Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DCAnderson 08-16-07, 04:39 AM	http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/ Lump it fanboys! August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages. The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players. The 4th Edition rules emphasize faster game play, offer exciting new character options, and reduce the amount of "prep time" needed to run the game. D&D Insider includes a character creator that lets players design and equip their D&D characters, dungeon- and adventure-building tools for Dungeon Masters, online magazine content, and a digital game table that lets you play 24/7 on the internet — the perfect option for anyone who can't find time to get together. "We've been gathering player feedback for eight years," said Bill Slavicsek, R&D Director of Roleplaying and Miniatures Games at Wizards of the Coast. "Fourth Edition streamlines parts of the D&D game that are too complex, while enhancing the overall play experience. At its heart, it's still a tabletop game experience. However, D&D Insider makes it easier for players to create characters, run their games, and interact with the rest of the D&D community." Wizards of the Coast will release two 4th Edition preview books in December and January — Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. The first live demos of 4th Edition will happen at the D&D Experience gaming convention in Washington D.C. in February 2008. The full scope of 4th Edition books, miniatures, and adventures will be available in the spring and summer of 2008. Since its first release in 1974, the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons has taken millions of players on imaginary adventures of epic scale. Today, D&D is universally regarded as the original game that created the roleplaying game category, and the inspiration for generations of game designers. D&D is enjoyed by millions of players worldwide, while countless more remember it with fond nostalgia.
heardfamily 08-16-07, 04:47 AM	This is strange...I thought for ages that I dreaded the advent of fourth edition, but now that it has been announced (assuming this is real), I'm actually looking forward to it. I suppose I'm fortunate. I started only two or three years ago, and haven't bought too many books...besides, I'm sure we'll find ways to convert the old material (at least in part).
greatamericanfolkhero 08-16-07, 04:49 AM	There will be two classes: "Too many hit points" and "too few hit points". They will be modified with options or "kits" to make each one unique.
Wulfgar 08-16-07, 04:54 AM	If true, there shall be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when 3.x players are relegated to the Out Of Print board.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 04:56 AM	Yes, finally! I will be truly happy if they scrap the cut & paste magic/spell system from 1st/2nd edition they have clung onto.
darrylhaines 08-16-07, 05:53 AM	And I've more or less finished collecting my collection of 3.5 Books....:banghead:
Gorbacz 08-16-07, 05:59 AM	Well, the 4ed will be "playable" in about 2 years. Next year we will see Core Books, I take a wild guess at maybe Psionics book, 1 more monster book, and some Eberron/FR crap. Until they get the stuff important for me (I DM Planescape, meaning: planar book, more monster books, some city-related sourcebook) it will be 2-3 years, so no biggie, I can wait patiently until 4ed reaches"usable" status and then switch over. The big Q is, to what degree will it be backwards compatible ? If the degree of changes will be in line with Saga (read: streamline this and that), then old material should do, but even then I'm not sure if I want to go all over with redoing crunch to 4ed (enough work as it is with getting 2ed stuff to work properly). So maybe I'll keep doing the Planescape under 3.5ed and start some brand new shiny campaign under 4ed rules, but either way it's at least 2 years off.
Matthew_ 08-16-07, 07:05 AM	And I've more or less finished collecting my collection of 3.5 Books....:banghead: Look at it this way, you'll have a complete collection... This is the most entertaining news I have heard in a while. I was expecting 2009 myself.
SithGolem 08-16-07, 07:44 AM	Eh, I have mixed feelings. I feel that 3rd Edition has become too large (causing problems like Pun-pun). I won't like that my 3e books will most likely be worth nothing for 4e (except Tome of Battle. I am converting that over :D ). I am looking forward to online tools. Sounds pretty nice.
Azezel 08-16-07, 07:45 AM	We are officially upgrading the 4e Alert level. Stay tuned for further announcements. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q101/MCP1/4ealert-elevated.jpg
Seeker95 08-16-07, 08:34 AM	to what degree will it be backwards compatible?I truly hope it is effectively not-at-all. By this I mean that while you could use concepts and ideas from the older editions, you would have to convert to the new mechanics. Just like there are plenty of concepts from 1e/2e that translate to 3e after you convert the mechanics.
Frozen Yakman 08-16-07, 10:03 AM	Open up the magic system - Mages (like Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids) should be the best at their chosen form of magic but they shouldn't have exclusive access. This is just continuing the trend that 2e->3e started. Everybody can sneak, everybody can wield weapons and armor, even if they're really bad at it. With 4e everybody can devote time to spellcasting but they won't necessarily be any good at it. This should also make the spellcasting system more multiclass friendly. Imagine being able to play a Wizard/Sorcerer multiclass where the combo reinforced itself (like Fighter/Barbarian) instead of sucking.
Deacon Liadon 08-16-07, 10:09 AM	The return of Yugoloths to importance. Other than that, balanced classes with neither melee nor caster being more powerful than the other.
