliest.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

I don't suppose I could score PDFs off of you for the adventure oath content?

The first several months are gonna be free.

[TheTravis!]

The first several months are gonna be free.

The path I'm interested in is going to go for 18 months. I have no doubt that the gravy train will dry up after the first couple of tastes.

[The Human Target]

Playing in a Keep on the Shadowfell game tonight. Been playing around with character creation and generally having a good time, but I've hit some points that make me nervous as well - especially about how well the system accomodates/promotes roleplaying.

But I'll know tonight.

Cover me, boys, I'm going in!

How'd it go dude?

[Jamie Howdeshell]

Heh. I find it hilarious that WOTC went to so much trouble to balance out the classes and make it so that parties don't HAVE to have a cleric to survive... and my first character is going to be a cleric.
:lol:

I think they may have finally made clerics fun to play. We'll see this coming weekend when I finally get to play 4.0 for the first time.
Woot!

[artimoff]

I stoped reading the PHB when I read that just because you miss, doesn't mean you don't cause damage.

[J. R. Scherer]

I don't suppose I could score PDFs off of you for the adventure oath content?

If PDFs are what they provide (and that seems likely) then sure.



I stoped reading the PHB when I read that just because you miss, doesn't mean you don't cause damage.

:mistrust: Isn't that the way that fireball and lightning bolt have always worked?

[Hock]

No rush, DDI isn't going to launch for months and months, at the earliest.

really, They were saying almost right up to the release date of the books that they were going to launch insider at the same time as the books came out. They've kind of cocked it up. If they had done it on the same day they could've used the excitement to good effect. If it won't be for months and months then a lot of people who might've subscribed will already be playing in live groups, or will find some other option, like that maptools thing.

[Hate_Prime]

Been thumbing through the Player Handbook and Monster Manual. To me, the new system screams "Hurry, turn me into a videogame!" although not necessarily good or bad.

What I liked:
- Sorcerers are outmoded. Good. Warlocks are way more interesting.
- Paragon Classes.
- You can do more shit, battle-wise, at low levels.
- No more "Neutral Good". Never understood what the hell that meant anyway.

Didn't like:
- Lack of Half-Orcs and Bards. Half-Orc was my second favorite race to play. No Nymphs in the Monster Manual either!
- Too much elf crap.
- Paladins. From a roleplaying point of view, this should be a paragon class like it should have been a prestige class before.
- Teleporting is too common.

[Hock]

I like Neutral good.

A Neutral good didn't have the disdain for the law that a chaotic good would, but would be more willing to break it then a lawful good.

[Shawn_Kehoe]

:mistrust: Isn't that the way that fireball and lightning bolt have always worked?

There's no room here for your filthy logic! ;)

[TheTravis!]

:mistrust: Isn't that the way that fireball and lightning bolt have always worked?

Yeah. I'm not seeing any problem there.

[Corwin: Bear Fighter]

I'm getting excited. I haven't played D&D in over a decade, and we're getting a group together here at work. My buddy just downloaded the manuals.

[PeteL]

If I had a group, I'd have already picked up the books.

:(

[Generic Poster]

I thumbed through the book this weekend. I don't get the logic of having both eldran (or whatever) and elves (which seem virtually identical), but leaving out half-orcs.

[J. R. Scherer]

I like Neutral good.

A Neutral good didn't have the disdain for the law that a chaotic good would, but would be more willing to break it then a lawful good.

That's what 'Good' alignment is now.

[J. R. Scherer]

Been thumbing through the Player Handbook and Monster Manual. To me, the new system screams "Hurry, turn me into a videogame!" although not necessarily good or bad.

What I liked:
- Sorcerers are outmoded. Good. Warlocks are way more interesting.
- Paragon Classes.
- You can do more shit, battle-wise, at low levels.
- No more "Neutral Good". Never understood what the hell that meant anyway.

Didn't like:
- Lack of Half-Orcs and Bards. Half-Orc was my second favorite race to play. No Nymphs in the Monster Manual either!
- Too much elf crap.
- Paladins. From a roleplaying point of view, this should be a paragon class like it should have been a prestige class before.
- Teleporting is too common.

Man, I love, love, LOVE the 4E paladin. My first 4E character is going to be a paladin. So I totally disagree with you.

[Generic Poster]

That's what 'Good' alignment is now.

But, Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil don't exist any more, do they? Nor do the shades of neutral.

[Hate_Prime]

Man, I love, love, LOVE the 4E paladin. My first 4E character is going to be a paladin. So I totally disagree with you.

Not saying eliminate it, just make it harder to be one. To me, Paladins should be an exclusive club of divinely favored fighters.

[Busman]

But, Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil don't exist any more, do they? Nor do the shades of neutral.

If you read the descriptions for Good and Evil, they are basically Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil and less like Neutral Good and Neutral Evil.

In any case, it's trivial to house rule back the 9 alignments if you'd like.

[Busman]

Didn't like:
- Lack of Half-Orcs and Bards. Half-Orc was my second favorite race to play. No Nymphs in the Monster Manual either!
You are in the vast minority. And they will be bringing both of these back in future releases.



- Too much elf crap.
There's less elf crap by a factor of about 500 in this edition than in any previous edition until you get to 0e. They got rid of Grey Elves, High Elves, Wood Elves, etc. Now there's two races of Elves: Eladrin and Elves (and Drow in the MM).



- Paladins. From a roleplaying point of view, this should be a paragon class like it should have been a prestige class before.
I like the new Paladin class, and can you imagine how much howling there'd have been if Paladin wasn't a base class?



- Teleporting is too common.
Agreed, but it plays out ok, as long as you don't let powergamers get out of control.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

I stoped reading the PHB when I read that just because you miss, doesn't mean you don't cause damage.

That's only the case with the occasional encounter power or daily power, which should have some extra juice.
I don't think any of the much more common at-will powers allow for damage on a miss, do they?

[J. R. Scherer]

That's only the case with the occasional encounter power or daily power, which should have some extra juice.
I don't think any of the much more common at-will powers allow for damage on a miss, do they?

No, it's only the powerful daily abilities or epic tier feats that enable that sort of thing for non-spellcasters.

[J. R. Scherer]

Not saying eliminate it, just make it harder to be one. To me, Paladins should be an exclusive club of divinely favored fighters.

All classes are exclusive clubs. PCs are above and beyond, not the rank and file.

[Dave S.]

I thumbed through the book this weekend. I don't get the logic of having both eldran (or whatever) and elves (which seem virtually identical), but leaving out half-orcs.

Actually, they are somewhat different. The Eldaran are like the High Elves from LOTR. The mysterious immortal creatures that favor magic. And the Elves are the wood elves. They are less mysterious, and more about bows and sneaking through the woods and such.

[TheTravis!]

I like Neutral good.

A Neutral good didn't have the disdain for the law that a chaotic good would, but would be more willing to break it then a lawful good.

"Good" kind of covers all the bases that "Lawful Good" doesn't, and is less rigid than the standard system.