Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zuxius 10-07-06, 02:09 PM	I really think Tome of Battle has blown everything away (so far in D&D with all its iterations) by giving fighter classes the ability to use stances and maneuvers as a spell caster uses spells. I think this new development alone should usher in 4.0 as a viable new system. I cannot describe how fun this book is, and if every class had such a system inherent within itself, the game would truly reach a new level of excitement for the hobby. I am beyond vested in 3.5, but this book has everything turned on its edge. I never thought it possible that fighter classes could go beyond feats and their base attacks. This book makes fighters very entertaining. If that is possible (which I would have never thought so given 3.5), then I am sure this book will certainly give life to all classes. This IS the way to go! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953787200
Greg K 10-07-06, 02:31 PM	This IS the way to go! To each their own. I personally didn't care for the book and do not want to see 4e go that way.
ZeronHitaro 10-07-06, 02:48 PM	Psionics and Incarnum also turned 3.5 battle system on it's ear. But neither heralded the greatly overvalued 4.0. Personally I think for everytime someone tries to push for 4.0 to get here faster that Wiz should push it back 2 more years. D&D isn't a computer game like WoW. :P Version upgrades are not always for the better and don't need to come every few months to keep the mainstream player happy.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-07-06, 02:52 PM	I'll have to agree with the OP that Tome of Battle Set a Good Precedent. I think 4.0 would need to severely scale back the power of casters, and up the power of fighters. The idea of feats being maneuvers and whatnot is something I like. Perhaps the idea that spells could be taken as feats is something that I fancy myself as well.
WhiteRaven810 10-07-06, 02:54 PM	Sorry friend but I don't think a book that revolutionizes one aspect of the game (in this case combat) justifies as the herald for 4.0. As for Tome of Battle. Meh. I don't hate it, I don't regret buying it, but meh. My only real compliant is how the Base Classes had a certain lack of flavor, making them the proverbal square peg in the round hole, they were just hard to fit into my game smoothly.
Engilbrand 10-07-06, 06:13 PM	I love ToB. It's fantastic. The best thing about it is that the characters are always usefull. It's something that Wizards seems to be implementing more of. It started with the Warlock. And you had Incarnum. Then the Binder. The PHB 2 has alternate class features that swap out some things for unlimited ability. The Rage/day is gone in favor of having it activate when your hitpoints hit a certain level. And then there's ToB. That's what I love. They're getting away from classes that are usefull for a while then just peter out. Even the new Complete Mage has feats so that spellcasters never run out of something to do so long as they have spells. It's fantastic.
ressurrector 10-08-06, 03:31 AM	I love the ToB, but I'd rather see it expanded some more than see 4e with ToB stuff in the PHB... Especially with the 20+ 3.5 books I have... I'm not made of money WoTC!
Imban 10-08-06, 03:44 AM	I want to see more Tome of Battle support in the future. It can replace the Weapons of Legacy support. ;) As far as 4th Edition goes, 1st Edition had a 10-year run and 2nd Edition had an 11-year run - with a "revision" 7 years in. Seeing as it's not 2010 yet, I don't exactly see the last days of 3rd Edition looming.
shamangrizzley 10-08-06, 07:49 PM	First I want to say I really like tome battle. That book was really kewl. However I don't think that there is a need for 4.0 I really like the component system going on right now. First you have the three core books which is a good and solid game all on its own. Then when you add in the massive variety offered by the other books you can create almost any old whig wham of rules you want. Why push for a 4.0 when really we got a system that bends and flexes for each groups needs already?
loydsamthird 10-08-06, 08:29 PM	ToB is a cool book and gives melee classes another dimesion. Talk of 4.0 makes my stomach turn. I would really give up buying new books because they have so much to do with 3.5 it is not even funny.
kave99 10-09-06, 12:02 AM	I just got ToB today and have only just glanced at it. my first impression is that the core classes should have been PRC , i just can't see this kind of power in the hands of a 1st level fighter type, now for most of my 25+ years of gaming i have played in low level d&d games so I've rarely noticed the down side of the high level fighter. hay ToB classes might be great in a ebron game but it ain't going to work in grayhawk or forgotten realms from a flavor point of view, other then as a vary special one off character. i just cant see playing a fighter instead of the ToB classes and thats not good IMO the fighter need to fixed but not supplanted. PS the game is not yet ready for a new ed
Nul.Zim 10-09-06, 12:12 AM	I really think Tome of Battle has blown everything away... I agree Zuxius. I have played the game for 25 years and it is one of the top five publications for D&D in regard to the freshness of the approach, the impact it has on the fun of players using it, and the potential for restructuring the game around it. We have been experimenting with a martial class character on a solo adventure and it has been a downright blast. I hope we see more. Kudos to WotC R&D on this one!
Ghostwheel 10-09-06, 12:43 AM	I have ToB, and have one comment: not complete dreck, but close to it. If DnD was the only thing that I have in my life to concentrate on, it might be fine. But I have to work. ToB re-works everything so much that I don't want to be bothered with it any further. JMHO.
Xeviat-DM 10-09-06, 12:53 AM	I'm incredibly impressed with Tome of Battle, and I wouldn't mind seeing the feat system restructured with this in mind. I don't think the maneuver system should be implimented across the board, but it could be used as a guideline for what feats should be able to do. I wouldn't mind if ToB, the Warlock/Dragonfire Adept/Dragon Shaman, XPH, and Incarnum foreshadowed things to come, though.
stabs 10-09-06, 01:30 AM	I really like the idea of the ToB, and I think it was well worth the cash I shelled out for it. The idea is great. Ever since I saw Szatany's Fighter variant with its "Stunts" (which are a lot like maneuvres) I thought it was a great way to make Fighters interesting. After all, at high levels, it gets so tiresome when your only options are how much to power attack for. Meanwhile, a (Vancian) Caster can switch out all their spells known and completely change their strategy. I think ToB goes a long way to making a viable melee combatant at high levels. I only wish they hadn't included (SU) abilities. I'd much prefer the flavour if it was all entirely non-magickal. But... I had some problems with a couple of things in the book. Firstly, the flavour was poorly executed. It seems like there's just soooo many opportunities for cool descriptions of the vaguely mystical eastern style. I just didn't feel it with ToB. It felt like a friend of a friend had told the writer about Wu Xia and he gave it his best shot explaining it in Tome of Battle. Oriental Adventures was far superior in this regards. The flavour text in OA was spot on, and every paragraph gave me ideas for my characters or my campaign, while in Tome of Battle all it gave me were mechanics. The Crusader flavour text particularly irked me. "You like to fight." :( Secondly, the book is a bit complicated. I can't just stat up a couple of Level 10 Warblade NPCs in a few minutes while my PCs have a campfire scene. Maybe this will become possible when I learn the system better, but at current I can't just spit out a statblock in 3 minutes like I can with pretty much any other class. Third: It woulda been really helpful if the maneuvres scaled. You get to trade out old ones for new ones anyway, so why not simplify some things and let them scale with level? The throwing maneuvres in the Setting Sun school for example. So much space dedicated to the same maneuvre for slightly more damage. ._. The idea's great. I felt good about handing over the cash for this book, it's just... well it has those few niggling problems.
Xeviat-DM 10-09-06, 04:37 AM	Luckily, the Su abilities are only available to the Swordsage, the monk-ish class of the three. Just throw it out and you're good to go. Just remember to call it the book of 6 swords then.
polt 10-09-06, 04:52 AM	I don't like maneuvers working like spells. Actually I think that's horrible, and it's moving D&D toward the GAME part of RPG, not the Roleplaying. And it seems that's the way Wizards are going. Instead, I want some rules that support coming up with your own maneuvers. I want to be able to say "okay, I do this and this and that", and not just "Okay, I hit him, and use ability x"
Frugal 10-09-06, 10:31 AM	I don't like maneuvers working like spells. Actually I think that's horrible, and it's moving D&D toward the GAME part of RPG, not the Roleplaying. And it seems that's the way Wizards are going. Instead, I want some rules that support coming up with your own maneuvers. I want to be able to say "okay, I do this and this and that", and not just "Okay, I hit him, and use ability x" I disagree, now if you want to roleplay out your combat you actually have some abilities that give it some tooth instead of going on some long description of the moves and having it just boil down to a charge action, or a full attack. Supplying some rules mechanics to go with this means you can actually distinguish different techniques and styles within combat if you want to. This really boils down to the age old roleplay vs. rollplay argument. Maybe we need a coda to the Shadowind Fallacy, just because there's a rule mechanic for something doesn't mean that it takes away from roleplaying. It sounds like what you want is a storytelling system where your bonuses are derived from how well you describe what you're doing. I seem to recall there is an RPG out there that works that way but it certainly isn't D&D.
polt 10-09-06, 11:10 AM	No. Because when the rules are vague, you can come up with stuff yourselves. A decent DM can easily go like "okay, you have to roll a DC something, and you get these plusses, and some minuses." I don't give bonuses if people roleplay well, you shouldn't do that. But from 3.0 to 3.5, and I hope not but maybe also to 4.0, D&D is becoming more and more of a board/computer game. Get rid of attack of ops and all that movement stuff, it's annoying as hell unless you make it into a board game and play with a grid and some miniatures. If I wanted that, I'd play a boardgame. With the maneuvre stuff, it's like "Okay, I'm a fighter, I got 5-8 things I can do." Instead of "I can do whatever I want to, wuhu!"
Frugal 10-09-06, 11:46 AM	No. Because when the rules are vague, you can come up with stuff yourselves. A decent DM can easily go like "okay, you have to roll a DC something, and you get these plusses, and some minuses." I don't give bonuses if people roleplay well, you shouldn't do that. But from 3.0 to 3.5, and I hope not but maybe also to 4.0, D&D is becoming more and more of a board/computer game. Get rid of attack of ops and all that movement stuff, it's annoying as hell unless you make it into a board game and play with a grid and some miniatures. If I wanted that, I'd play a boardgame. With the maneuvre stuff, it's like "Okay, I'm a fighter, I got 5-8 things I can do." Instead of "I can do whatever I want to, wuhu!" Well like I've already said, adding mechanics doesn't remove roleplaying. Making a mechanic for something doesn't mean that a good roleplayer will suddenly stop roleplaying and just say, "I swing my sword". And similarly, taking away mechanics and keeping things vague isn't going to suddenly turn the guy who always just says, "I swing my sword," into somebody who says, "grasping the sword of my father I hoist the weapon over my head and shout out, 'I spill your blood in the name of my ancestors,' swinging the blade down between the orc's shoulder and neck." Miniatures use is something entirely different. Personally, I like it because it helps you establish where everyone is and judge who can attack who. It's especially useful for complicated combats. If you do it all spoken then it's really easy to lose track of where people are and have them suddenly pop up somewhere else. Plus everyone's understanding of where they are can be different so you get into situations where players can argue, "no, I'm not there, I'm over in the other corner so I can totally see the goblin wizard." Setting it up with minis avoids all of that because everyone can definitively see where everyone else is, who they can see, who they're able to attack and so on. But that's just me, maybe it's because I spent a long time playing miniatures wargames before coming back to roleplaying with 3.5.
Elendur 10-09-06, 12:21 PM	WotC seems to want to eliminate resource management. So every encounter starts off fresh. Almost like a miniature game battle.
Frugal 10-09-06, 12:56 PM	WotC seems to want to eliminate resource management. So every encounter starts off fresh. Almost like a miniature game battle. Well, I can see this as it opens up a lot more possibilities for how many encounters you run per day while still being balanced. For instance, if you run a more story oriented game you might only have 1 combat in a day, with classes that have limited uses per day they can "go nova" for that one encounter and make things really unbalanced. On the other hand, there are classes that can just keep going and going for each encounter. If there are fewer encounters they don't become overpowered but if there are more encounters they don't become underpowered. I don't necessarily see this as a good thing or as a bad thing, just a different way of balancing. Right now there's still too many classes that are balanced by number of encounters per day to completely break free of this. Plus there are still plenty of resources that don't recharge after an encounter or the next day (like potions or wands) so it's still possible to force the party to manage their resources.
Silverthumb128 10-09-06, 01:02 PM	The only thing I saw from the classes from ToB was this: "I wanna play this class and this class together, but I don't like either class, or anything else that's already been printed."
VandalThorne 10-09-06, 01:16 PM	Psionics and Incarnum also turned 3.5 battle system on it's ear. But neither heralded the greatly overvalued 4.0. Personally I think for everytime someone tries to push for 4.0 to get here faster that Wiz should push it back 2 more years. D&D isn't a computer game like WoW. :P Version upgrades are not always for the better and don't need to come every few months to keep the mainstream player happy. I couldn't agree more. If it ain't broke then, don't fix it.
PoeticJustice 10-09-06, 02:30 PM	After all, at high levels, it gets so tiresome when your only options are how much to power attack for. Meanwhile, a (Vancian) Caster can switch out all their spells known and completely change their strategy. Disclaimer: I own and enjoy my Tome of Battle, and this is not directed specifcally at stabs but more at the horde of people convinced that a fighter is somehow limited at high levels. I have no idea what basis on which one can assume the fighter is a one trick pony. Grapples, Trips, Bull Rushes, Sunders! A good DM'll let you invent a weapon with a sufficently high craft check. Heck, if you wanted you make your own fighting style. Once you're through with that, start fighting creatures with energy resistance, energy immunity, spell resistance, spell immunity, high saves, high touch AC, and all the other things that make casters unhappy. You can't fix what's not broken. The fighter class is FINE.
Mousse 10-09-06, 03:53 PM	I will say this: I like that Tome of Battle tried to even out the playing field between casters and swordslingers. However, I dislike the technique system. A lot. Its rather annoyingly arbitrary, especially with the odd way in which the techniques refresh and such. *shrugs* I like the idea, just not the implementation.
Imban 10-09-06, 04:12 PM	If you guys are looking for a system of "maneuvers" that expands on what fighters were already able to do, instead, look at the Book of Iron Might by Malhavoc Press. I actually haven't looked into it in depth, though, so I'm wary that I'm recommending suck here. Iron Heroes does interesting non-magical combat much better, but it is basically its own game, rather than an expansion for D&D. Still, I don't really get it when people say that all of the Tome of Battle styles are magical flaming wuxia that cannot fit in any setting. Maybe it's just because Desert Wind is first on the list, but in my opinion, some of the schools fit in anywhere. Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven are all very much things that I could see a 20th-level fighting man doing without problems or needing to draw on magic. You might need to do a little more work if you add Tome of Battle to Faerun, but you'd need to do the same work for Eberron. (Namely, since being a Tome of Battle class is _so much_ better than being a high-level martial class in most cases - especially for NPCs who are rarely well-built feat-wise - you might want to change things around so that fighting NPCs take advantage of Tome of Battle material.)
ressurrector 10-10-06, 01:33 AM	I'm running ToB in Eberron, the only change I made is that about 1/4 of the Warforged from the last War have 1 or 2 levels in a ToB class, and some of the races which have a martial history have a higher incidence of martial adepts (valenar elves...) Essentially I restrict the number of non-PC Martial Adepts like I would for casters, or any other class that requires an extensive study period to enter. As far as a system that is very free-flowing, dosen't have a large number of rules for different situations, and rewards cool explanations: have you tried anything from White Wolf? Seriously, it's exactly what you're talking about. D&D isn't, and I don't think I've ever seen D&D do that.