Rogue Shadows 08-16-07, 10:22 AM	Hmm. 1) Unbalanced classes over certain situations. For example, a Rogue should not be able to storm the mad Necromancer's tower. He should be able to sneak in and slit the mad Necromancer's throat. 2) Give Clerics and Druids only 7 spell levels again. Plus 0-level spells, I guess. Clerics have mainly healing, dispelling, and buff spells, Druids have mainly animal-and-plant interaction spells. Outright damage spells should be restricted to Sorcerers and Wizards. 3) All classes now have a Good save (culminates in +12), an Average save (culminates in +9), and a Poor save (Culminates in +6), a la Revised Edition SWRPG. 4) On that note - it should not resemble Saga Edition, except superficially. Things I like about Saga Edition are: 2 bonus ability points every 4 levels, rather than 1. Collapsing of some skills into each other. That's. About. It. 5) But I hate - hate hate, hate, hate, hate - Saga Edition's skill system. If 4th Edition has it, than Wizards will have to wait a long, long time for me to buy it. Not that, as a company, they care if I don't. 6) Everything should be balanced around monsters with ability scores generated from 35 points, rather than 25 points, since when heroes roll for abilities, the average result is somewhere between 35 points and 45 points - not 25 points, the way Wizards has erroneously believed. At least, not in my experience. I realize that law of averages says it should be 25 points, but the laws of averages warp around dice. 7) Getting back to SE, I also hate the open talent/feat/talent/feat system, and the way they set up saves. Keep Armor Class, gods damnit! 8) The book should NOT, under ANY circumstance, be square. All that did for Saga Edition is make it look moronic. 9) NO. SQUARE. BOOK. I cannot emphasize this enough. 10) There better be a system in place wherein I can trade in my old Core Rulebooks for a discount on the new Core Rulebooks. Failing that, a free PDF or, better yet, physical pamphlet (or, dare I suggest, both?) better be available for conversion from 3rd Edition to 4th Edition.
Shadowhowler 08-16-07, 10:29 AM	More basic, comon sense in the aplication of the worlds physics and rules.
Delgar 08-16-07, 10:44 AM	I disagree with almost everything rogue says. I love the SAGA system, it fixed so many things. I love the skill system, I love that classes get stuff every level, and that you can basically play base classes to 20 and it can be interesting and unique. I also love how fluid multiclassing is, you can't really cherry pick but you also don't loose anything by doing it. But really with 4th edition I hope they fix classes make them interesting (can you say fighter=boring). They really need to fix the spell system, if they completely overhaul this I will be happy. I'd also like to see them go more of the per encounter design then the x encounters per day. But lets face it, they need to overhaul the game past 10th level. I'd also like to see less magic item dependance, but make magic items cool. I doubt any of this will happen though. :(
Draxo 08-16-07, 10:45 AM	Copy pasted from a thread on EN world: 1, The removal of the Vancian magic system. I know! A great shakeup.. but i was raised on console RPG's, and I would really love to see things change to more of a 'spellpoint' system. I know it would kind of turn its back on a lot of books which establish the vancian system, but I just to this day cannot 'get' the idea of a magic user who can reverse gravity and bring down a meteor swarm, who cant cast a standard magic missile. I always saw magic as a 'personal reservoir of power'. I would love to see it work as a points based system. If Vancian is kept, I think it should probably be just for clerics.. and each spell is a 'prayer'. 2, Races. A very vast heading.. but I would love to see the removal of the 'basic set', or at least the addition to it. Looking round the D&D community, I see a lot of other players who are like me: they just do not like the basic set of races. We have human, human with pointy ears, short human x3. Then we get half races which are supposed to be a rarity. Yet they are given as base race options. (which goes against the rules elsewhere for creating half races as a template). So what could be done here? I would love to see all races portrayed in an ECL system, and put as options there. So instead of having a few pages on humans elves and dwarves, we would have a table giving the races and their adjustements, set according to their ECL, ranked according to playability and acceptance. The vast majority would be ECL +0 races, humans, elves and dwarves (the holy trinity) set beside other races that would be given ECL+0 (Kobold, Orc, Goblin etc). Then it would scale up for slightly more powerful races. Obviously I dont see all races being here, but i think all the more 'PC fit' and 'playable' races should be here, its not like there are too many of them. (Gnolls, Centaurs, maybe up to about Minotaur ECL. Enough to fit just about any player and campeign that does not lead into the bizzare. It would also be a fitting foundation for later splatbooks. Savage species portrayed the races this way, I would love to see more attention being given to the characters in this way, its the foundation of every character. Or.. the easy route: just put the more common player popular races here. Really, I just want Kobolds to be PC race fit, they have prove to be extremely popular in their present state, and I love them to death. Perhaps just add Kobolds, remove half orcs and add full blown orcs.. I just dont understand the addition of the half orc/elf. Give us Kobolds as a PC race! 3, Class balance: or lack of. At the moment, nobody can deny that wizards are out of whack in term of class balance. Now, I am in the minority that does not care: I think a high level arcane caster really should, in the words of Varsuvius 'bend reality to their every whim'. I like arcane magic being powerful as it shoudl be. What I would like to see is not a 'nerfage'. I just want to see the other classes brought up to the line. I dont think that any class should be 'low tier'. I think that every class should be heroic in its own right. Lets take the old oft abused fighter: A one trick pony according to many, who falls behind later. I think that s/he should have more options available to him/her beyond power attack and cleave. Later splatbooks put a band aid on this problem: from armor specialisations to weapon tricks. Fighters should be strong and well.. fighters right out of the book. Sorcerors are another 'problem'. These poor guys were released throguhout 3.0 AND 3.5 with a completely empty class progretion chart. It took like, 3-4 splatbooks just to give them workable metamagic. And these are the casters that are supposed to bend reality to their will, not the ones bound to books and set magical theory! What i'm saying here is.. look at all classes and make them all heroes. Thats what I want. Dont take away form the power of arcane and divine magic, make it good (though not too good of course). Make everyone a hero in their own right.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 10:47 AM	Death to the Gygaxian magic/spell system, which was half-ass cut & paste from 1st/2nd edition anyway.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 10:47 AM	I'd also like to see them go more of the per encounter design then the x encounters per day. Bingo!