Reiner 10-10-06, 02:14 AM	I have no idea what basis on which one can assume the fighter is a one trick pony. Grapples, Trips, Bull Rushes, Sunders! I'm hard pressed to find many monsters in the 13~20 range in the Monster Manual that your every day fighter could grapple/trip. Most monsters in that CR range are bound to have a higher Str, more hitdice for more BAB, and a bigger size. Good luck tripping/bull rushing/grappling without an uber dedicated strength build. Also, sunder is a real waste against half or more of the things a fighter will be fighting (depending on DM), since you can't sunder a monster's Natural Weapon. Also, if you DO sunder a weapon/armor/whatever, you're now down the price of the item you just smashed. Often times party members will be ****** at the loss of party treasure. I'm not really saying that those options aren't available, just that the fighter's I've played all get tripped/grappled/pwned in melee combat by CR appropriate monsters. Plus, even if you do manage to trip/grapple/bull rush, its often more valuable to just beat on the monster, since its easier and much less prone to failure.
guru7892 10-10-06, 02:36 AM	My only real compliant is how the Base Classes had a certain lack of flavor, making them the proverbal square peg in the round hole, they were just hard to fit into my game smoothly. Acually when you start making all these classes that are so specific (Stanzey's Ultimate classes are a good example of this) I find I can't fit them in. What if sorcerers are not connected to dragons or outsiders? what if I dont want barbarians to have totem creatures? this is the reason why I like the wizards classes, they don't force a mold on to you. take the dread necromancer, that class can go anywhere unless you have a campagn without undead (and then you might be lame). prestiege classes are for specifics, classes should be general.
Epicweaver 10-10-06, 12:52 PM	I am looking forward to 4.0 immensely. When it finally comes out, I can finally stop buying every new book each month and just keep my group in v3.5. C'mon 4.0!
Zagreen 10-10-06, 01:27 PM	I like both the idea and the implementation of Tome of Battle, but don't think anything quite like it should be a central part of any future edition. I think future editions should move a bit in the same direction as Tome of Battle, and I think they should be planned from the start with some consideration given to a full-fledge Tome of Battle type system, but only as an optional expansion, like psionics. (For the record I think psionics needs to be better integrated too, but I don't think it necessarily should be an integral part of the system either.)
manasven 10-10-06, 01:35 PM	Personally, even just allowing the stances or stance like effects would be a good thing, even if you don't use the maneuvers themselves. Or, as someone else stated, use the maneuver system as a method of designing higher-level feats, which is one of the things the the Fighter class lacks atm.
polt 10-10-06, 05:08 PM	I couldn't agree more! I like a class like fighter, bard, wizard. You put the flavour into your class, not the other way around.
Arcane Guyver 10-10-06, 05:59 PM	I agree about classes and specific flavor. I like the ToB classes, but had to stifle a yawn when reading the mountain of fluff stapled to 'em. It's true, the proficiencies and class skills influence what sort of archetypes are doable with a class...but I'd much rather just have the crunch and figure the fluff out on my own. However...as far as this heralding 4.0...I kinda hope it does. I don't look forward to buying a new set of books, but if they fix half of the problems with 3rd edition, it'd be worth it. And one of the problems are casters being a step (or four) above everyone else on the food chain, and mundane combat being somewhat boring.
polt 10-11-06, 05:40 AM	Let your players define the character they want to play out of the character, not the class. You shouldn't be like "I want to play a rogue, or the rogue." Make up the character you want to play first, and then find out how you can make that character with the classes available to you.
Frugal 10-11-06, 09:31 AM	Let your players define the character they want to play out of the character, not the class. You shouldn't be like "I want to play a rogue, or the rogue." Make up the character you want to play first, and then find out how you can make that character with the classes available to you. Exactly, helps keep you from getting too wrapped up about multiclassing too, I've seen some builds on the forums that fit perfectly with the character concept but involve 3 or 4 different class and inevitably you get someone screaming about how all the multiclassing doesn't make sense because why would someone who's a "fighter" suddenly change to swashbuckler and then duelist (for instance)?
PoeticJustice 10-11-06, 09:50 AM	...why would someone who's a "fighter" suddenly change to swashbuckler and then duelist (for instance)? That should not send people into screaming fits. Asking why a druid would suddenly take a level in swashbuckler, maybe. Not a fighter.
Frugal 10-11-06, 09:57 AM	That should not send people into screaming fits. Asking why a druid would suddenly take a level in swashbuckler, maybe. Not a fighter. I'm serious, I've seen that kind of screming fit on the boards. Actually, I think the one I'm really thinking of is a thread I saw where a player was playing an evil character who had levels of blackguard and some evil PrC and the DM was flipping because he suddenly wanted to take a level of fighter. Most of us pointed out that it was a melee heavy build and it certainly made sense that the character might focus more on those abilities over his supernatural abilities and that certainly didn't mean he was "wavering" from the path of the evil god he was serving.
LordofIllusions 10-11-06, 10:22 AM	ToB is a cool book and gives melee classes another dimesion. Talk of 4.0 makes my stomach turn. I would really give up buying new books because they have so much to do with 3.5 it is not even funny. As it does mine my friend, and yet a handful of gamers seem focused on this 4E myth. Soon to not be a myth if the greedy corporate execs at Wizards has anything to say about it. Oh well... I used to go against it, but found more peace just staying off of the CaNEotC(Coddlers and New Editions of the Coast) boards most of the time(since they actually indirectly encourage the handful of people addicted to new editions), and focusing on products made by other companies. Copmanies that do not put out sub-standard products, allow anti-DM hate to be spread, or cram new editions(labelled as revisions) down the consumers throat. Most of CaNEotCs products are so player-oriented that it is darn near useless in the hands of the DM. Of course they will use what I just said as justification to spring a new edition out in 2008, or sooner, rather than make books that fix the problems they created......*sigh* ~~~
Drakos 10-11-06, 04:27 PM	I certainly hope they don't go this way when 4.0 comes out. I was really disapointed in the direction it took. It turned martial calsses into psudo-spell slingers (and in some cases superior at that). Yes I know that the Manuvers and Stances are not spells or even spell-like abilities, dut this is what I mean by "superior in some cases". They have the power of spells but not the drawbacks (AOO's, Concentration checks, spell resistance). In my way of thinking Martial calsses are ment to be "Martial" not a new type of spell slinger.
Pyke_Moonshadow 10-11-06, 04:43 PM	I certainly hope they don't go this way when 4.0 comes out. I was really disapointed in the direction it took. It turned martial calsses into psudo-spell slingers (and in some cases superior at that). Yes I know that the Manuvers and Stances are not spells or even spell-like abilities, dut this is what I mean by "superior in some cases". They have the power of spells but not the drawbacks (AOO's, Concentration checks, spell resistance). In my way of thinking Martial calsses are ment to be "Martial" not a new type of spell slinger. My main complaint exactly However, I dislike the technique system. A lot. Its rather annoyingly arbitrary, especially with the odd way in which the techniques refresh and such. *shrugs* I like the idea, just not the implementation. I hate the implementation. Refreshing every battle is too much. Which leads me to... WotC seems to want to eliminate resource management. So every encounter starts off fresh. Almost like a miniature game battle. It takes all the strategy out of the game. "Hill giant? I hit it with my best maneuver." next fight... "Manticore? I hit it with my best maneuver."
Frugal 10-11-06, 05:12 PM	I hate the implementation. Refreshing every battle is too much. Which leads me to... Yeah, and the vancian "I just cast this spell but now I forget how to cast it" system makes so much sense? It takes all the strategy out of the game. "Hill giant? I hit it with my best maneuver." next fight... "Manticore? I hit it with my best maneuver." Assuming you can one-hit all those creatures, sure. I think it's more like, "I hit it with my best maneuver, hmmm, still standing, okay I pull this out then...." I haven't looked through the book that much yet but my understanding is that some of the maneuvers and stances are more useful in some situations and less in others. But I do admit I'd have to read up on all of them more first.
malisteen 10-11-06, 05:50 PM	Maneuvers really aren't better then spells, and certainly don't have nearly the versatility. Try running a crusader in place of the party cleric, or a swordsage in place of the party wizard in mid or high levels. You'll see. As for making the character you want to roleplay without any party mechanics considerations, well that's just stupid. Ignoring roll-play issues doesn't automatically make youre role-playing better. In fact, in this case it makes it worse. A party of adventurers in a D&D World constitutes a group practicing a certain profession. They need to cover certain roles, including healer, blaster, trap-jammer, etc. They are worse adventurers if they adventure without these things when they know they exist and will be needed. Yes, the gaps can be shored up with npc hirelings, but that is an extra burden on the DM, and often makes less sense from a roleplay perspective then if some PC just played the needed character type to begin with.
Dnjscott 10-11-06, 05:57 PM	I actually disagree with this thought, or at least part of it. Though I agree that TOB is truly awesome and I also hope 4.0 would include cool stuff from it, it seems to me that WOTC always really pares down the opening edititions to the basics. As in, I really enjoyed the greater flexibility of the Combat and Tactics and the martial Arts of Complete Ninja waaaay back in second, but right when the system started getting big enought o allow stuff like that was when they pared it waaaay back down to 3.0. I figure the same thing will happen here... we'll lose our Swordsages, Warblades, Crusaders and Dragonfire Adepts in favor of the old FIghter, Ranger, and Paladin again.
ressurrector 10-11-06, 10:12 PM	It takes all the strategy out of the game. "Hill giant? I hit it with my best maneuver." next fight... "Manticore? I hit it with my best maneuver." Lemme put it this way: When you're a 17th level Warblade and your super-duper technique is: Hit once as a standard action for +100 damage. Meanwhile the mage is pulling out his 5th/6th level spells that happen to be save-or-dies, his good old fireball/lightning bolt, or a laying waste to small cities while you're busy. Not to mention the crazy things he can do with his 9th level spells. A 9th level maneuver is nowhere near as powerfull than a 9th level spell, and is similar in effect and power to 5th-6th level spells. It's highly unlikely you can ever 1-hit anything as a martial adept without using the save-or-die maneuver (and it fails to save), or it's such an easy opponant that it really shouldn't take any of the party's resources. Some people look at the maneuver system and say: OMG it's a fighter with spells! It's not, the labeling and the divisions are similar, because it's supposed to be farmilliar to players and easy to use, however the execution and effects are wholly different.
Chrome_Golem 10-11-06, 11:07 PM	All this talk of new classes and maneuvers just makes my head hurt. I'm allready drowning in a sea of PrC's, alternative classes, feats, spells, etc...That when I studied this book at my local gaming store I just had to put it away and say "neat, but no thanks". To those who enjoy the ToB all the more power to you, but I'm almost agreeing with the earlier poster who pointed out that he(she) wants a 4th edition just to catch up with the 3.5 stuff already released. Personally, I'm finding less and less relevant material with each release...There is such a thing as too much variety. I will not be using this book; not because its a poorly realised book, but because I just don't have the time/sanity to learn all of this new material (I'm a DM by the way). Thumbing through books and assimilating new material is already taking up too much time in my adventures, and this would just add to the encumbrance. I'm not trying to be negative or groan at WotC; I love what they've done with D&D and 3.5, but too much is too much. I love new material, but the pragmatist in me whispered "don't bother, you'll thank me later", and I'm glad I listened.
polt 10-12-06, 05:04 AM	As for making the character you want to roleplay without any party mechanics considerations, well that's just stupid. Ignoring roll-play issues doesn't automatically make youre role-playing better. In fact, in this case it makes it worse. A party of adventurers in a D&D World constitutes a group practicing a certain profession. They need to cover certain roles, including healer, blaster, trap-jammer, etc. They are worse adventurers if they adventure without these things when they know they exist and will be needed. Yes, the gaps can be shored up with npc hirelings, but that is an extra burden on the DM, and often makes less sense from a roleplay perspective then if some PC just played the needed character type to begin with. Oh, that I totally disagree with that. A GM should always make the adventure around the group, around the characters the players want to play. If that is a party with bards and fighters only, so be it. If it's wizards only, fighters only or anything like that, the GM has to take it into consideration when making his adventure. You shouldn't make the adventure and then go "Okay guys, let's play, if you don't have a rogue, you're screwed."
babysamurai 10-12-06, 05:27 AM	I hate the implementation. Refreshing every battle is too much. Which leads me to... It takes all the strategy out of the game. "Hill giant? I hit it with my best maneuver." next fight... "Manticore? I hit it with my best maneuver." I think the classes should be balanced per encounter, not per day (4 encounters). Some of us don’t adhere to the mandate of “4 encounters a day”.
Pyke_Moonshadow 10-12-06, 08:02 AM	I think the classes should be balanced per encounter, not per day (4 encounters). Some of us don’t adhere to the mandate of “4 encounters a day”. I don't adhere to the 4 per day either but if you make it per encounter the party takes 5 goes in and novas on the next room, rinse and repeat. That is no fun for me. I want the wizards to say things like.."Ok, I have one fireball left, should I use it now on the guards here or just off them with my burning hands and scorching ray and save it for the room they are guarding?" Not "Ok I just used my fireball guys, finish them off while I sit for a sec and get it back for the next room." That may just be my play style but it certainly is how I feel. To me the adventuring group would go from as many encounters they can handle before getting too weak to how many encounters they can handle before the DM tells them they are tired.
babysamurai 10-12-06, 08:11 AM	To me the adventuring group would go from as many encounters they can handle before getting too weak to how many encounters they can handle before the DM tells them they are tired. That’s how it works for the group I’m DMing. Plus, as we all know, 1 meaty encounter can be the equivalent of 3 to 5 average encounters.
Frugal 10-12-06, 09:40 AM	I don't adhere to the 4 per day either but if you make it per encounter the party takes 5 goes in and novas on the next room, rinse and repeat. That is no fun for me. I want the wizards to say things like.."Ok, I have one fireball left, should I use it now on the guards here or just off them with my burning hands and scorching ray and save it for the room they are guarding?" Not "Ok I just used my fireball guys, finish them off while I sit for a sec and get it back for the next room." That may just be my play style but it certainly is how I feel. To me the adventuring group would go from as many encounters they can handle before getting too weak to how many encounters they can handle before the DM tells them they are tired. The problem is that the wizard is balanced on 4 encounters per day, not on a per encounter basis. He'd need a complete rewrite to work that way so using him in the example doesn't really make sense. But right now, if you don't adhere to 4 encounters per day and use less encounters, then the players can "go nova" all they want and be fine (assuming it's a consistent thing). I do like the idea of players running low on resources and having to ration their uses but there's so many ways to just rest when you want to (Rope Trick anyone?) that it's not much of an issue.
ENHenry 10-12-06, 10:40 AM	My real problem with balancing everything on "per encounter" instead of "per day" (also known as "I want to do something cool every round") is -- what next? When everyone is walking on willow reeds, and deflecting a thousand arrows per second, and healing comrades by whacking opponents, what's "fantastic" any more? The "fantastic" has become so mundane that anything that isn't over the top and bombastic is boring, and people become bored with the game as a whole. The "special" is not saved for "special" occasions, because every encounter is a "special" occasion, which you will rejuvenate from in mere game seconds. I didn't mind it so much with Binders, because their abilities were replenishing, but not that powerful; Even with Warlocks and the new Reserve feats, the "tricks" offered weren't extremely powerful, just numerous. However, the Maneuvers offered by Blade Magic are in many cases real show-stoppers, on par with spells, and they replenish in every single encounter. Despite the claim of "resource management" I don't see the need to manage anything if you have six or seven choices in a six- or seven-round encounter, when you get it back in just 1 round. After this, what the heck does a player or DM do to top it?