Rogue Shadows 08-16-07, 10:59 AM	I disagree with almost everything rogue says. Well, that's because you're not half as cool as I am. Don't feel bad; remember, I'm of noble blood amongst the spirits of the air. It's not really a fair competition. j/k. :D I love the SAGA system, it fixed so many things. I love the skill system, It castrates us skill-monkey types. Under the Saga Edition, a, say, elf Rogue with INT 14 can probably expect to have about 7 trained skills, asuming a base of 5 trained (seems reasonable), plus two for Intelligence. Assuming that there's no group overlap, that means I can do 7 things better than average, and everything else is average. Whereas with the current skill system and assumuing maxed-out-ranks, an elf Rogue with INT 14 has 10 skills that he can do better than average, and everything else is average. Better yet, he could do more. Say that instead of putting 4 into a number of skills at 1st level, I put 3 into 13 skills. Now that's 13 skills. I'm not as skilled in any one area as a Rogue of comperable level and Intelligence, but I have more variety. The SE skill system does two things. First, it cuts down on variety of skill level. It doesn't take into account that sometimes you're just going to be better at things than ability score would suggest, without being superb. No, instead you're either trained or not trained. Secondly, it cuts down on character interdependency. A Fighter, Wizard, or Cleric can now pick locks, escape bonds, balance, tumble, and so on, with a decent chance of success. The Rogue can do it better, but it doesn't matter as much. if the DC for a task is, say, 10, then it generally doesn't matter if you roll 10, 15, 20, 25... D&D is founded on character interdependency, and anything that cuts down on that detracts from it as a whole. Though, frankly, I'd rather the skill system then a magic system overhaul that would make it so that any class can become skilled in magic. Oh dear sweet Pelor, I'd rather anything than that. I love that classes get stuff every level, and that you can basically play base classes to 20 and it can be interesting and unique. I also love how fluid multiclassing is, you can't really cherry pick but you also don't loose anything by doing it. Multiclassing freely is alright, but I don't see the point of having 20-level classes when you pretty mcuh expect characters to take the prestige classes. That's what the system is built around expecting. I wouldn't of minded it so much if the classes were 10 levels big; that's one of the things about d20 Modern I don't mind. I do mind the open talent/feat/talent/feat, though I suppose if handled properly it'd be okay. But talents essentially amount to feats, anyway, that simply have a prerequisite of "Fast Hero level 5" or whatever. But really with 4th edition I hope they fix classes make them interesting (can you say fighter=boring). How is the fighter boring? Underpowered, yes, but I don't see the boring part. They really need to fix the spell system, if they completely overhaul this I will be happy. NO. Vancian Magic works. I realize it doesn't make much sense, but it still is functional. I mean, the alternative is either Psionics (i.e., spell point) or Shadowcaster-type magic. Psionics is broken. I'm sorry, it is. Does that mean it's not fun? Hell no! I love psionics. But I go into every psionics game with the knowledge that my psionic character can slaughter everything I come across, including my own party, at the same time. Remember that Pun-pun is built around a psionic class. A spell point system only really works in video games where the only time you'll ever cast a spell is in combat, anyway. And Shadowcaster-style? Please. Don't get me wrong, I love the Shadowcaster and want to play one one day from level 1 thru level 20, but I go in knowing that I'm gonna be needing a party full of meatsheilds, at least until I hit 13th level. I'd also like to see them go more of the per encounter design then the x encounters per day. You mean like they already do? But lets face it, they need to overhaul the game past 10th level. I'd also like to see less magic item dependance, but make magic items cool. Well, yes, I agree on this point.
Shas'O 08-16-07, 11:03 AM	1) More 'Per encounter' abilities, rather then 'Per day'. Tome of battle was IMO a right step in this, as were warlocks. Both are strong, but not overpowered, they reach a decent balance. 2) Core psionics. 'nuff said. 3) New 'core' races, like Tieflings and Aasimars... Done by Tony DiTerlizzi. But still, there are far more cooler races then there should be, add some into the core please? Look at Saga, it has a myriad of races, all interesting. 4) MORE TONY DITERLIZZI ART!!!! 5) More mudkips, and more dakka, and less saging. and less NERRRRRRD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! 6) Class variations. I wanna see how the fighter can become 2 different things, at the very least. I wanna see Paladins be either Crusaders on a horse, or Holy knights slogging it on the ground, just as effectively. 7) Artificers as a base class. 8) A looser base setting, greyhawk is fun and all, but its BOORING. Give us a barebones fantasy world that is fantastic, and then support Greyhawk, Forgotten realms, and Eberron as 3 different campaign worlds. 9) Balance classes please, I don't want to see the CoDzilla or Wizard trump the paladin/barbarian every time after level 10, and I wanna see fighters able to compete with everything. 10) More mudkips, more Dakka, less NERRRRRRRRD RAAAAAAGE, less saging, More Desu. 11) Do something about the skills, cut them down, simplify them. And make sure everyone gets 'decent' class skills. Fighters may as well get none in 3.5 as it it. 12) More Desu, More Dakka, less saging, more mudkips.
Matthew_ 08-16-07, 11:04 AM	How about a much more customisable Rules System so that all of the above can be catered for?
caeruleus 08-16-07, 11:04 AM	My biggest hope for 4e is that Mialee gets a makeover.
Shas'O 08-16-07, 11:06 AM	My biggest hope for 4e is that Mialee gets a makeover. Who needs Mialee when we get a SEXY TIEFLING WIZARDESS?!
xmen510 08-16-07, 11:06 AM	Back to the 4 base classes (fighter, mage, thief, cleric).:D Then have prestige classes to specialize.
Roark 08-16-07, 11:10 AM	Make first level not suck.
Shas'O 08-16-07, 11:12 AM	Back to the 4 base classes (fighter, mage, thief, cleric).:D Then have prestige classes to specialize. Oddly enough, I can see this happening really. Lets look at Saga (Boo, hiss Shas'o! Why are you comparing 4e to Saga, which ran with a modded 3.5 engine!) Anyway, SAGA itself had basic stuff. Jedi - Force users ('magic') Noble - Social monkies (Bards, Rogues.) Scoundrel - Skill Monkies, sneak attackish monkies (Rogues, bards, but does NOT overlap with noble) Scout - Survival monkies, decent fighters, (Rangers) Soldiers - Fighters through and through (Fighters, duh). After that, you could pick the advanced classes. Jedi masters for kung fu action, Gunslingers for pew pew action, Elite soldiers for better fighting. I wouldn't be surprised to see Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard As base classes with say. Cleric - Hierophant, Druid Fighter - Ranger, Paladin Rogue - Assassin, Bard Wizard - Archmage, Artificer as example prestige classes to get. Would I like it? Maybe, i'd have to see it in action first.
caeruleus 08-16-07, 11:15 AM	Who needs Mialee when we get a SEXY TIEFLING WIZARDESS?! See, that's the kind of makeover I'm talking about! :P Okay, actually, my biggest hope is that other campaign settings get some support. I know, people are gonna toss out the fact that they never got support in 3.x, but this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119) (near the top of the first post) suggests that we'll get a new campaign setting each year. Not confirmed, but here's to hoping...
Rogue Shadows 08-16-07, 11:15 AM	Back to the 4 base classes (fighter, mage, thief, cleric). Then have prestige classes to specialize. I'd shoot for five: Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage, Adventurer. The Adventurer would be the "red mage" type that can do everything, just not as well. A very vast heading.. but I would love to see the removal of the 'basic set', or at least the addition to it. Looking round the D&D community, I see a lot of other players who are like me: they just do not like the basic set of races. We have human, human with pointy ears, short human x3. Then we get half races which are supposed to be a rarity. Yet they are given as base race options. (which goes against the rules elsewhere for creating half races as a template). I'm also gonna disagree with this on two points. One, nostalgia. You can't remove the human, elf, half-elf, halfing, dwarf, gnome, and half-orc, because they've been there forever. It'd be like removing magic missile. If you remove magic missile, how are you gonna attack the darkness? Secondly, how would you decide which race gets to be added in? Kobolds? Kobolds are purposefully weak; in order to make them a base race, you'd need to beef them up. But if you did that, who would your 1st-level aprty slaughter? You need a weak, sentient race for low-level parties to fight - weaker than even goblins - simply from a experience awarding perspective. So where's that leave us with for LA +0 - Goblins? Orcs? These are evil races. I realize what's coming next "you shouldn't stereotype blah blah blah..." But do you realize how difficult it would be to build adventures then? For one thing, if you got rid of that alignment thing or stopped building with it in mind, then Red Hand of Doom couldn't really of existed. So next we move to LA +1s, LA +2s, and creatures with racial hit die, like drow, grimlocks, half-ogres... Are you kidding? No. The point of the Core Rulebook is that it's basic. it's simple. It's elegant. Campaign settings could include alternate races. But the core setting should be simple. Follow this logic through, and you also should include an expanded class list. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, Ninja, Shugenja, Samurai (OA variant), Samurai (Complete Warrior variant), Favored Soul, Factotum, Knight, Beguiler, Marshall, Healer... ...wow, this is starting to look like Final Fantasy III.