ChudaTogawa 10-12-06, 11:49 AM	I remember when D&D went from 2nd Edition (with the Player Option series, so it was more like 2.5 D&D), and I looked at 3E with a distinct amount of dubiousness. I have since changed my opinion, and find 3E (and more directly, 3.5E) to be quite good. I think there are two issues in this thread, and I will address each separately. Tome of Battle I view much in the same light as Magic of the Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and the Draconomicon. They are supplements. Baseline 3.5 D&D is PHB, DMG, and the MM. The Complete X books make great additions to the base of D&D. The Races of X books... less so. The full-blown supplements? If you use all the supplements in the game, you are incorporating so many completely unneeded rules as to almost muddy the game. One of the appealing factors of 3.5 D&D is its very simplistic base. You have a DC, and you have the modifiers to your roll. Go. Ultimately, what your powers do, and the balance of them, is ultimately the concern of the game in general. Allowing all the supplements ever printed makes as little sense as freely allowing Forgotten Realms rules and supplements in an Eberron game. Not all the supplements set up the same world. The world of Tome of Battle might or might not gel with the world of Dragon Magic. These are all options that the DM has to choose from when designing their own game. The second issue being raised is the possibility or necessity of 4E. For a lot of the people welcoming it, I wonder if they went through the previous editions of the game, and can understand exactly what 4E means. The differences between 2E and 3E were drastic. Were they the same game? They dealt with the same subject matter, sure, but they were drastically different games. Ability caps, level caps, negative AC, THAC0, the Five Save System... these were features of 2E that were completely removed from 3E. The classes were entirely overhauled, new classes were added, and things were made much more clearly delineated. 3E was also much more modular, and created a much more accessible means of adding content. The change from AD&D to AD&D 2nd Edition was just as drastic as the change to 3E. The change to 4E should, and hopefully will, be just as drastic. What does that mean for a company and the necessity of a 4E? So long as 3E and its supplements sell, there will be no 4E. There will be no need for a 4E, business wise, and producing it would be a fiscal decision that could destroy the game itself. By making all of 3.5E obsolete, they decrease any need to buy 3.5E material. That means the destruction of stock that hasn't been sold by a certain date, just to save money. Also, as a player, does there need to be a 4E, or is there simply a desire for it because of a want of something new? I'm open to discussion on these issues, as I am genuinely curious. As a player and DM of 3.5E, is there a need for a 4E? If so, why, with cited details, please.
aramilcaelvan 10-12-06, 03:15 PM	One of the big things that people are missing is that a fighter stands for everyone who is a material warrior. Of course, there are the barbarian, paladin, and ranger from PHB alone, but they could be recreated to a degree with fighter feat selection. The fighter is all material warriors, from the scummy bandit hiding a marsh, to the general of a chiveralis army. ToB missed that entirly. The three base classes were all to focused, and for those of us that like to play in more of a knights/wizards type of world, they don't fit at all. I dearly hope that Wizards doesn't get any funny ideas about including anything from oriantal (sorry I spelled that wrong) adventures or the like in the 4.0 PHB. It's called Dungeons and Dragons, not Dungeons and Dragons and Shruiken. That's why OA exists as a seperate book, so that those who want it can have it, but those that don't don't have too.
Arcane Guyver 10-12-06, 03:34 PM	Why some people want a 4e: I played a little of 2e, and have played quite a bit of 3e. Maybe it's due to fresh eyes or something, but I see alot of uneccesary inconsisencies within the core rules that could use fine tuning. I'm sure much of these inconsisencies are nostalgic throwbacks to earlier editions, but I'd prefer to have a more consistent set of core rules. Some examples of basic things that should be addressed: * Wisdom being used for Will saves instead of force of personaliy (aka Charisma). * The monk class needs to be thought out better; hopefully most of those PoS 'special monk' weapons will be taken out of the game. Nobody else in the game uses those weapons, and it's not just cuz they're Exotic... * No class should have so much spellpower that they lose next to nothing by entering a prestige class (cleric & sorcerer). * Feats need to be re-thought out - both the acquisition rate (too few currently) and power level. * Skills need to be re-thought out - if you're making a Fighter/Rogue, it shouldn't be a no-brainer which class you start off as (rogue, as bajillions of skill points are better than a four more hit points). Why not reduce some of these skills, rolling some like Disable Device and Open Lock into one? * Spells...well, besides eliminating the 0-level spell (make cantrip effects a caster level check or something), the higher-level stuff needs toning down or removed. Polymorph & Antimagic Field are ridiculous. * Item creation should be completely reworked. As does the basic D&D economy. * Level adjustment is sucky, and should just be replaced with some good racial levels. I could go on for quite a while, just on classes alone. 3.5 is FAR from perfection, and no amount of supplement will fix it quite like a new edition. All they can do now is apply patches and throw on new coats of paint.
Arcane Guyver 10-12-06, 03:40 PM	One of the big things that people are missing is that a fighter stands for everyone who is a material warrior. Of course, there are the barbarian, paladin, and ranger from PHB alone, but they could be recreated to a degree with fighter feat selection. Sorry, but no Fighter feat in the official publications gives you rage, +10 feet speed, trap sense, detect evil at will, animal companion, special mount, lay on hands, a large spell list (for magic item usage)....you simply can't recreate those classes with feats (though a Fighter/Druid can come VERY close to replicating a Ranger). If you want scummy bandits and whathaveyou, there's the Warrior NPC class. Generals should be at least higher level, or have a better class. I don't get what this 'material warrior' thing is all about - all classes are equipment reliant (especially the monk). And I think it's a bit late to be worrying about oriental influence in D&D, since the nunchaku, sai, and shuriken are core pieces of equipment these days (not good equipment, granted, but they are there...)
Chrome_Golem 10-12-06, 04:30 PM	The second issue being raised is the possibility or necessity of 4E. For a lot of the people welcoming it, I wonder if they went through the previous editions of the game, and can understand exactly what 4E means. The differences between 2E and 3E were drastic. Were they the same game? They dealt with the same subject matter, sure, but they were drastically different games. Ability caps, level caps, negative AC, THAC0, the Five Save System... these were features of 2E that were completely removed from 3E. The classes were entirely overhauled, new classes were added, and things were made much more clearly delineated. 3E was also much more modular, and created a much more accessible means of adding content. The change from AD&D to AD&D 2nd Edition was just as drastic as the change to 3E. The change to 4E should, and hopefully will, be just as drastic. By the time 3rd edition came along I believe that the time had truely come to put 2nd edition (and in a way 1st edition) to rest. I just don't get that feeling about 3.5 yet, sure it has it flaws, but it has huge benefits in its "modular" design.
ChudaTogawa 10-12-06, 04:52 PM	By the time 3rd edition came along I believe that the time had truely come to put 2nd edition (and in a way 1st edition) to rest. I just don't get that feeling about 3.5 yet, sure it has it flaws, but it has huge benefits in its "modular" design. Precisely my point. The Player Options series had turned all classes into point-buy, and the Kit system before that had allowed for a great variety of character types. But when 2E was finally put to bed, it was truly time for something fresh. 3.5E was a significant step forward, over the top-heavy designs of 3E. To address the specific points earlier, there are no guarantees that a 4E release would fix any or all of those problems. Traditionally, the method by which to fix those have all been supplemental rules. Not new editions. New editions completely change the game. Will saves based off Charisma is a feat in 3.5E. The Monk class is similar to the Complete series base classes: a concept (unarmed fighter) taken to 20 levels. Personally, I don't think it fits with the rest of the PHB classes, because of that. Like Druid. I think the Charisma-based divine caster from DL is a better 'Alternative Divine Caster'. I agree with the case on Sorceror and Cleric, but that is both a good case for a modification of the rules, not an update, such as 3E to 3.5E. Changing class specifics is, through the d20 system, modular, not overhauling the entire system. Feats and Skill acquisition, however, are. That is the most commonly addressed point I have found in the complaints about 3E and 3.5E, but the problem is... that's not asking for something DIFFERENT. It's asking for MORE of what there is. Easily done. Bonus Feats at first level equal to your highest Stat mod was how one DM of mine did it. Also, just granting certain skills as inclass because of origin, and extra skillpoints. Functionally, there is no change in the rules. Just in the acquisition of character features. Changing the magic system, now we're talking about changing rules. This is a good argument for 4E. The current magic system of D&D isn't what you like, and isn't creative enough. How would you change it, other than just the 0-level spellcasting check? I like the Item Creation, personally. It's a lot better than 2E without breaking the system. IT doesn't cost permanent stats, other than XP, most of the time. How would you propose a better system for allowing different, and more powerful than base book, races into a game, other than the level offset manner? 2E used level caps and class restrictions. How would you? Thank you for the reply, Arcan Guyver. I hope you don't take my challenging replies the wrong way. I just want to foster a discussion of this.
aramilcaelvan 10-12-06, 04:55 PM	Sorry, but no Fighter feat in the official publications gives you rage, +10 feet speed, trap sense, detect evil at will, animal companion, special mount, lay on hands, a large spell list (for magic item usage)....you simply can't recreate those classes with feats (though a Fighter/Druid can come VERY close to replicating a Ranger). If you want scummy bandits and whathaveyou, there's the Warrior NPC class. Generals should be at least higher level, or have a better class. I don't get what this 'material warrior' thing is all about - all classes are equipment reliant (especially the monk). And I think it's a bit late to be worrying about oriental influence in D&D, since the nunchaku, sai, and shuriken are core pieces of equipment these days (not good equipment, granted, but they are there...) You completly missed what point I was trying to make. First, to clear up, I said material warrior to use in place of "a class that fights on the front lines", because the word fight could confuse people, with fighter being the name of the class in the light here. Sorry. Second, I wasn't advocating replacing Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers with the Fighter. I was attempting to point out that fighters can be anyone you want them to be, and that the ToB classes are to focused to replace it. And as for it being late to worry about oriental incluence, three pieces of ignored equipment in one of the three core books does not make OA unignorable.
ressurrector 10-12-06, 04:58 PM	My real problem with balancing everything on "per encounter" instead of "per day" (also known as "I want to do something cool every round") is -- what next? When everyone is walking on willow reeds, and deflecting a thousand arrows per second, and healing comrades by whacking opponents, what's "fantastic" any more? The "fantastic" has become so mundane that anything that isn't over the top and bombastic is boring, and people become bored with the game as a whole. The "special" is not saved for "special" occasions, because every encounter is a "special" occasion, which you will rejuvenate from in mere game seconds. I didn't mind it so much with Binders, because their abilities were replenishing, but not that powerful; Even with Warlocks and the new Reserve feats, the "tricks" offered weren't extremely powerful, just numerous. However, the Maneuvers offered by Blade Magic are in many cases real show-stoppers, on par with spells, and they replenish in every single encounter. Despite the claim of "resource management" I don't see the need to manage anything if you have six or seven choices in a six- or seven-round encounter, when you get it back in just 1 round. After this, what the heck does a player or DM do to top it? Did you read the maneuvers in the ToB at all? They are nowhere near as powerfull as spells of lower level, and the only ones I can see that *might* be nova-ish are the lvl 8-9 ones. THat's a far sight beyond a fireball which is attainable at 5th level and scales with caster level. Also, it's good to note that the ToB is actually balanced in such a way as to anticipate the heros using their most powerfull maneuvers right off in a battle, or holding off only to wait for a better tactical situation. The only maneuver similar to the "fireball" you're using to describe the effects of maneuvers refreshing: is an 8th level effect, and it's a cone, meaning there isn't that wonderfull range that a real fireball has. I've got no problem with people arguing against the ToB, but at least use material from the book and not vague inferrences if you wish to argue it's overpowered. [edit] Just FYI: I DM and I've got a couple martial adept characters in my game, so far they're not overpowered at all compared to the rest of the party (spellcasters and gishes)
Arcane Guyver 10-12-06, 05:56 PM	While I do think 3.5 has a lot going for it, by the time I get done with my houserules, it ceases to look recognizable as 3.5 any further. I guess a good example would be that they pretty much admitted that melee combat was a subpar option in 3.5 D&D. Instead of addressing the problem with the Fighter and the Monk, they published the Tome of Battle....which obviously isn't meant to replace either class, but to supplement. As of now, Wizards seems totally hesitant to mess with the core rules, relying instead on supplemental rules and replacement abilities. It's easy to just give more feats and skills, but there are still core feats that are too crappy (Nimble Fingers) and too good (Natural Spell). These things need to be balanced against each other better. More skill points for classes would be nice, but the first level boost is insane. Maybe if all classes had some sort of '1st-level only' benefit...some get more skill points, others get desirably good special abilities... Beyond that is the rolling of redundant skills into eachother...it'd be nice to ask players to make Stealth and Notice checks. The magic system is another reason for a new edition - reducing the sheer, unnecessary power of magic is beyond anything a splat book can achieve. In short, 6th-level spells seem quite powerful enough. As a side note, I too quite liked the Mystic DL class. It was Wisdom based, however (still spontaneous).
aramilcaelvan 10-12-06, 06:13 PM	So what, do we want the fighter to change, or to have it stay the same? Or we could just add some ToB classes to core for 4.0. Of course, that would make the fighter even more reduntant. I think that the solution here isn't to boost the figher (including adding "better fighters"), but to nerf overpowered arcane casters. And as for adding the whole stances/maneuver thing to fighters, I don't think that would be a great idea, for two reasons. The first one is that one of the good things about the figher is that he's easy to play. He can serve as a starter class for new players, and tossing in manuevers and stances, would complicate things to an extreme degree. This leads into my next point, which is to point out the inevitable if we permit the fighter to have these things, that are so close to spells. If they become such an key part of the game, what is to stop WotC from releasing another bunch every book? Sure, they aren't as powerful as spells, but does anyone besides me see the potential for unbalanced-ness here?
Jhaelen 10-13-06, 07:48 PM	The first one is that one of the good things about the figher is that he's easy to play.Umm, maybe it looks like this on the surface, but actually I think it's really difficult: it takes a lot of experience, a good grasp of the (combat) rules and careful planning to play a good fighter. Imho, the easiest classes to play are those with the least number of options which doesn't exactly describe the fighter who has to choose from hundreds of feats and dozens of weapons and combat styles.
Siginaugan 10-13-06, 08:43 PM	For TOB I'd like to see a psionic power point system used. I love TOB, but it uses a variant of the old magic system and I prefer the PPP system. For 4.0 I'd like to see a combination of Psionics and Incarnum. You can then split the system into two types. One for melee and other for spellcasting.
Lina_Inverse 10-15-06, 01:57 AM	Grapples, Trips, Bull Rushes, Sunders! NONE OF WHICH HAVE AN EFFECT ON D&D COMBAT! Sorry dearie, but such things have no effect against a dragon, or hydra, or ki-rin etc.
Dark Brandon 10-15-06, 02:49 AM	I enjoyed ToB. It took a days worth of reading and a bit of questioning to get a handle, but it's not overly complicated. I personally wouldn't like to see a 4E, but I do have some issues with 3.5. I don't have a problem with arcane casters, but I would like to see an increase in power for non-casters to be on par. Some things I think can help it (Like ToB), but it simply doesn't do enough because it relies on feats, but you have classes in the book that can gain these abilities (and more of them) without loss of feats. I think there needs to be a change in the base-core classes. I'm thinking books like Unearthed Arcana or other books that offer a change in the base classes. The article "dead levels" offer an insight into things I think that can be changed (though I disagree with the suggestions, as they don't really offer anything in place of those dead levels, at least nothing that would make a player want to stay any more than before). I think the idea is to balance out mechanical advantage and role-play aspect. I like a character who can be RPed as something and has the mechanical advantage to back it up.