Shas'O 08-16-07, 11:20 AM	See, that's the kind of makeover I'm talking about! :P Okay, actually, my biggest hope is that other campaign settings get some support. I know, people are gonna toss out the fact that they never got support in 3.x, but this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119) (near the top of the first post) suggests that we'll get a new campaign setting each year. Not confirmed, but here's to hoping... I would hope 'In addition to a new yearly Campaign setting', they'll continue to make new books for FR, and Eberron (Their 2 supported settings.). That is assuming the new campaign settings are akin to say, that Ghost city they made and subsequently forgot about.
Delgar 08-16-07, 11:21 AM	Well, that's because you're not half as cool as I am. Don't feel bad; remember, I'm of noble blood amongst the spirits of the air. It's not really a fair competition. j/k. :D It castrates us skill-monkey types. Under the Saga Edition, a, say, elf Rogue with INT 14 can probably expect to have about 7 trained skills, asuming a base of 5 trained (seems reasonable), plus two for Intelligence. Assuming that there's no group overlap, that means I can do 7 things better than average, and everything else is average. Whereas with the current skill system and assumuing maxed-out-ranks, an elf Rogue with INT 14 has 10 skills that he can do better than average, and everything else is average. Better yet, he could do more. Say that instead of putting 4 into a number of skills at 1st level, I put 3 into 13 skills. Now that's 13 skills. I'm not as skilled in any one area as a Rogue of comperable level and Intelligence, but I have more variety. The SE skill system does two things. First, it cuts down on variety of skill level. It doesn't take into account that sometimes you're just going to be better at things than ability score would suggest, without being superb. No, instead you're either trained or not trained. Secondly, it cuts down on character interdependency. A Fighter, Wizard, or Cleric can now pick locks, escape bonds, balance, tumble, and so on, with a decent chance of success. The Rogue can do it better, but it doesn't matter as much. if the DC for a task is, say, 10, then it generally doesn't matter if you roll 10, 15, 20, 25... D&D is founded on character interdependency, and anything that cuts down on that detracts from it as a whole. Though, frankly, I'd rather the skill system then a magic system overhaul that would make it so that any class can become skilled in magic. Oh dear sweet Pelor, I'd rather anything than that. Multiclassing freely is alright, but I don't see the point of having 20-level classes when you pretty mcuh expect characters to take the prestige classes. That's what the system is built around expecting. I wouldn't of minded it so much if the classes were 10 levels big; that's one of the things about d20 Modern I don't mind. I do mind the open talent/feat/talent/feat, though I suppose if handled properly it'd be okay. But talents essentially amount to feats, anyway, that simply have a prerequisite of "Fast Hero level 5" or whatever. How is the fighter boring? Underpowered, yes, but I don't see the boring part. NO. Vancian Magic works. I realize it doesn't make much sense, but it still is functional. I mean, the alternative is either Psionics (i.e., spell point) or Shadowcaster-type magic. Psionics is broken. I'm sorry, it is. Does that mean it's not fun? Hell no! I love psionics. But I go into every psionics game with the knowledge that my psionic character can slaughter everything I come across, including my own party, at the same time. Remember that Pun-pun is built around a psionic class. A spell point system only really works in video games where the only time you'll ever cast a spell is in combat, anyway. And Shadowcaster-style? Please. Don't get me wrong, I love the Shadowcaster and want to play one one day from level 1 thru level 20, but I go in knowing that I'm gonna be needing a party full of meatsheilds, at least until I hit 13th level. You mean like they already do? Well, yes, I agree on this point. Well I don't want the psionic system either. I want to see a real encounter based magic system, but as it stands now we have a huge spell glut of spells that basically just do the same thing. I didn't say it ealier but I'd also like to see bonuses given to single classes, when they hit markee levels like at 5/10/15 and 20. Reward those that stick it out. But allow multiclassing for better diversity. Personally I'd like to see a classeless system but let's face it that's not going to happen. But my biggest beefs with the DnD system is the skill system, the spell system, and prestige classes (ie power creep). I'd rather see prestige classes = more variety rather than more power, but as it stands now, most prestige classes increase your power level by so much you're pretty much a moron for staying in a base class. As far as I'm concerned they just need to scrap the spell system as is and design something that's just better. If they do that the new edition might be worth it's weight in gold. :)
Rogue Shadows 08-16-07, 11:23 AM	'In addition to a new yearly Campaign setting', What's interesting is that I've been harping for something like this for years now. Though I was aiming more for an every 6 months kind of thing, and I wanted the campaign settingsd to be printed softcover, black-and-white. The campaign settings weren't supposed to be good, necessary. They were supposed to show different directions you could take D&D. But whatever. And I'm not saying Wizards stole the idea, either. It's a "great minds" situation. Though frankly if some WotC suggested it at a board meeting because he read something that I posted, I'd be honored, not outraged.
Spikes01k 08-16-07, 11:24 AM	1. Hexblade that works 2. Clerics and Druids that are not uber over powered. 3. A two weapon fighting style that is made worth wile for fighters!
xmen510 08-16-07, 11:34 AM	Shas'os' idea of having some core classes as prestige ones is really interesting. I like that.