BrutalMisery 10-15-06, 04:25 AM	My thoughts: 1. No more talk of fouth edition. So far, everything has been interesting ways of manipulating 3.0. There is no need to even think about another major rule change. So, no more. 2. ToB is just one book. LIke Weapons of Legacy, Tome of Magic and all the rest. A very cool book. But just one. My game didn't change much when Complete Warrior came out, it won't changet with the addition of ToB. 3. I agree with whoever said they didn't like a super power for every situtation, every round. I don't like all day abilities. Give them something that makes them Give them they have to work for.
Just another user 10-16-06, 10:19 AM	Yeah, and the vancian "I just cast this spell but now I forget how to cast it" system makes so much sense? It would not make sense if it was like that, wihich it was never been. It is more like " I just shoot with this gun, but now I need to reload"
Frugal 10-16-06, 11:53 AM	It would not make sense if it was like that, wihich it was never been. It is more like " I just shoot with this gun, but now I need to reload" Well not really, unless you can't "reload" until the next day. A wizard spends his hour in the morning reading up in his spellbook memorising spells. I can get the concept that maybe magic is very complicated and you need to spend some time every day going over the specifics of how to cast the spells you want. That part makes sense. But, what I find doesn't make sense is the idea that after spending that time memorising spells you forget how to cast one as soon as you fire it off. "Oh man, we could really use another fireball, quick cast one!" "Sorry, I can't remember how." "What? You just cast one 6 seconds ago!" "Yeah, but now I forget." Everything I've seen describing the vancian system describes it that way too: The system of magic used in some of Vance's work, in which spells are memorized and then forgotten once cast, was borrowed by Gary Gygax for the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, in part because it is not similar to any real-world occult beliefs. In homage, Dungeons & Dragons creator Brian Blume named one of the deities of magic in the world of Greyhawk, Vecna (an anagram of Vance). Personally, I like the way Sorcerors work much better. Or, if you wanted to do a memorising concept, maybe something more like a Spirit Shaman would make sense, they're allowed to select x number of spells per spell level and they can cast y spells at that level per day. Then you get the memorising concept (reading through your spell book and "brushing up" on a few spells) but your limited number of uses is more reflecting a concept that you're only capable of manipulating so much magic in a day, maybe it's somewhat fatiguing or you draw up a "pool" of magical power at the beginning of the day and when it's gone you have to rest before you can draw up a new one (as you gain power you can draw up a larger "pool").
GhostStepper 10-16-06, 01:34 PM	I've read somewhere (i dont remember if it was 3.0 or 2E or what) that when a caster "prepares" spells in the morning, he actually begins casting them and when he casts them at some point later in the day he is only completing the last bit of the spell. To me, this makes a little more sense than memorizing and forgetting like some mystic version of Memento. I guess its like punching in some numbers in your phone at the begining of the day and hitting the "talk" button later when your ready to call.
mhacdebhandia 10-16-06, 05:53 PM	The idea that wizards "cast" most of their prepared spells and just leave the final "trigger" unsaid is a Third Edition innovation. Up until then, in all prior editions of the game, wizards memorised spells just as Vance's wizards did. There's a reason we call it "spell preparation" and not "spell memorisation" now. Of course, Vance described it in a way that made sense - the magical patterns of his spells were alive and difficult to contain within one's brain unless you were a powerful and experienced wizard. Earlier editions of D&D didn't really make this explicit.
Greatbear 10-17-06, 12:35 AM	I think all this talk about 4th edition is pretty moot. The Tomes plus Incarnum are first edition. That's the future WOTC is working towards: Just continually tack on new options to the d20 engine.
babysamurai 10-17-06, 05:07 AM	That's the future WOTC is working towards: Just continually tack on new options to the d20 engine. Exactly.
Wayfarer 10-17-06, 02:02 PM	Well not really, unless you can't "reload" until the next day. A wizard spends his hour in the morning reading up in his spellbook memorising spells. I can get the concept that maybe magic is very complicated and you need to spend some time every day going over the specifics of how to cast the spells you want. That part makes sense. But, what I find doesn't make sense is the idea that after spending that time memorising spells you forget how to cast one as soon as you fire it off. "Oh man, we could really use another fireball, quick cast one!" "Sorry, I can't remember how." "What? You just cast one 6 seconds ago!" "Yeah, but now I forget." I don't have a problem with the basic idea of spell preparation, as much as with the mechanical implementation. I think the the Tome of Blades Initiate mechanics, where your abilities refresh between battles and you can take time out from fighting to recover them, works much better. I'd like to see all the classes balanced on a Per-encounter basis like the ToB classes. Wizards would prepare spells at will, with less spells ready at one time and weaker effects overall. Either make the abilities balanced so that it doesn't matter if they're used constantly (Warlock, etc) or give them some sort of recovery mechanism that may not be useful in battle (Swordsage, etc).
timerino 10-23-06, 07:49 PM	I don't have a problem with the basic idea of spell preparation, as much as with the mechanical implementation. I think the the Tome of Blades Initiate mechanics, where your abilities refresh between battles and you can take time out from fighting to recover them, works much better. I'd like to see all the classes balanced on a Per-encounter basis like the ToB classes. Wizards would prepare spells at will, with less spells ready at one time and weaker effects overall. Either make the abilities balanced so that it doesn't matter if they're used constantly (Warlock, etc) or give them some sort of recovery mechanism that may not be useful in battle (Swordsage, etc). I like the utility (versus repetition) of the wizard class: I've played warmages and sorcerers. Sorcerers are more fun than warmages: warmages' tatics are basically the same. Sorcerers have some customisation at 'leveling.' And, I like the wizard's versatility ... it's fun to play. I really don't like the move towards an 'per encounter' system: it is very miniatures (and even castle ravenloft) like and takes away from some of the richness (or fun) of the game. It does simplify the system: but afterwhile, you loose more and more of the complexity which makes the game fun. I also like ToB: it is an interesting system which is more akin to action-kung-fu flicks. I'd like to see WoTC work out a system which straddles the ToB and the feats. We've already see more and more special abilities become feats. Personally, I expect a better job from wotc for 4.0 than to just roll in ToB with a few updates. Per another poster's comments: dazzle us with a brand new system! timerino
mkill 10-24-06, 05:17 AM	I've read through the tread and so far no idea came up that would make a 4th edition necessary. Remember one thing: The guys on the forum here are probably the most active 1% of the D&D community. Most gamers don't have the time to constantly try out new material, they maybe have a session once a month and buy a new stash of books every christmas, when they have time to read some stuff. If wizards would put out a 4th edition right now, it wouldn't sell. Most people have piles of books on the shelf that they didn't have the opportunity to use yet, so why use a new edition when the old one worked fine (with maybe under one page of house rules). If you wanted to try out all the stuff that is out there and compatible with 3rd edition, with all the OGL stuff, you'd still have enough for gaming until 2020 easily (at which point it might be fun to reuse out these old CP2020 books, but I disgress). Actually, if you reread the first post, it said: "dear wizards, if there is a fourth edition, don't change anything, just repackage stuff that's already out." Well, that's like asking for no 4th edition at all... The only reasonable solution for a 4th edition right now would be to rehash the PHB without changing the basic rules, i.e. leaving the base mechanics where they are and dish out 10 new base classes, reusing some stuff from current splatbooks. But there are already tons of these kind of books out (from other companies), but they don't seem to sell better than the WotC stuff, so why bother. The better idea would be to leave D&D where it is and expand into other settings, like steampunk or low-fantasy or gothic horror or wild west... Maybe there will be some new trend in the RPG market that makes people screaming for a complete rework of the D&D line, but I don't see that happening before 2012.
ryanroyce 10-25-06, 01:18 AM	I'm torn. I don't want to see a true 4th edition any time soon (i.e., on the scale of 2nd to 3rd Ed.), but I do think that there has been a noticeable design philosophy shift away from the daily-use paradigm that the traditional core classes would benefit greatly from. For instance, I'd love to see a revised monk that was built with the martial adept mechanics in mind, or a sorcerer designed more like a warlock. Sure, there's no school like the old school, but any mechanism that is not properly maintained eventually succumbs to entropy. Thus, I expect to see another "revised" core rule set a la 3.5 long before we see a true 4th Edition (which, when it eventually arrives, will probably be closer to a point-buy system, IMO).
ressurrector 10-25-06, 01:36 AM	Perhaps a book of alternate class features? Monks get # of stunning attempts per encounter, instead of day. Casters get a certain number of spell levels to use each encounter as well. Char level in castable spell levels/encounter, 20 wizard can cast 2 lvl9s and 1 lvl 2 in 1 encounter. (prevents them standing in the backthe whole day and going nova on the BBEG) Now that I think of this, I may start writing these down and then make a game purely to test them out.
PoeticJustice 10-25-06, 01:41 PM	I don't think you're going to see much a change in class structure when 4.0 comes out. For one thing, it's a lot easier to teach a new player how a fighter or a sorcerer works compared to a Martial Adept or Warlock. Losing or altering the entry-level classes greatly detracts from the game.
azardm 10-25-06, 03:02 PM	Personally, I don't understand all the hooplah. The ToB is an okay book and has some interesting ideas in there, but from my perspective all it is doing is ramping up the power-level of PC's and leaving DM's to constantly upgrade to be able to even challenge them. The other end of the spectrum leads to a DM forbidding the use of the book and then Players feel they have bought a book for which there is no real outlet to utilize it on - encouraging some of the DM-bashing sentiment that seems rampant at times. WotC is not overly forthcoming with the reasonings behind new books but it appears that this book is yet another stab at escalating the power-level of PC's so they can be the 6-million dollar man ("he can be faster, stronger, better that before"). True, I have only had an initial read through the book and a re-run of the Delve and the ToB PC that was included there, so I am not claiming scholarship, only cautious skepticism. I think I will run an NPC or two before I firmly decide for myself about the worth of the book. As for 4.0 - I am in the camp that is vehemently against the idea due to the large sums of money already poured into this edition (v3.5). Other than some typos, cut/paste problems, this is an extremely good, modular system that needs no revamping. I am an old-timer (red box days of the original D&D) who has played all subsequent varieties of this most excellent hobby we share, and I believe that TSR/WotC has hit the mark that should at least carry on for a decade or two with it's versatility. About the only thing close to a new edition I would support would be a reprinting of existing books that fixes the known problems and inserts all eratta and FAQ material so you don't have to carry the book and 2 loose-leaf folders to have the complete picture. Just my 2-cents, for what it's worth :) AzarDM
ENHenry 10-26-06, 11:19 AM	Did you read the maneuvers in the ToB at all? They are nowhere near as powerfull as spells of lower level, and the only ones I can see that *might* be nova-ish are the lvl 8-9 ones. [edit] Just FYI: I DM and I've got a couple martial adept characters in my game, so far they're not overpowered at all compared to the rest of the party (spellcasters and gishes) Unless I'm misreading, I don't remember referencing fireball -- I referenced the Wuxia-like abilities possible, and making note that using them dozens of times per day lessens the fantastic into something absolutely mundane. A Crusader can HEAL others by striking in combat. Think about that a second: He can attack somebody else, and without a word, gesture, or other motion heal somebody he isn't even looking at. And he can do it all day long. If we go to the subject of that 5th level fireball, I will note that our intrepid wizard can do it once, or maybe twice per day -- not 5, 6, 7, or 15 times. I'm not concerned with power-level, so much as adding flash to every little attack, movement, and gesture. As I once noted, it's like reading chapters out of Stephen Colbert's Tek Jansen novels - too much flash, and your eyes bleed. :) People used to complain about the largely magical nature of Eberron, but this takes that into high-gear -- you're making grandiose maneuvers as a matter of course every single combat, not conserving or holding anything back, because there's no need to. What I'm afraid of is that there will be no show-stopper, because every moment is a showstopper, if that makes sense.
AQuebman 10-26-06, 02:39 PM	Well not really, unless you can't "reload" until the next day. A wizard spends his hour in the morning reading up in his spellbook memorising spells. I can get the concept that maybe magic is very complicated and you need to spend some time every day going over the specifics of how to cast the spells you want. That part makes sense. But, what I find doesn't make sense is the idea that after spending that time memorising spells you forget how to cast one as soon as you fire it off. "Oh man, we could really use another fireball, quick cast one!" "Sorry, I can't remember how." "What? You just cast one 6 seconds ago!" "Yeah, but now I forget." Everything I've seen describing the vancian system describes it that way too: ). Lets make one thing clear first.... we are all playing an imaginative roleplaying game with "guidelines" from WoTC. That being said I personally fully understand the Vancian system, and from the complaints of casters being overpowered it works better than a constant cast ability. It takes such mental strength and stress for a wizard or other caster to prepare these spells and use this amazing power that it exhausts the precise magical ritual needed to cast it and the knowledge to bring it up again, unless *memorized* multiple times... or what realistically represents intense study on one particular spell... This makes perfect sense for a magical based roleplaying game... at least in my imagination station. Also folks, are we not playing a game where unless your using premade adventures it's all up to the guy/gal whos creating this fantastical world. WoTC provides guidelines you can use if you *wish* but why not have house rules/ completely new ways of doing something you like. Oh and if you do so why would it be so upsetting as to make the game not fun anymore?? If this is happening your House rule sucks. Just my 2 cents but I love what WoTC is doing, Another Edition would be stupid... would frustrate all but those with a ton of money to spend on books and honestly they have a game that is free from the binds it had in previous editions. Throw out the stat blocks characters and other sweet stuff you can come up with in 3.5 and attempt that in 2nd Ed or 1st.. (man my head hurts.) I think we are all Fantasy babies and mommy hasn't spoon fed us our favorite treat so were upset, I wanted Carrots and the other geeks wanted mashed peas!!! -The Q *Flames are licking my hide I can smell the burn*
Frugal 10-26-06, 02:58 PM	That being said I personally fully understand the Vancian system, and from the complaints of casters being overpowered it works better than a constant cast ability. It takes such mental strength and stress for a wizard or other caster to prepare these spells and use this amazing power that it exhausts the precise magical ritual needed to cast it and the knowledge to bring it up again, unless *memorized* multiple times... or what realistically represents intense study on one particular spell... This makes perfect sense for a magical based roleplaying game... at least in my imagination station. I understand it from a game balance standpoint but dislike it from a flavour standpoint.
AQuebman 10-26-06, 03:34 PM	My personal suggestion for you Frugal would be to house rule it, or come up with your own flavor you prefer for how or why that works with a caster. The beauty of this game, is how customizable it is... if your willing to do it, I understand it can be frustrating and if you can't do it right it can push you over the edge to where you don't want to do it... but if it means that much to you to make your experience better with D&D, you'll do what you've gotta do or live with it :cool:
Wayfarer 10-26-06, 03:56 PM	I've got to agree with the original poster on this point. 'My' 4.0 - that is, 3.5 when I'm done hacking and modifying it to my satisfaction - will look a whole lot more like the Tome of Blades than it does the core books. In the Nine Swords system, the abilities are balanced on a per-round or per-encounter basis. That's what I want - none of this per-day nonsense. The Nine Swords Initiator classes bring 'warrior' characters, especially melee fighters, roughly into line with the casting classes. No more stupidly overpowered wizards and clerics. Each of the Initiate base classes has its own unique special abilities in addition to Manuevers. No more 'spells and nothing else' classes like the Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, etc. And so forth. I see Tome of Blades as just another example of how the game mechanics can be improved with time and experience.
Pyke_Moonshadow 10-27-06, 12:40 PM	Spells and nothing else is just fine. As are the original melee classes in most settings I have seen. ToB's every encounter is fallacious anyway as the classes can use them more than that if they refresh (which is not hard to do at all). I guess I am a firm believer in the less is more game mechanics philosophy. As a player I am fine not getting a nifty new ability every level. I don't see dead levels, I see more BAB, Saves, skill points and HPs.