ZeronHitaro 08-16-07, 11:35 AM	Worthless/10. (Referring to the announcement if it is true) 3.5 works just fine for my games and all my extra material I make for my own use (granted I try to share most of it with the members of this community) is balanced around it. I'm not telling them not to release 4.0 but they sure as heck aren't seeing any of my money sunk into it. :P If anything I'll just rebuy the old 3.5 books I sold for spare cash just to "wtc?" their accountants.
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 08-16-07, 11:40 AM	How is the fighter boring? Underpowered, yes, but I don't see the boring part. Round 1 Rogue: I snipe at the enemy from the shadows. Cleric: I say a quick prayer that will protect my allies from harm. Wizard: I turn myself invisible. Fighter: I hit it. Round 2 Rogue: I maneuver into a flanking position. Cleric: I attempt to turn undead. Wizard: I incinerate the entire group with an enormous ball of flame that appears out of nowhere. Fighter: I hit it. Round 3 Rogue: I sneak attack the bad guy. Cleric: I heal a wounded comrade. Wizard: I summon a demon to fight for me. Fighter: I hit it... twice.
xmen510 08-16-07, 11:47 AM	Galstaf: That is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Absolutely dead on.:D
Malraux 08-16-07, 12:00 PM	I hope magic items become much easier to deal with, in assigning loot, keeping characters "appropriately balanced", and tracking on a character sheet. I hope that the new online stuff has good integration between players/characters info and DM tools. (hopefully without a subscription fee for basic usage)
Mage-Ou 08-16-07, 12:05 PM	My biggest hope is that D&D 4th Edition = Star Wars Saga Edition. ;) Oh, and I'd like multiclass characters to keep up in terms of fun and power :rolleyes: with single class characters.
caeruleus 08-16-07, 12:14 PM	I'm also gonna disagree with this on two points. One, nostalgia. You can't remove the human, elf, half-elf, halfing, dwarf, gnome, and half-orc, because they've been there forever. It'd be like removing magic missile. Well, the half-orc was removed from 2e. I would hope 'In addition to a new yearly Campaign setting', they'll continue to make new books for FR, and Eberron (Their 2 supported settings.). That is assuming the new campaign settings are akin to say, that Ghost city they made and subsequently forgot about. According to the link I posted earlier, it looks like Eberron and Forgotten Realms will be getting special support on the D&D Insider. My guess is that they'll also get support in terms of books, but I don't really know. As for the other settings, I actually hope it's only one (or maybe two) books and that's it. Detail is great, but I like having just the basic setting to do with as I please.
Seeker95 08-16-07, 12:34 PM	3.5 works just fine for my games and all my extra material I make for my own use (granted I try to share most of it with the members of this community) is balanced around it. Most of us who played Basic said the same thing about 1e, and we switched up. Most of us who played 1e said the same thing about 2e, and we switched up. Most of us who played 2e said the same thing about 3e, and we switched up. Most of us who played 3e said the same thing about 3.5, and we switched up. Most of us who play 3.5 will switch up. The sales of 4e will not suffer in the least. The sales of the 4e Players Handbook in its first month of release will probably outstrip the sale of the 3,5 Player's Handbook for the past two years. And that is good for the game, for WotC, for Hasbro, and, consequently, for my stock portfolio.
Da Black Cat 08-16-07, 12:34 PM	1) Rectangular creature-bases/facing rules (or at least something proper for horsies). 2) Psionics (or some kind of point-based magic) integrated into core.
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-16-07, 12:35 PM	The (extremely unlikely) return of the Metasetting.
Xyxox 08-16-07, 12:38 PM	My biggest hope is that it doesn;t get so rules bloated in three years that they have to reboot with a 5E in 2011.
Meems 08-16-07, 12:43 PM	I do NOT want Forgotten Realms or Eberron or any other campaign setting as core. I want core as core. I like to build my own campaign settings and don't want the DMG or anything like it telling me what's in my world. I would like Fighters to be able to compete with the other classes, perhaps through an evolved version of the feat trees thing they have now--you choose your fighting style. Just so long as they make it powerful enough at high levels that they don't get constantly owned by the wizards. I'm happy enough with the skill system (though would not mind too much if it changed), and Vancian magic. I also find the idea of tieflings (and presumably aasimars) as core very interesting. I like the D20 system, but again am not against trying something new. I want the core books available for download in a PDF, and/or a 4th ed SRD. If we're going to be able to play it online, I don't want to have to drag X amount of large, heavy hardbacks downstairs and attempt to read them whilst sitting at my computer.
xmen510 08-16-07, 12:44 PM	That is one of the main things for me as well. They have to SERIOUSLY cut down on the rules. It was supposed to be streamlined (3rd edition that is), but what we got was a rules balloon. Every book came out with more rules and more variations on previous rules, then the next book came out with tweaks for the variations on the core rules with more tweaks for the core rules which changed everything once again. TOO MANY RULES SUCKS! KISS - Keep it simple stupid. One of the best sayings in the world.
The_Jester 08-16-07, 12:44 PM	Alot of people never switched from 2E though and alot of people skipped 3.0 and went right to 3.5 and there are still new people discovering 3.5 all the time. Hell, I still regularly see threads started by people just starting up or recruiting for 2E games, both here and on other message boards. It'll split the community up further into 2E, 3/3.5 and now 4E players plus all those players that still like 1E or the original AD&D. WotC's market share took a substantial hit after 3.5 and I can't imagine 4E being so good as to pull everyone over.
calvinNhobbes 08-16-07, 12:49 PM	It'd be like removing magic missile. Actually, I hope they do remove the auto-hit part of magic missile. It is a relic from before touch attacks existed. Just make it a [force] ranged touch attack! Then you can ditch all the random rules needed to counter magic missle's auto hit, like the extra rules for the shield spell and the brooch of shielding.
Shas'O 08-16-07, 12:51 PM	I do NOT want Forgotten Realms or Eberron or any other campaign setting as core. I want core as core. I like to build my own campaign settings and don't want the DMG or anything like it telling me what's in my world. I AGREE WITH THIS! Seriously. I love Eberron, love it to DEATH. But its not core. IMO its the best official setting, but still it is not core. I don't like greyhawk, it is core. Something wrong with that. I want the 'campaign' setting in the core 3 as non descript as possible. I don't want Greyhawk gods. I don't want Greyhawk mages. I don't want greyhawk anything. Give us a world that we can build for ourselves, and later on release Eberron, FR, and Greyhawk for all the happy setting campers*. *I don't like Greyhawk, that doesn't mean I HATE it. On contrary, I want it to thrive, I want it to have a lot of fans. Same with FR, different tastes and all. I may love Eberron, but I like most other campaign settings and want them to thrive for the fans that love them too, I can only hope the same for Eberron after all.
B4_life 08-16-07, 12:54 PM	We are officially upgrading the 4e Alert level. Stay tuned for further announcements. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q101/MCP1/4ealert-elevated.jpg actually, i think it is worth http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q101/MCP1/4ealert-high.jpg
Qube 08-16-07, 12:56 PM	Honestly, IMO, why would we, as customers, buy anymore expansion books? Its not like they'dd be of much use to us anyway. I'dd much rather had yet an other revized core edition (perhaps with only minor fixes like the fighter, some spell and some clarity about the rules (like the diffrence between a turn and a round) ) ... Oh well, I'm guessing we'll see in a couple of houres ... (actually tommorow. I'm not going to stay up late because what could be a hoax)
Spikes01k 08-16-07, 12:57 PM	actually, i think it is worth http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q101/MCP1/4ealert-high.jpg I would say it should be toped. Get your books out on E-bay before 6:30pm Eastern before they officially become worthless!
Qube 08-16-07, 01:00 PM	Most of us who play 3.5 will switch up. True: we with our group play some diffrent systems. (3.5, world of darkness, star wars, ...) so 4ed will come in and 3.5 will slowly dissapear ...
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 08-16-07, 01:03 PM	I'd like to see a magic system that makes sense not just mechanically, but logically as well. I don't learn how to drive every morning, remember how until it's needed, then do it once, and then forget how until I get a good night's sleep and learn how to drive again tomorrow. Oh, no! I only learned how to drive once today! How will I get home from work? A greater focus on the character's abilities, rather than equipment. Especially the constant upgrading to new gear and throwing out the old (and yes, I realize there's a cynical metaphor for the release of a new edition in there). I just don't like the idea of Frodo pawning Sting because he accidentally ran across Sting +1. Magic items should be special, but they shouldn't be disposable. Some depreciation in abilities based on how much or little damage a combatant has taken. "Anything more than zero HP means I'm fighting at full capacity" does not work for me. (I'm told SAGA takes this into account, but I haven't actually managed to get a hold of a copy yet..) Less things that are evil "just because they are." There's a reason orcs raid human settlements, and it shouldn't be "just because they're orcs." Speaking of evil, an overhaul (or maybe complete scrapping) of alignments. Something less prone to misinterpretation. Make it clear that lawful good does not equal psychotic zealot and chaotic neutral does not mean someone who acts completely random or a free pass to do whatever you want and not have it "count" as evil. The simplest thing may be to rename things to something like "organized" and "rebellious," but I'd personally like to see a total, from-the-ground-up rethinking of the alignment system. Little things: - Half-elves and half-orcs need to go. If you want to play an elf, then just play an elf. And orc should be a standard PC race. - Elves that are significantly less horse-faced. And without the giant floppy ears. Pointy is fine, but let's be reasonable. - A way to make a power-based (read: average, or even low, Dex) melee combatant that doesn't rely on heavy, if any, armor. You know, like Conan. Or the Scorpion King. Or Kratos. Or the dudes from 300. Or any of dozens of other fantasy characters. Maybe by instituting a "base combat bonus" that applies to defense/AC as well as attacks? Just a thought. - Monkeys. With little hats.
TheYeti1775 08-16-07, 01:04 PM	http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/TheYeti1775/4ealert.jpg
Spikes01k 08-16-07, 01:05 PM	Add intermediate saving throws to a lot of classes where the total would be +9 at level 20, not +12 or +6; but +9. Fighter: Good Fort, Int. Ref, Poor Will Wizard: Poor Fort, Int. Ref, Good Will Cleric: Int. Fort, Poor Ref, Good Will Rogue: Int. Fort, Good Ref, Poor Will or... Poor Fort, Good Ref, Int. Will ECT... However I think making saving throws would have some personal selection. They would have a set saving throw and the other two probably be able to chose between one as poor and the other as int. with the set one being good.