Dreamstryder 10-28-06, 03:09 AM	Unless I'm misreading, I don't remember referencing fireball -- I referenced the Wuxia-like abilities possible, and making note that using them dozens of times per day lessens the fantastic into something absolutely mundane. A Crusader can HEAL others by striking in combat. Think about that a second: He can attack somebody else, and without a word, gesture, or other motion heal somebody he isn't even looking at. And he can do it all day long. I believe it was makig use of the fact that hp represents more than fLeSh DaMaGe...ahem, it also represents fatigue and strain, which can be emotionally alleviated. <snip> I'm not concerned with power-level, so much as adding flash to every little attack, movement, and gesture.<snip> A valid concern, but what ToB does, I think, it give the player more strategics to think about every combat, which should make things all the more interesting. The Fighter thinks about feats, which she can use every combat too, but they tend away from functions like energy damage, extra movement, & healing and steer toward bonuses & extra attacks (ToB also included more strategic-minded feats). Ideally, either should be fun; it depends on the player.
Michelle 10-28-06, 06:46 PM	Are there any dates for the D&D 4.0 or is it just speculation?
Xeviat-DM 10-29-06, 01:57 AM	Tome of Battle maneuvers actually match up with spells fairly well in my opinion. Generally speaking, a maneuver that deals damage deals damage equal to twice the maneuver level if it only deals damage, or it deals damage equal to the maneuver level if it deals damage and has a special effect. Spells scale with caster level, which is their only lead on maneuvers. Sure, maneuvers generally have an attack roll and a save, but they are also tied to the attack with deals them, and thus the damage from that attack as well. Currently, I'm working on mixing the Psionics Rules and Tome of Battle rules, creating a Monk-like class which will be able to purchase Ki Feats (based on the idea of Psionic feats and ToB maneuvers), spending points to power them. These points, like my MP system (see sig.), will be balanced to regenerate at a reasonble rate, and will even be tied to fatigue and exhaution (since a spellcaster or other supernatural character grows tired the more they use their abilities in fiction). I will definately be talking more about this as I create more. Additionally, I've been taking ToB and Warlock philosophy and am attempting to apply it to the PHB classes. PHB2 already solved my Druid and Barbarian issues (though my barbarian rage triggers at 3+Con mod hp per level, rather than a flat 5), so I'm looking to solve others. Monk's stunning fist might use a psionic focus mechanic (charge up the energy, release it in a kiai, then charge it up again), paladin's smite might require an action to build up the energy (like the soulknife's psychic strike), bardic music may be tweeked to be unlimited (such as by taking an actual action to initiate). Per encounter balance is much better. To limit things by day, I'll be using sleep and fatigue rules. If 4th comes, I expect good things from it.
Xeviat-DM 10-29-06, 01:01 AM	Are there any dates for the D&D 4.0 or is it just speculation? There is speculation that it would be reasonable for it to be released in 2010, due to the general 10 year edition age. Certain people, such as Monte Cook, have been pointing out that recent products show a large shift in design philosophy, and point towards an edition change. Products such as adventures and supliments are growing in frequency. I, myself, believe in the d20 system so much that I doubt WotC will move away from it. I feel that a new edition will feel more like a revision.
Michelle 10-29-06, 09:02 AM	There is speculation that it would be reasonable for it to be released in 2010, due to the general 10 year edition age. Certain people, such as Monte Cook, have been pointing out that recent products show a large shift in design philosophy, and point towards an edition change. Products such as adventures and supliments are growing in frequency. I, myself, believe in the d20 system so much that I doubt WotC will move away from it. I feel that a new edition will feel more like a revision. Thanks for the reply. I just hope they pre-test this 4.0 version EXTREMELLY WELL since it will be a bummer if they start doing the same thing they did with this 3.0 version going to 3.5 and we having to get another 3 core rulebooks... that's not cool at all.
ryanroyce 10-29-06, 12:53 PM	I think that the next true edition (as opposed to a revision) will be a level-based point-buy system, in that at every level you get X points to spend on "feats", X points to spend on "skills", X points to spend on "class features", X points to... you get the idea. Each "piece" of the character gets a separate pool of points each level based on your "class", with certain things being cheaper for some classes than others. Still d20, sort of, but with a more versatile class/level system. Ryan
TekknoMancer 10-29-06, 02:24 PM	<sorry, duplicate post>
TekknoMancer 10-29-06, 02:25 PM	So how do maneuvers stack up against spells? As maneuvers, they require no components, no failure in armor, no AoO or conc. check, no SR, and (most) function in an AMF. The downside is that many of the offensive abilities require an attack roll AND a saving throw, whereas spells usually are a touch attack OR a save. And then there is a question of the power level. As for the power of the maneuvers' effects, barring the benefits and disadvantages above, let's examine a few specific maneuvers. Everyone brings up the lvl 9 +100 damage ability. Notice that this is not 100 damage, but PLUS 100 (no save) and thus will deal the damage for the attack as well. Does anyone know if the +100 is multiplied on a crit? Iron heart surge. This is a mere lvl 3 ability and can get rid of all kinds of spells and effects with a duration. This isn't just magic, but even su and ex abilities that have ongoing effects. There is no skill check or caster check...it's just gone. Time stands still - ok so it isn't as powerful as time stop, but it can be spammed every other round by a warblade. White raven tactics - grant a free turn to an ally, with the potential to be used every other round by a warblade. And it's a level 3! Immortal Fortitude (stance) - puts the diehard feat to shame Overall, spells are more powerful, but there are some VERY good maneuvers.
KmartKommando 10-29-06, 02:35 PM	We use Tome of Battle in our game, and I play a swordsage. I do pretty well on sticking a big hit once per round, and sometimes, if I roll well, I can dish out a couple fistfuls of damage. But, our top damage dealer is a sorceror blaster/archmage and a dwarf master of many forms specialized in troll forms. I can't compete with either of them, unless we somehow found ourselves in an antimagic field (which won't happen, as our DM loves tossing out the powerful spell combos at us). In like 10 weeks of playing, I have used Adaptable Style to recover maneuvers mid-battle exactly once. While the dwarf wizard is mixing it up and going toe-to-toe with everything, rarely missing and in turn having an AC 12-15 points higher than mine, not to mention better DR, Mirror Images, Wraithstrike, Bloodwind. The Sorceror, on the other hand, is running around in alternate forms, gaining attack bonuses at least equal to my own, and tossing twinned and quickened ranged touch no save spells, never missing, pummeling multiple targets at range. Before BoNS came out, all I had was a longspear, a bit of mobility-type powers and a ton of temporary hit points from Vigor, making me a damage soak, and nothing else. I could be a fighter-type maybe one encounter per day, and even then, my damage output was very low, even with reach and AoOs. Ideas are popping up about making per-encounter spellcasters, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of them in the future. The encounters per day stuff is just annoying, as we keep having people going nova in 2 encounters, with someone getting killed in the next encounter or 2, sometimes multiple deaths, which gets expensive, and is tedious work recovering the body(or bodies), RPing encounters with the clerics, or whatever, and then the whole night's loot is wasted on a True Res because no one wants to take the level hit.
bholdr_mage 10-29-06, 02:54 PM	I think that the next true edition (as opposed to a revision) will be a level-based point-buy system, in that at every level you get X points to spend on "feats", X points to spend on "skills", X points to spend on "class features", X points to... you get the idea. Each "piece" of the character gets a separate pool of points each level based on your "class", with certain things being cheaper for some classes than others. Still d20, sort of, but with a more versatile class/level system. Ryan They already have this. It's called World of Darkness.
ressurrector 10-30-06, 03:23 AM	So how do maneuvers stack up against spells? As maneuvers, they require no components, no failure in armor, no AoO or conc. check, no SR, and (most) function in an AMF. The downside is that many of the offensive abilities require an attack roll AND a saving throw, whereas spells usually are a touch attack OR a save. And then there is a question of the power level. That about summs it up, they are made to be used in melee combat, with someone holding a sword to your face, a downside is that quite a few of them are only useful while you've still got a weapon, so disarm may hurt. As for the power of the maneuvers' effects, barring the benefits and disadvantages above, let's examine a few specific maneuvers. Everyone brings up the lvl 9 +100 damage ability. Notice that this is not 100 damage, but PLUS 100 (no save) and thus will deal the damage for the attack as well. Does anyone know if the +100 is multiplied on a crit? Iron heart surge. This is a mere lvl 3 ability and can get rid of all kinds of spells and effects with a duration. This isn't just magic, but even su and ex abilities that have ongoing effects. There is no skill check or caster check...it's just gone. Time stands still - ok so it isn't as powerful as time stop, but it can be spammed every other round by a warblade. White raven tactics - grant a free turn to an ally, with the potential to be used every other round by a warblade. And it's a level 3! Immortal Fortitude (stance) - puts the diehard feat to shame Overall, spells are more powerful, but there are some VERY good maneuvers. the +100 damage is not multiplied on a crit (this is clarified in the section on maneuvers), furthermore the attack with +100 damage is the only one you can make in that round. (the maneuver is a standard action) Time Stands Still is kind of nice, however a warblade can (at worst) use it to get 3 full round attacks inside every 2 rounds. As for Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics... Might I suggest either banning or fixing them, they are obviously past the expected power level for 3rd level maneuvers.
ryanroyce 10-30-06, 12:16 PM	They already have this. It's called World of Darkness. I've never played any White Wolf games (aside from a three-session Aberrant game where the GM built my character for me), so I won't argue the point. Be that as it may, I still see this as the eventual future of D&D.
Frugal 10-30-06, 01:38 PM	I think if you're going to go to a points-based system it makes more sense to completely eliminate the idea of class, and possibly even levels entirely but that gets a little bit tougher for determining what an appropriate challenge is. Just give out x points per level that can be traded in for skill points, feats, class features, maybe even saves and BAB progression. Probably do a balancing thing where there's a limit on how many points you can put into a single category so you can't juice up one area to some extreme level.
The Club 10-30-06, 02:05 PM	I think that the next true edition (as opposed to a revision) will be a level-based point-buy system, in that at every level you get X points to spend on "feats", X points to spend on "skills", X points to spend on "class features", X points to... you get the idea. Each "piece" of the character gets a separate pool of points each level based on your "class", with certain things being cheaper for some classes than others. Still d20, sort of, but with a more versatile class/level system. Ryan I've been thinking similar things myself. 3.X has always seemed to me as though the designers were torn between the customization possible in a full point-buy system and the canonical class-based system of D&D. This edition is defined by character-building options, and tying them together into classes pulls against the other design features of the game. There seems to be a bit of rules bloat in the current edition. I don't mean that the game play itself is overburdened with rules (although that's certainly a topic for debate)--just that the sheer number of character-building options from different sources can be headache-inducing. On the other hand, this approach would appear to maximize the amount of supplemental material that can be published and sold, so it's unlikely that WotC would want to abandon it. Even so, I think the next edition will stray quite a bit from the traditional class-based abilities system. There have to be some quantum changes with a new edition, or consumers will just stand pat with 3.X. It will be interesting to see. The Club
Frugal 10-30-06, 02:46 PM	There seems to be a bit of rules bloat in the current edition. I don't mean that the game play itself is overburdened with rules (although that's certainly a topic for debate)--just that the sheer number of character-building options from different sources can be headache-inducing. On the other hand, this approach would appear to maximize the amount of supplemental material that can be published and sold, so it's unlikely that WotC would want to abandon it. You do bring up a good point about supplemental material, even without writing any new mechanics there's a ton of potential for creating new classes just off of mixing up existing class features. Adding in a couple small new mechanics expands that dramatically.
The Club 10-30-06, 07:21 PM	You do bring up a good point about supplemental material, even without writing any new mechanics there's a ton of potential for creating new classes just off of mixing up existing class features. Adding in a couple small new mechanics expands that dramatically. I think WotC could essentially do away with classes (perhaps adapting a "role" approach per level, like True20) without significantly reducing the amount of supplement material. Classes pretty much amount to a collection of abilities anyway, right? There's nothing to prevent WotC from producing a line of "Complete" books where new abilities are parcelled out according to a theme. You also bring up a point about how a new game mechanic expands potential character features. When the arguments being about how 3.X assumes the use of miniatures and that WotC is trying to create more revenue by selling them, I've always thought that the more tactical approach to the game also creates more character options, which means more books. It's a good idea on more than one front. The Club
ressurrector 10-30-06, 09:20 PM	You also bring up a point about how a new game mechanic expands potential character features. When the arguments being about how 3.X assumes the use of miniatures and that WotC is trying to create more revenue by selling them, I've always thought that the more tactical approach to the game also creates more character options, which means more books. It's a good idea on more than one front. To be honest, I prefer the new combat rules as it allows more complex strategy than "I hit him with a (sword/spell)" When not being abused, combat options like tripping and disarming can add a little spice to combat, make it more interesting. The only thing we've really ever used actual miniatures for (and not WoTC ones at that) was for large scale battles, where maneuver is important, and for flanking.
Frugal 10-30-06, 10:38 PM	You also bring up a point about how a new game mechanic expands potential character features. When the arguments being about how 3.X assumes the use of miniatures and that WotC is trying to create more revenue by selling them, I've always thought that the more tactical approach to the game also creates more character options, which means more books. It's a good idea on more than one front. Well the problem is there's already a lot of people who don't seem to grasp that class is a metagame concept and like to say things like "why would a ranger suddenly stop being a ranger and decide to be a fighter?" when it's just a matter of the character deciding to focus more on combat abilities rather than his wilderness ones. Removing classes completely gets rid of that idea to an extent but I think a lot of people equate class with identity or job and so not having one will throw them for a loop because your character does just become a collection of mechanics other than the concept you create. I'm sure there'd be some people complaining that one of their players just picks a bunch of abilities that make a powerful character but the character doesn't make sense. Not that this doesn't happen now, I'm just saying I can see some people not being able to understand that a character is made up of 2 elements, concept/fluff and mechanics/crunch. Focusing on either exclusively isn't good.
The Club 10-30-06, 11:27 PM	Well the problem is there's already a lot of people who don't seem to grasp that class is a metagame concept and like to say things like "why would a ranger suddenly stop being a ranger and decide to be a fighter?" when it's just a matter of the character deciding to focus more on combat abilities rather than his wilderness ones. Removing classes completely gets rid of that idea to an extent but I think a lot of people equate class with identity or job and so not having one will throw them for a loop because your character does just become a collection of mechanics other than the concept you create. I'm sure there'd be some people complaining that one of their players just picks a bunch of abilities that make a powerful character but the character doesn't make sense. Not that this doesn't happen now, I'm just saying I can see some people not being able to understand that a character is made up of 2 elements, concept/fluff and mechanics/crunch. Focusing on either exclusively isn't good. I like your point, particularly the parts I've highlighted. I've heard many complaints about players who want to combine character abilities in a way that "doesn't make sense." There is a popular notion that the player should be able to explain his character's abilities with some plausible in-game explanation. That holds the players accountable to a standard that the game itself doesn't try to achieve. The class-and-level structure of 3.X D&D strains against the variety of new options in character design. And the explosion of new classes and abilities shows that the original ability groupings were arbitrary to begin with. The Club
VandalThorne 10-31-06, 10:28 AM	Well the problem is there's already a lot of people who don't seem to grasp that class is a metagame concept and like to say things like "why would a ranger suddenly stop being a ranger and decide to be a fighter?" when it's just a matter of the character deciding to focus more on combat abilities rather than his wilderness ones. Removing classes completely gets rid of that idea to an extent but I think a lot of people equate class with identity or job and so not having one will throw them for a loop because your character does just become a collection of mechanics other than the concept you create. I'm sure there'd be some people complaining that one of their players just picks a bunch of abilities that make a powerful character but the character doesn't make sense. Not that this doesn't happen now, I'm just saying I can see some people not being able to understand that a character is made up of 2 elements, concept/fluff and mechanics/crunch. Focusing on either exclusively isn't good. Actually, I disagree. I rather think that class/profession is about right. You need to consider that there is no primary education system. You should also consider how important knowing a single trade was to earning a living until the industrial era. So I hope classes don't go away. I feel they add to the game's realism. Classes are not a metaconcept but multi-classing is. You kind of take it for granted that a fantasy world should reflect our modern world where a person is only limited by their social network in the number of economic opportunities they receive. I'd rather have my fantasy world reflect the world of really limited opportunities, born into a trade or wealth that my ancestors suffered through.
Elendur 10-31-06, 10:43 AM	Class, Alignment, and Vancian spellcasting. Everyone hates them, but for me it wouldn't be D&D without them.
Frugal 10-31-06, 11:09 AM	Actually, I disagree. I rather think that class/profession is about right. You need to consider that there is no primary education system. You should also consider how important knowing a single trade was to earning a living until the industrial era. So I hope classes don't go away. I feel they add to the game's realism. Classes are not a metaconcept but multi-classing is. You kind of take it for granted that a fantasy world should reflect our modern world where a person is only limited by their social network in the number of economic opportunities they receive. I'd rather have my fantasy world reflect the world of really limited opportunities, born into a trade or wealth that my ancestors suffered through. It really depends on what classes you're talking about. Fighter is an archetype that can fit with any number of professions but isn't a profession in and of itself (it could be). Barbarian implies a certain cultural background but is still fairly open ended. Same goes for Rogue, Sorcerror, Wizard and Ranger. Paladin is a lot more associated with a particular profession or organisation, as is Cleric and Monk to a certain extent. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with you that I like to see a strong character concept rather than just a sheet with a bunch of abilities that make a guy ridiculously good at 1 thing. But if I want to make a character who's previous job was working as a scout for the army, I could easily make him a ranger instead of using the scout class. Or maybe even a rogue. Or maybe it's a mix of several classes (if he's above level 1) but if they all reflect that core concept, great. If on the other hand I suddenly start running around with a greatsword in the front line because it does more damage, then I've diverged from that concept. Maybe something like d20 modern does where you have a class and then have a profession as 2 different items might make more sense.
Jhaelen 10-31-06, 03:36 PM	They already have this. It's called World of Darkness.The example made me think of GURPS, actually. The problem with point-based systems is that they are even more difficult to properly balance than the current system. With the large number of min-maxers in the D&D community that would be a terrible thing. It would take long for someone to discover the 'ultimate character build', which would totally kill the game. Anyway, the best 'class-less' system I know is probably Runequest. It also doesn't have the concept of levels. Everything's based on skill-checks and training time. WoD, GURPS, and Runequest are all very different systems from D&D and I'd hate to see it go into any of these directions.
manasven 11-05-06, 09:49 PM	I have to agree, I'd really rather not see D&D go level-less and class-less. There are very good systems out there that do that, but for a combat-based game, levels making balancing encounters much easier and classes make covering your bases simple for the players. As MMOs have proved over and over again, there is a "holy trinity" of tank, blaster and healer. Classes just helps to make sure players don't step on each others toes.
The Club 11-06-06, 12:44 AM	Classes just helps to make sure players don't step on each others toes. Up until 3rd Edition, I would have agreed with you. The emphasis on customization in this edition, however, are setting fire to the traditional niche protection in ways that Gary Gygax couldn't have foreseen in a fever dream. The next edition can't really go back the other way, because that would be a re-invention of 2nd edition. The current design is straining against the class-and-level approach, even if it retains it. WotC has produced a lot of supplements for this edition, and 2nd party publishers have sold quite a few as well. A new edition will have to be different enough to convince players to buy it. A few tweaks to 3rd Edition may not be enough to cause people to discard hundreds (or thousands) of dollars game materials. I may be missing something, but I don't see how the game can adhere more closely to a class-and-level structure and still produce a commercially viable new edition. The Club
charlesatan 11-06-06, 01:53 AM	As pointed out previously by the other posters, there are already other RPG systems which uses point systems to define characters - World of Darkness, GURPS, etc. There are even hybrids, mixing the point system with "class levels", such as the existing L5R game system. I think one thing going for the class system is ease of use. I've tried making a character in GURPS and even if you're fairly acquainted with the system, it still takes a lot of time generating a character (i.e. doing all the math and frequently looking at the Advantage/Disadvantage list for the equivalent points it's costing/giving you). In comparison, D&D character generation is significantly faster and easier (the most time consuming aspect for me is your repertoire of spells and magic items for high-level games). In a way, that's why most RPG video games adopt a class-type system--because it's simpler and faster most of the time. Is a class-based system the most fleshed out for generating a character's background? No. But you also don't want to get overwhelmed by the "crunch" of any game system. For character professions, I see the skills being a function of that. And with 3.5, everyone has access to each and every skill; it's just that some are cross-class, and others aren't. For most people in the D&D world, their professions are dependent on their skill ranks (usually Profession and Craft) and certain feats augment this (i.e. the various Item Creation feats for would-be magic artisans, etc.). My biggest complaint about 3.5 (but don't get me wrong, I love 3.5) is that the biggest changes are just popping up now. Look at Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, the new NPC/monster templates, Substitution Levels, etc. (I have rants about those concerns in my blog entries, http://charlesatan.vox.com/library/post/dd-35-a-little-too-early-part-1.html, http://charlesatan.vox.com/library/post/dd-35-a-little-too-early-monsters-manual.html, and http://charlesatan.vox.com/library/post/dd-35-a-little-too-early-substitution-levels.html). They're welcome additions, and significantly mark a stark improvement compared to 3.0 (compared to when 3.5 was just released, which, let's face it, fixed a couple of minor tweaks, albeit beneficial ones). Unfortunately, the way the 3.0 and 3.5 books were released is that the first ones that come out are usually bad, and it's the sequels that are usually good (i.e. Expanded Psionics Handbook being a better way of utilizing psionics compared to the Psionics Handbook). A class-and-level structure can still produce a commercially viable edition; it just has to be done right in many aspects (not just in rules-creation, but in other aspects as well such as marketing, public relations, etc.).
The Club 11-06-06, 11:59 AM	A class-and-level structure can still produce a commercially viable edition; it just has to be done right in many aspects (not just in rules-creation, but in other aspects as well such as marketing, public relations, etc.). I'm not so sure. When a 4th edition emerges, it's primary consumer base is going to be people already playing D&D. I see little hope that marketing will bring significant numbers of new players into D&D. It's a niche market, after all. That means that a new edition still has to be a quantum change from previous editions. 3rd Edition is a great game, and it's pretty expansive and easy to customize. It has also moved a good, long way beyond the class-and-level restrictions of its ancestors. The question isn't whether class-and-level can produce a good game. It already has, in many different forms. Nor is the question whether there are already other games that fit the "need" for a different kind of system (although that question follows on the heels of what I'm discussing, rather ominously). The question is how much room for innovation is left in a class-and-level approach to D&D. It will have to be different enough that customers are willing to jettison 3rd Edition to play the 4th. 3rd Edition is an excellent game, and it won't be easy to lure players away from it, especially with the wealth of supplemental material available. So, how much can WotC do to retain a class-and-level system while distancing itself sufficiently from the current edition? With the emphasis on customization in 3rd Edition, there doesn't seem to be much room to maneuver. If players will accept a reorganization of 3rd Edition and keep buying books, there's no problem. But the flexibility of 3rd may be a real problem when there are no more supplements to print and it's time for 4th. From a business standpoint, 4th Edition will probably be a real nail-biter for WotC. If it's too different, gamers might not like it, not recognizing it as "true" D&D. If it's not different enough, who's going to scrap their 3rd Edition collection to play the essentially the same game with new book covers? The Club
Elendur 11-06-06, 01:45 PM	From a business standpoint, 4th Edition will probably be a real nail-biter for WotC. If it's too different, gamers might not like it, not recognizing it as "true" D&D. If it's not different enough, who's going to scrap their 3rd Edition collection to play the essentially the same game with new book covers? The ClubThat's why I'm guessing 4e will be compatible with all the 3e stuff. The core mechanic will stay the same, but they'll bring in all the best ideas from the supplements and bring them in to the 4e core books. The kicker of course is which things they bring in, and if they are additions or replacements. Adding the warblade to the PHB is one thing; replacing the fighter with it is quite another.
Frugal 11-06-06, 01:55 PM	That's why I'm guessing 4e will be compatible with all the 3e stuff. The core mechanic will stay the same, but they'll bring in all the best ideas from the supplements and bring them in to the 4e core books. If they do that then it's not 4e, it'd be like 3.5 is to 3.0, so probably something like 3.75? If you're going to do a completely new edition it has to be by and large incompatible and offer something new. A big part of this is economical, if you could still use all your 3.5 (and even 3.0) material, what incentive is there to "upgrade" to 4e? The other issue is that legacy support can weigh you down and keep you from truly doing something new and exciting. Personally, I'd rather not see a 4e anytime soon but I could see WOTC possibly offering a revised PHB, one that's still completely 3.5 but which brings in some different classes and/or tweaks the existing core classes.
The Club 11-06-06, 04:21 PM	If they do that then it's not 4e, it'd be like 3.5 is to 3.0, so probably something like 3.75? If you're going to do a completely new edition it has to be by and large incompatible and offer something new. A big part of this is economical, if you could still use all your 3.5 (and even 3.0) material, what incentive is there to "upgrade" to 4e? That's my point, too. If it's just a re-organization of 3.X, I'm not sure there will be enough people shelling out the money to make it profitable. The Club
charlesatan 11-06-06, 07:12 PM	Unless I'm misreading, I don't remember referencing fireball -- I referenced the Wuxia-like abilities possible, and making note that using them dozens of times per day lessens the fantastic into something absolutely mundane. A Crusader can HEAL others by striking in combat. Think about that a second: He can attack somebody else, and without a word, gesture, or other motion heal somebody he isn't even looking at. And he can do it all day long. People used to complain about the largely magical nature of Eberron, but this takes that into high-gear -- you're making grandiose maneuvers as a matter of course every single combat, not conserving or holding anything back, because there's no need to. What I'm afraid of is that there will be no show-stopper, because every moment is a showstopper, if that makes sense. If you throw in a lot of encounters per day, yes, the ToB classes start earning their keep (just as Sorcerers and Warlocks will). As for the healing, it's not as grandiose as the other healing spells out there. Honestly, if I wanted healing, I'd go to the Cleric or the Druid. The "attack" and "heal" is misleading. Because most of the Crusaders abilities involve "one attack" instead of your iterative attacks from a full attack. At the level he's in, he's more like casting two spells at once, one a so-so healing spell, and the other a so-so offensive spell (except the offensive spell is an attack). The only aspect that can be taken into stupid lengths is that aura of his which heals attackers 4 hp every time they hit... the players keep a troll hostage and keep on whacking it until they're fully healed. But aside from that (and that's really pushing the boundaries of a character's ethics), they're more or less balanced.
charlesatan 11-06-06, 07:13 PM	Umm, maybe it looks like this on the surface, but actually I think it's really difficult: it takes a lot of experience, a good grasp of the (combat) rules and careful planning to play a good fighter. Imho, the easiest classes to play are those with the least number of options which doesn't exactly describe the fighter who has to choose from hundreds of feats and dozens of weapons and combat styles. Actually, the Fighter swings both ways. Yes, he's difficult to optimize because he has lots of options. On the other hand, he is simple to play, and more forgiving if you choose the "wrong" feat because you have lots of them.
LordofIllusions 01-09-07, 02:56 PM	I've never played any White Wolf games (aside from a three-session Aberrant game where the GM built my character for me), so I won't argue the point. Be that as it may, I still see this as the eventual future of D&D. I am willing to bet the reason you see this as "the eventual future of D&D" has something to do with your personal preferences in RPGs as opposed to a route the game may actually take. For the most part I see the minimal "We need a 4E/4E will be this way or that way" crowd lobbying for their own preferences in gaming as opposed to what the majority actually may want. This happens time and time again in D&D, ever since WoTC started coddling players and introducing DMs that have no earthly idea what to do behind the screen. They worry more about buying books, or what is around the corner(taken to the point of placing their own assumptions as facts) than playing the game that is presently out on the market. This is possibly the reason for the high amount of flaming on these boards as well. One guy kept saying 4E was coming out this year, in July, and that he saw it in a brochure. The amount of lies and distortions of truth around D&D is ridiculous....really. You people should give it a rest. ~~~
tec-goblin 01-10-07, 12:44 PM	I agree that ToB has some nice, lovely mechanics, and indeed sets a good precedent. But the system is heavy and would take a lot of space in the book. It could inspire a nice alternative,though. I also agree that psionics made a very important correction to the magic system (versatile power descriptions, low level spells do not become useless as you progress, we don't need 5 books to find a fireball that does electricity damage or smth equally stupid), as well as incarnum (the only magic system that doesn't have any problem to multiclass with anything non-spellcasting, truename magic also almost achieves this). Nothing can be used as the main magic mechanic of an edition per se, but they can provide us with ideas. Lastly, skill tricks from complete scoundrel should be used as a way to specialize in skills.
dragonfire8974 01-10-07, 12:58 PM	My real problem with balancing everything on "per encounter" instead of "per day" (also known as "I want to do something cool every round") is -- what next? When everyone is walking on willow reeds, and deflecting a thousand arrows per second, and healing comrades by whacking opponents, what's "fantastic" any more? The "fantastic" has become so mundane that anything that isn't over the top and bombastic is boring, and people become bored with the game as a whole. The "special" is not saved for "special" occasions, because every encounter is a "special" occasion, which you will rejuvenate from in mere game seconds. I didn't mind it so much with Binders, because their abilities were replenishing, but not that powerful; Even with Warlocks and the new Reserve feats, the "tricks" offered weren't extremely powerful, just numerous. However, the Maneuvers offered by Blade Magic are in many cases real show-stoppers, on par with spells, and they replenish in every single encounter. Despite the claim of "resource management" I don't see the need to manage anything if you have six or seven choices in a six- or seven-round encounter, when you get it back in just 1 round. After this, what the heck does a player or DM do to top it? okay, please don't take this the wrong way, i'm not trying to be offensive or anything that said, you really didn't look through the TOB very well. most manuvers are not near the par of spells. i heard it said somewhere that a barbarian will outdamage a warblade any day, and it's true. the only thing a warblade gets that the barbarian doesn't is a stance that allows blindsense, and a manuver that allows you to disarm and attack at the same time. most manuvers are standard or full-round actions, so getting 4d6 on an attack is really not that powerful when you can get 2d6+10 for each attack (as a barbarian weilding a greatsword, which should be much higher come to think of it) i know it looks wayyy too strong, but if you play one, it's very well balanced. the warblade to the barbarian, the swordsage is stronger than the monk, but comparable, and the crusader to the paladin. they really do balance out very well, and take my word for it i love the book, i thought it was stupid powerful until i actually playtested it. it's really quite balanced
Pyke_Moonshadow 01-10-07, 04:46 PM	okay, please don't take this the wrong way, i'm not trying to be offensive or anything that said, you really didn't look through the TOB very well. most manuvers are not near the par of spells. i heard it said somewhere that a barbarian will outdamage a warblade any day, and it's true. the only thing a warblade gets that the barbarian doesn't is a stance that allows blindsense, and a manuver that allows you to disarm and attack at the same time. most manuvers are standard or full-round actions, so getting 4d6 on an attack is really not that powerful when you can get 2d6+10 for each attack (as a barbarian weilding a greatsword, which should be much higher come to think of it) i know it looks wayyy too strong, but if you play one, it's very well balanced. the warblade to the barbarian, the swordsage is stronger than the monk, but comparable, and the crusader to the paladin. they really do balance out very well, and take my word for it i love the book, i thought it was stupid powerful until i actually playtested it. it's really quite balanced Ok What about an extra 100 damage or like 20d6 or 100 fire to all enemies within burst or teleporting or taking extra turns or any other highly fantastic effect. Ok, lets say the abilities cap at level 6. So all the melee classes now get a bardic spell progression on top of other abilities. I just don't like it. ok, wait, I like it well enough if it wasn't usable ad nauseum. (don't try to tell me it isn't cause we all know it is) I mentioned in a thread that I was playtesting the rules but houseruling out any and all refresh methods. The classes work fine that way even though I would still rather have a per day based system.
legophreak 01-10-07, 05:35 PM	The per encounter mechanic sounds to me like nothing more than an attempt to bring the game back to it's origins... A tactical combat game. Why else would one of the first lines in the PHB under combat state that the rules of combat assume you have miniatures, and a grid to use? They wrote the rules of Combat based on that knowledge.
dragonfire8974 01-10-07, 11:53 PM	Ok What about an extra 100 damage or like 20d6 or 100 fire to all enemies within burst or teleporting or taking extra turns or any other highly fantastic effect. Ok, lets say the abilities cap at level 6. So all the melee classes now get a bardic spell progression on top of other abilities. I just don't like it. ok, wait, I like it well enough if it wasn't usable ad nauseum. (don't try to tell me it isn't cause we all know it is) I mentioned in a thread that I was playtesting the rules but houseruling out any and all refresh methods. The classes work fine that way even though I would still rather have a per day based system. you must think wierd is the most powerful spell ever..... yeah, there are some powerful combinations, but try to use it fire is the most commonly resisted element out there, and that's a factor to take into consideration. no manuver gives you an extra 20d6, or allows you to take an extra turn. one allows you to take an extra move action, and one (9th level) gives you another full attack, but you have to take a full attack action to gain the second one. the effects are supposed to be neat, otherwise you keep the "i swing my sword at it" jazz. i just don't have too much fun with that. that's me though, some people make it work and have fun with it make an optomized strength-monkey barbarian, and make an optomized warblade/swordsage. you'll see which one does more damage over a 3 round period of time.... also, if you really want to kick some ToB-player ass, just let them unleash their powerful combo on the first monster and have one entering the fray (read as no recovery before the next Baddie enters), then just do that again and again, and you'll see them run out of options before your eyes, while the sorc/wiz or the barb are still wailing on everything yes they excell at the same stuff warlocks do, and are (most likely) more powerful than a warlock (in raw damage terms), but they are limited in what they can do, plenty limited by the way, illusions still fool them, and the only thing they get as options are different ways they can attack. manuvers have no use out of battle. also warblades have the only effective way of refreshing manuvers, and without getting the manuvers back after the encounters, each are just a fighter with bad progressions (a barbarian with more feats and no rage, a monk without damage, and a paladin without healing) they are effective, not broken
Fallenangel359 01-11-07, 01:12 AM	actually feral death blow gives fort save or die, and if pass, take +20d6 damage... but +20d6 can't be maximized, can't be empowered, and averages 70 damage Its also a 9th level maneuver. Okay, mininum level 17 to do that... Compare that to a charger build someday... who if they hit, the target instantly dies due to hp damage. People have figured out charger builds that give a 21 to 1 ratio for power attack...
Pyke_Moonshadow 01-11-07, 08:06 AM	you must think wierd is the most powerful spell ever..... yeah, there are some powerful combinations, but try to use it fire is the most commonly resisted element out there, and that's a factor to take into consideration. no manuver gives you an extra 20d6, or allows you to take an extra turn. one allows you to take an extra move action, and one (9th level) gives you another full attack, but you have to take a full attack action to gain the second one. the effects are supposed to be neat, otherwise you keep the "i swing my sword at it" jazz. i just don't have too much fun with that. that's me though, some people make it work and have fun with it make an optomized strength-monkey barbarian, and make an optomized warblade/swordsage. you'll see which one does more damage over a 3 round period of time.... also, if you really want to kick some ToB-player ass, just let them unleash their powerful combo on the first monster and have one entering the fray (read as no recovery before the next Baddie enters), then just do that again and again, and you'll see them run out of options before your eyes, while the sorc/wiz or the barb are still wailing on everything yes they excell at the same stuff warlocks do, and are (most likely) more powerful than a warlock (in raw damage terms), but they are limited in what they can do, plenty limited by the way, illusions still fool them, and the only thing they get as options are different ways they can attack. manuvers have no use out of battle. also warblades have the only effective way of refreshing manuvers, and without getting the manuvers back after the encounters, each are just a fighter with bad progressions (a barbarian with more feats and no rage, a monk without damage, and a paladin without healing) they are effective, not broken I have been play testing them against CR appropriate encounters. It is from that playtesting that I have decided that per encounter abilities don't fly with me.
KavonRa 01-11-07, 08:46 AM	You know ever since i started playing D&D back when it was called AD&D roleplay was to most important part of this game sure game mechanics are important too but are subject to the roleplay. As a DM and a Player it kinda gets to me when i read comments on this board that go on about all the mechanics, this and that but there is not any of those ppl that talk about the roleplay. Probably cause they just ROLL-play and play themselfs as a character. 4E will probably put RP back a step like it did when 3E/3.5E came out. To much munchkinism and l33t builders are "raping" the game. This is by the way true to gaming in general not only D&D. Take a stand, stick with 3.5E! Got a problem...FIX it!
tec-goblin 01-11-07, 09:02 AM	The classes work fine that way even though I would still rather have a per day based system. I have problem with the per day systems: 1) they don't always make more sense than the /encounter counterparts. Needing 3 hours to replenish your power usually makes more sense than both 2) they make the class power dependent on how many encounters do you have per day. I tend to have only one fighting encounter per day, at most. That makes psionics for example immensely more useful than warlocks. And sudden metamagic immensely more powerful than normal ones (that's why I disallowed sudden metamagic in my campaigns). 3) You need more score keeping. With maneuvers you have 5 readied cards in front of you and when you enter the battle you know what you can do. In some calm moment between battles, while someone else is speaking to an NPC, you can ready a new set of maneuvers.
dragonfire8974 01-12-07, 05:36 PM	I have been play testing them against CR appropriate encounters. It is from that playtesting that I have decided that per encounter abilities don't fly with me. ahhhh... okay, i misunderstood you. my bad if i had picked up on that, then i probably wouldn't've responded, so yeah. do what you like most (i'm sure you need my permission to do that......)
GhostStepper 01-12-07, 09:08 PM	As a DM and a Player it kinda gets to me when i read comments on this board that go on about all the mechanics, this and that but there is not any of those ppl that talk about the roleplay. Probably cause they just ROLL-play and play themselfs as a character. Sorry, but for the most part DnD is a set of mechanics not a set of rules on how to role play a character. People get upset about mechanics because thats what WotC puts out. Its players that have to bring their own role playing skills. People are complaing about mechanics because that is what is in the books...theres no one complaining about "poor roleplaying" design of DnD because its totally based on what players and DMs bring to the game. 4E will probably put RP back a step like it did when 3E/3.5E came out. This is classic Stormwind Fallacy right here. The rules have nothing to do with anyone's ability to roleplay. If you cant roleplay because your using 3.0 instead of 2E then its your fault for not being able to roleplay, not the ruleset. To much munchkinism and l33t builders are "raping" the game. This is by the way true to gaming in general not only D&D. And as you said, its true of all gaming, which included 1E and 2E. You make it sound like 3.0 was the begining of optimization.
jalaziel 01-12-07, 09:37 PM	Sorry, but for the most part DnD is a set of mechanics not a set of rules on how to role play a character. People get upset about mechanics because thats what WotC puts out. Its players that have to bring their own role playing skills. People are complaing about mechanics because that is what is in the books...theres no one complaining about "poor roleplaying" design of DnD because its totally based on what players and DMs bring to the game. This is classic Stormwind Fallacy right here. The rules have nothing to do with anyone's ability to roleplay. If you cant roleplay because your using 3.0 instead of 2E then its your fault for not being able to roleplay, not the ruleset. And as you said, its true of all gaming, which included 1E and 2E. You make it sound like 3.0 was the begining of optimization. Whilst you could apply the Stormwind Fallacy, that would actually not be relevant to Kavon Ra's point (though please, Kavon Ra, correct me if I'm wrong!). The sheer quantity of mechanical discussion required to see through a battle, and the % of game time spent in combat, is far greater than in earlier editions of the game. You could claim that this is down to how I play and I couldn't provide evidence to the contrary. However, consider how complicated the basic set was to play when Elf and Dwark were classes in their own right, and you had no 'skills'. That was all created in the imagination of the DM and players as they truly created their worlds from scratch. Now, I don't want to de-rail the thread here... but without a massive reduction in mechanics and RAW, and a return to an emphasis on 'flavour' and 'player interpretation' as king, then RP will have to compete for time with mechanical discussion (all of which is OOC). 3.5 can work well with RP provided all the players know the rules (AW and house) well, and are happy to allow extensive creative license (ie, no lawyers!). However, it is undoubtedly harder than it was with earlier editions. To address the 4.0 point, and so stay on-topic, I don't feel that a simplification of the mechanics would be workable. There will always be those who need someone to tell them how 'something works' in a fantasy setting. Whilst I find that something of an irony, I understand it. It is easier for those of us who choose to exercise our imaginations to 'ignore' rules, than it is for those without that creative flair to 'create' their own. WOTC are really only catering to the wants of the largest proportion of their target audience...
jalaziel 01-12-07, 09:42 PM	I'd add that optimisation did really only kick in with 3.0 as there was no online community to encourage that type of behaviour prior to 3.0 The move from TSR to WOTC and the subsequent shift in the focus of the game to tactical combat was also a major factor. Personally, I love RPing, but equally appreciate a fine and elegant application of the mechanics (a regular reader, if not contributor, to the CO board).
GhostStepper 01-12-07, 10:31 PM	I still disagree on some of what your saying, jalaziel. I play in a 3.5 game now that may not have a single combat over the course of a few sessions and we have players at that game from 2E that have been in older edition games where every session was almost all combat dungeon crawls. The edition of the ruleset has nothing to do with how much roleplaying goes on in any particular campaign. And im failing to see how with previous editions there was necessarily more "created in the imagination of the DM and players as they truly created their worlds from scratch" as opposed to the new rule edition. At the store i play at there are DMs that only run old DnD modules while there are 3.5 DMs that make new, interesting and totally original campaigns. There, the old editions end up involving little roleplaying creativity while the new edition is supporting highly creative, rich campaign worlds in which to roleplay. In fact, because 3.x is so modular its much easier to pick and choose material to synthesize your own world in a seamless manner and create a cohesive, yet totally original campaign setting. Whilst you could apply the Stormwind Fallacy, that would actually not be relevant to Kavon Ra's point (though please, Kavon Ra, correct me if I'm wrong!). Well it sounded like he was saying that people were so invovled in being munchkins that obviously none of them cared about role playing. Thats pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy right there. I'd add that optimisation did really only kick in with 3.0 as there was no online community to encourage that type of behaviour prior to 3.0 I am always having to listen to stories from the old veterans about how "X was so munchkined out in 2E" or "we had one's guy's X so optimized in the old edition" to believe that this is true. Optimization has been around since the dawn of time. Anything that man does, he's wanted to do well. Its just that with the internet its easier to compare combos and find new angles. When 4E does come out im sure optimization will continue. Even if they stripped away all the complexity of 3E someone would find someway to break the system (ive been told it has happened in every edition even without the internet). The only difference will be that there will be more broken games because more average players will have access to the guys who find the broken combos. As far the actual topic of this thread, when 4E finally does come along i think WotC would do well to balance all classes on a per encounter basis as opposed to per day, similary to what has been done with the ToB or the Warlock. This adds much more flexibility to plot design as a DM can choose to vary each session to have one, two or 10 combat encounters without worrying about whether character A fizzles or goes nova while character B keeps on chugging or is useless in combat. Assuming that everything "should" be balanced against an average 4 encounters per day is just a clumsy design that hampers the flexibility of DMs' scenarios. When you have too few encounters, casters become too powerful while if you have loads of encounters all day your most powerful characters (casters) can run dry and you wind up with a TPK. Its just not a good system. And if they really have to balance things on a per day vs per encounter basis, they would do well and toss out the stiff and anquated vancian system in favor of something like psionics. The power point system is much more elegant and versatile that spell slots, allowing for even more flexibility than the sorceror. The fact that psionic powers dont autoscale, but require extra points is just another example of how casters could be brought down a notch as well.
jalaziel 01-12-07, 11:26 PM	You are absolutely right on some of those points. I did oversimplify... Optimisation has been around since someone first picked up a stone and someone else picked up another and sharpened it... In DnD also, but to a lesser extent as it relied on the ingenuity of a far smaller pool of people (your local gaming community) rather than the more numerous statisticians over on the CO boards! I also accept your point on the flexibility of 3.5 (it's why I play it too!) so perhaps it is only me looking back with rose-tinted glasses on those simple, classic sessions in my youth where combats were over fast, and you spent a bit more time talking to the orcs in the guard house because the party fighter hadn't just picked up a new feat he wanted to try out...! Perhaps it's just the new group I'm playing with...:D I do maintain that the plethora of rules was simply not there, though, so you filled in the gaps using your imagination. Similarly, there were fewer rules to account for when fighting, the flourishes and fancy footwork found in Feats were simply described and the results house-ruled (or maybe that was just how we played!). On 4E - some consistency in approach would be better, whether on a per encounter or per day basis I am easy... I'd go further and try a smaller pool of base classes, but with more options to customise them: - Say 6 primary 'roles' (melee, ranged, stealth, psionic, acane, divine) defining BAB progression, HPs, etc - Then multiple 'focus' options (nature focus, urban focus, learned caster focus, spontaneous caster focus, fighter focus, knowledge focus, etc) which could be taken , changed, or picked up again as you gain levels and provide access to different development trees (see below) - Separate and independant skill trees (which improve as you gain levels) - Independant development trees replacing class abilities, spells and feats The above is off the top of my head, but it would allow you the freedom to build virtually any combination available through the class system and PrC add-ons: Melee with fighter & nature focus - Barbarian Arcane caster with charisma focus - Illusionist Ranged fighter with some casting and some stealth - Ranger etc. Pull out a lot of the class abilities and build those into generic feat trees with greater benefits made available by increased levels of focus in the relevant areas (much like ToB maneouvers) There could be some suggested mixes in the rulebook which mirror the current core builds (and popular PrCs, but this would open up the field for massive customisation. By aligning spells, feats, and class abilities into a generic pool it's easier to achieve a consistent balance across all levels, and also allow for greater flexibility whereby you can chop and change between development trees. Let's say I focus on a only 3 or 4 development trees I could get 9th level spells in a 'rogue' type role, but only in one school of magic to the exclusion of all others, and without as many sneak attack dice... Or I have an arcane caster with access to 9th level spells in several schools (and 5-6th in others) but with reasonale melee skills too, or some divine domains... Of course you could also go 'pure' and be a maxed out caster, fighter or whatever... Actually - doesn't sound very d20 to me...:D Oh well... needs some work!
jalaziel 01-12-07, 11:39 PM	I am looking forward to 4.0 immensely. When it finally comes out, I can finally stop buying every new book each month and just keep my group in v3.5. C'mon 4.0! ;) I am so with you... ...but the fun in designing 4.0 in this forum is too much to miss!!:D
TheOinodaemon 01-13-07, 12:13 AM	Actaully what I've seen of ToB didn't thrill me as much as Weapons of Legacy or magic of Incarnum. But I haven't bought ToB, so I can't say for sure. It seemed to offer some neat options for combat but nothing more exciting than any other class. I also think 4.0 will be more of an update. Original D&D, AD&D, and 2nd had some differences but the mechanics were largely the same.
GhostStepper 01-13-07, 12:31 AM	I do like the idea of making it even more modular. Having a few generic archetypes and then ability trees that the classes can draw from would make the system even more customizable. Instead of introducing new classes, all WotC would have to do is introduce new ability trees that the archetypes could choose from.
Dragoloth 01-13-07, 09:45 PM	I like ToB's flavor and mechanics. I hope that 4.0 is at least 5-10 years away. I own 50-55 3.0 & 3.5 books and plan to buy more, if 4.0 doesn't make me say WOW I GOTTA HAVE IT then I'll probablynever even play it. With all the material and variant rules there is a game for almost everyone. Long live 3.5!
ferretferret 01-13-07, 10:37 PM	heres how i feel on the who thing ( tis is going to be a rant by the way) ( and yes i know my spelling sucks) :rant: Tob: it was okay, and it had some god ideas, but i hated the fell of it. so much seemed to be taken from asian media and im sick of that. what ever happened to good old fashiond mid evil games. why do we have to play samuri with an x- shaped scar on his left cheek, or a bright orange ninja, or a stretch pirate, all those colcepts were good in ther own respect but anime and asia really dosnt have much place in DnD, with the excepitopn of orietal adventures. now the idia of Tob was a good one, by one: why make up all new classes just to get these abilitys 2: i just didnt like theam, they could have done so much more. monte cook uses systems like these, but there a bit simpler and in my opinion, a bit better put togeather. i also dont like that because of there manuvers thay can fit into most roles. fight, use magic that a wizard could use in some places, heal, use skills realitively well( in some cases), buff and so on. i liked all of the old classes being good in there own feild. also, THE FIGHTER DOSNT SUCK. nor did the barb. or the monk, or the paladin. there are things that the fighter could do that all of the other classes couln't ( idavidualy i mean) they could be masters in there chosen feild, or good at every thing with thee feats. they were really good with a wepon, they had great armor and wepon slection, no alignment restriction, so they could never loses there abilits, unlike every PHP fighting class. also, every one thinks that casters are better, but waht about at higher levels were monsters have resistances and high will saves, so on... in this case a weopn is still a wepon, and feats (almost) never run out of uses. ```````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````` 4.0: why do we wven need to think about it. are you not happy just hanging around with your friends playin som 3.0/5. i am. why do i need to think about 4.0, and where the evednece its even coming. personily i think that WoTC (or hopefuly some other compan) is gonna make 4.0 when WoTC comes out with so much sorce books that slowly go down hill that they cant get back up it. ```````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````` WoTC: im losing my faith. i loved the origonal books. the ones with monte cook writing some of them. they were well balanced ( no seriously, they were if you look at the origonal core books) and well writen. all the classes had somthing they were good at, and a vauge perpose they fit. what is a fighter, some one who fights. what is a samurai, some one who fights with a katana and follows the path of bushido, but dosnt get spells or divine power. what is a knight. some one who [B]fights[B] under a lawful code and protecs others, but dosnt get divine power or rage. the only other calsses i would really add on to the originals are swash buckel( ify) and the warlock. but now there just bombarding us with sorce book after sorce book. we dont need one EVRY month, thast just pushing it. they bombard DMs and players with nore and more info that were not really gonna use all the time. also they need to take a break and think about what there putting out, they making so easy to power game, another ting im sick of. why must we power game. why is wizards making it so we must think about the way we fight more that the way we roleplay. why is everything become only foucused on a die role, what ever happened to the part we we play out characters not because of how they can to things to do theam at there godly fullest, as aposed how you can do it as your character. im sick of poeple laying a paladin for there healing and charging abilitys and and then ignoreing a man who needs help ( if you havent seen this i have, and the Dm just ignored it) :censored: :censored: :censored: you power gamers, :censored: you. thats all ,i fell better now, thank you.:tiphat:
SoulStorm 01-13-07, 11:14 PM	There will always be those who need someone to tell them how 'something works' in a fantasy setting. Whilst I find that something of an irony, I understand it. It is easier for those of us who choose to exercise our imaginations to 'ignore' rules, than it is for those without that creative flair to 'create' their own. WOTC are really only catering to the wants of the largest proportion of their target audience... Wow! Way to insult people who have an opinion that differs from your own. Ignoring rules in favor of imagination is great if you're playing by yourself, but you don't need books to do that. Group tasks (of any sort) require rules for the group to function. Rules mediate differing viewpoints and personality styles. Rules governing tasks necessarily become more complex as task complexity increases. D&D is a fairly complex group task and the rules reflect that. Without rules you have anarchy. In fact, the more imaginative the group, the greater the resulting anarchy. Please put more care into how you craft your arguments in the future.
Tilakai 01-13-07, 11:41 PM	Yeah, and the vancian "I just cast this spell but now I forget how to cast it" system makes so much sense? Assuming you can one-hit all those creatures, sure. I think it's more like, "I hit it with my best maneuver, hmmm, still standing, okay I pull this out then...." I haven't looked through the book that much yet but my understanding is that some of the maneuvers and stances are more useful in some situations and less in others. But I do admit I'd have to read up on all of them more first. Well the way i see it is the casting of say a wizards spells takes a very long time like a few minuts or so. So instead of haveing to cast it all at once he/she/it casts most of the spell befor hand thus haveing only to finish the spell off to get the desired effect. I know that this dosen't fully explain all problems with this sort of casting system but it helps.
jalaziel 01-15-07, 08:34 AM	Wow! Way to insult people who have an opinion that differs from your own. Ignoring rules in favor of imagination is great if you're playing by yourself, but you don't need books to do that. Group tasks (of any sort) require rules for the group to function. Rules mediate differing viewpoints and personality styles. Rules governing tasks necessarily become more complex as task complexity increases. D&D is a fairly complex group task and the rules reflect that. Without rules you have anarchy. In fact, the more imaginative the group, the greater the resulting anarchy. Please do not take this as an offence, but I believe your defense of 'the value of rules' is as extreme as my perceived attack. A balance needs to be struck between both viewpoints. However, this is difficult and I would claim that difficulty is created by the existence of those rules... it creates a tension... Those of us who do choose to ignore the many varied rules and mechanics in 3.5 do so because we find it enhances our games... not anarchy per se, but neither a rigid adherence to an ever-growing (and sometimes contradictory) set of arbitrary laws. There are perhaps better systems should you want a more free-form game, but the flexibility that Ghost-stepper noted allows 3.5 to be played without following 'everything' and maintaining balance. However, the rampant hunger for ever more prescriptive lists of 'how things work' is why all these new sourcebooks are produced... if that was not the case they simply would not sell. WOTC are feeding us players what most of us want (or at least what we'll consume...). I've played with different groups of players over the years and there is always a mix of the two types, those who want new material with a set of rigid rules, and those who want to make it up! The glut of 3.5 material creates tensions between those two player types... precisely for the reasons you note. Hence my sharpness... Call it a weakness of character if it helps:D Please put more care into how you craft your arguments in the future. I do put care into them. At times the intent is to mollify, at other times to trigger some response. Whilst the latter seems to have worked in the previous post, I hope the former is as effective this time.
Zumarai 01-15-07, 10:06 AM	As far the actual topic of this thread, when 4E finally does come along i think WotC would do well to balance all classes on a per encounter basis as opposed to per day, similary to what has been done with the ToB or the Warlock. This adds much more flexibility to plot design as a DM can choose to vary each session to have one, two or 10 combat encounters without worrying about whether character A fizzles or goes nova while character B keeps on chugging or is useless in combat. Assuming that everything "should" be balanced against an average 4 encounters per day is just a clumsy design that hampers the flexibility of DMs' scenarios. When you have too few encounters, casters become too powerful while if you have loads of encounters all day your most powerful characters (casters) can run dry and you wind up with a TPK. Its just not a good system. Most intelligent/eloquent/correct post of this thread so far, IMO. I totally agree.
tec-goblin 01-19-07, 05:02 PM	Class, Alignment, and Vancian spellcasting. Everyone hates them, but for me it wouldn't be D&D without them. I don't hate d20 modern classes and allegiances :D. Vancian spellcasting... well, hrfm. Between psionics, incarnum, truename magic, shadow magic, pact magic and vancian spellcasting, the latter loses big time for me :S. But I do love to calculate the DCs and costs of epic spells :D What I want to say is that there are plenty of ideas already out there in d20 that could make it keep d20 character without the disadvantages of the above 3 traits.
MagicMouth 01-20-07, 05:18 PM	The ToB is absolutely one of the best books in my collection, perhaps even THE best. Playing a warrior-type character is so much more fun when you have more options, especially at low levels; right now I have a Level 4 Dwarf Paladin/Rogue that is fun to roleplay and can dish out a lot of damage, but combats quickly get rather one-sided. It works, but it could be more interesting (Round 1: Hit with sword. Round 2: Hit with sword. Round 3: Lay on Hands. Round 4: Hit with sword.) I´m not very fond of the notion another edition coming out within the next few years :mad:, there are TONS of 3.5 material that I still wish to acquire.
Leo 01-20-07, 09:17 PM	I really can't understand. People just say that melee classes are overpowered, then they claim the vacian spellcasting is too weak and spellcasters should be able to go all day long. What happenned to the original spirit of D&D? What happenned to the time where a party of 1 spellcasters and 8 melees without any aparent special abilities was the ideal to save the world, with cunning and clever use of resources, instead of just blowing everything in your path with your powers?
Pyke_Moonshadow 01-22-07, 07:54 AM	I really can't understand. People just say that melee classes are overpowered, then they claim the vacian spellcasting is too weak and spellcasters should be able to go all day long. What happenned to the original spirit of D&D? What happenned to the time where a party of 1 spellcasters and 8 melees without any aparent special abilities was the ideal to save the world, with cunning and clever use of resources, instead of just blowing everything in your path with your powers? I have wondered the same thing many, many times.
Greatbear 01-23-07, 05:25 PM	I really can't understand. People just say that melee classes are overpowered, then they claim the vacian spellcasting is too weak and spellcasters should be able to go all day long. I keep hearing the opposite: That the spellcasters greatly outshine the the melee classes at higher levels. :shifty: :shifty:
Leo 01-23-07, 05:37 PM	I keep hearing the opposite: That the spellcasters greatly outshine the the melee classes at higher levels. :shifty: :shifty: My bad. I meant underpowered.
jalaziel 01-23-07, 05:38 PM	What happenned to the original spirit of D&D? What happenned to the time where a party of 1 spellcasters and 8 melees without any aparent special abilities was the ideal to save the world, with cunning and clever use of resources, instead of just blowing everything in your path with your powers? That's really my point. The massive quantities of new material all focused on the mechanics have made it a primarily mechanics-driven game. As a result even a simple combat takes up an enormous amount of time at high levels. In every group I've played in since 3.0 came out the published material has led to a shift in favour of tactical combat. Fortunately, as a game, it's flexible enough to allow you to ignore most of the fluff, keep it simple, and spend more time on non-combat encounters. You just have to look around for like-minded players...
Leugren 01-24-07, 04:55 PM	I agree Zuxius. I have played the game for 25 years and it is one of the top five publications for D&D in regard to the freshness of the approach, the impact it has on the fun of players using it, and the potential for restructuring the game around it. We have been experimenting with a martial class character on a solo adventure and it has been a downright blast. I hope we see more. Kudos to WotC R&D on this one! Totally agree, and I have been playing D&D since I was a fetus in the mid- to late- '60s. What happenned to the original spirit of D&D? What happenned to the time where a party of 1 spellcasters and 8 melees without any aparent special abilities was the ideal to save the world, with cunning and clever use of resources, instead of just blowing everything in your path with your powers? As much as I enjoy being thwarted at every turn and confronted with my own mediocrity, I strangely find that I would rather play a game which allows me to do things that I cannot actually do in real life. Nutty concept, I know! But if you really like the other type of game, I've heard that Accountants & Audit Trails can be a real gas!! :D
Pyke_Moonshadow 01-25-07, 08:34 AM	In all fairness to Leo, I have to agree that the game has shifted quite a bit. I don't mind having cool powers for all characters, I just feel some concepts, like a melee warrior-type, should have to work harder at it. This whole "I need something super powerfully awesome to do every single round of every combat" mentality irks me to no end.
Leo 01-25-07, 01:51 PM	Totally agree, and I have been playing D&D since I was a fetus in the mid- to late- '60s. As much as I enjoy being thwarted at every turn and confronted with my own mediocrity, I strangely find that I would rather play a game which allows me to do things that I cannot actually do in real life. Nutty concept, I know! But if you really like the other type of game, I've heard that Accountants & Audit Trails can be a real gas!! :D OMG where do you live? How many living creatures have you slain with a greatsword? Can I get incediary grenades at the local shop there? And then use them freely at the wilderness? Or maybe shoot missiles from my fingetrips with a few words and gestures? Kill people, loot them, and actually be rewarded by that, withotu really caring if I die or live? Get enough gold that I have trouble carrying it, and use it to buy a warbeast large enough to trample an house and actually trample it without great fear of repercursions? Can you do any of those in real life? My point is that most players never seem happy doesn't matter wht they've got. They have power already, but that's not enough. They want to play dragons from 1st level. They want to know all spells and then cast them at their leasue whitout limitation. When they are melee classes. They want to be uber powerfull whitout any real work or limitations. This isn't what D&D is about in my oinion. D&D is about cooperation in a group and challenge. It's about forcing the players to think and improvise to win each challenge. Or to know when to run away. It's about the DM making his own traps and monsters when the players already know the manuals from back to front so there is still a challenge. Being able to blast stuff and hack is fun, but if you are able to effortessly take down everything in your path whitout the party support then the game loses fun to me. What's the satisfaction of winning if you couldn't lose in the first place? Unless, of course, you're the sort of person that enjoys reaching the BBEG and winning because you rolled three strait 20 in the first atack, or you threw a finger of death and it rolled a 1 in the save. My DM(thankfully) never allows such thing. The BBEG it's too special to fall in just one strike, so he give them all kind of immunities and defensive abilities so we have to sweat to take it down.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 01-25-07, 04:01 PM	Wow Leo, I'm so glad to know that your Dm doesn't allow his monsters to roll 1s on saves and for his players to not roll 3 "20s" in a row.
Leo 01-25-07, 06:56 PM	Wow Leo, I'm so glad to know that your Dm doesn't allow his monsters to roll 1s on saves and for his players to not roll 3 "20s" in a row. Not all monsters, just BBEG's. And you can roll 20 dices in a row, you'll just score a normal critical hit. Actually, if you look at the rules you'll find that the critical failure it's not an official rule, it's just asugestion, as it is death from excessive damage. Heck, the DM before that had monsters that couldn't be damaged at all before we found their weak point.