Draxo 08-16-07, 01:07 PM	I'm also gonna disagree with this on two points. One, nostalgia. You can't remove the human, elf, half-elf, halfing, dwarf, gnome, and half-orc, because they've been there forever. It'd be like removing magic missile. If you remove magic missile, how are you gonna attack the darkness? Secondly, how would you decide which race gets to be added in? Kobolds? Kobolds are purposefully weak; in order to make them a base race, you'd need to beef them up. This is a thread for your wishlist, not arguing and countering others wishes, but i'll reply to this with some sense. Kobolds are my biggest wish for the new edition. Not only mine: they're enormously popular, more than gnomes have ever been. However, I never said to take away the base races. They're there, they're set: I never said to take away the holy trinity. I said to add to it. As for your counters: yes they can fight goblins and orcs: and who is to say goblins will not be weak enoguh? its the new edition. Theres still a host of things to fight at level one. And yes: Kobolds are weak: that hasnt stopped tens of thousands of people playing them. In fact their popularity and play rate despite being weak just goes to show how popular they are and how much people want to play them. They're very popular, and they're my biggest wish for 4e.
Joni-san 08-16-07, 01:08 PM	1) More 'Per encounter' abilities, rather then 'Per day'. Tome of battle was IMO a right step in this, as were warlocks. Both are strong, but not overpowered, they reach a decent balance. 2) Core psionics. 'nuff said. 3) New 'core' races, like Tieflings and Aasimars... Done by Tony DiTerlizzi. But still, there are far more cooler races then there should be, add some into the core please? Look at Saga, it has a myriad of races, all interesting. 4) MORE TONY DITERLIZZI ART!!!! 5) More mudkips, and more dakka, and less saging. and less NERRRRRRD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! 6) Class variations. I wanna see how the fighter can become 2 different things, at the very least. I wanna see Paladins be either Crusaders on a horse, or Holy knights slogging it on the ground, just as effectively. 7) Artificers as a base class. 8) A looser base setting, greyhawk is fun and all, but its BOORING. Give us a barebones fantasy world that is fantastic, and then support Greyhawk, Forgotten realms, and Eberron as 3 different campaign worlds. 9) Balance classes please, I don't want to see the CoDzilla or Wizard trump the paladin/barbarian every time after level 10, and I wanna see fighters able to compete with everything. 10) More mudkips, more Dakka, less NERRRRRRRRD RAAAAAAGE, less saging, More Desu. 11) Do something about the skills, cut them down, simplify them. And make sure everyone gets 'decent' class skills. Fighters may as well get none in 3.5 as it it. 12) More Desu, More Dakka, less saging, more mudkips. I like the way you think. I think I'll add my ideas 1. Look if anything good can be stolen from Original/Basic D&D and D20 Modern. Maybe class advancement? (Base Class [Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Cleric] - Advanced Class [Paladin, Monk, Druid, Bard etc] - PRC) 2. More Love, more Bloom, more mudkips, more GAR, more Desu and more DAKKA! 3. Artificer as a Core Class. 4. Less NEEEEERRRD RRRAAAGE, less fail, less elfitis. 5. Warforged, Shifters and Changelings in the 4'th ed. MM. 6. A better way to scout somebody's powerlevel. 7. Include Modrons in the 4'th ed. MM. 8. More Om Nom Nom monsters.
Habbalah 08-16-07, 01:11 PM	And I've more or less finished collecting my collection of 3.5 Books....:banghead: Dude... just don't get the next one. I'm not going to (I say that now). Who knows it d 20 so you might be able to use it with the old stuff. I hope it does suck. I hope it fails. I hope d and d Employees families starve until they go back to 3.5. Who knows with as pickie as gamers are I give myself a 50/50 chance.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-16-07, 01:11 PM	Until such a press release appears on the WotC page it is still just rumor.
Pallin Rahl 08-16-07, 01:15 PM	My biggest issue with it (if indeed this turns out to be the near-future release of 4e), is that it just feels unnecessary so soon. It feels like "There we go, now you have a fairly complete 3.5 set of rules and options. Whew. Ok, now here's the 4e PHB." I hope they take a year or two to playtest 4e in the background and tweak it with popular gamer imput, while still producing 3.5 adventures, etc. No new 3.5 source books (as they'd be moot with the impending release of 4e) - just put the wealth of 3.5 material, as it now stands (with all its lovely options), to good use for a year or two, then pop out your 4e. /shrug Honestly I'm waiting till that little timer runs out... to hear what they actually have to say before making any real comments on the issue. However, the commonly-seen knee-jerk reaction to say "well no one will buy/convert to 4e" (if indeed that is what this is) is just silly. There's a lot of discussion to be had if they announce the near-future release of 4e, but it's pretty-much a given that people would indeed give it a shot (just as people do with every new edition). --- P.S. Watch the announcement instead be: "Yup, you all guessed it! There will now be a 4th "Core" 3.5 book to add to your collection! ...what? ...what did you think we were going to announce?" :) ...or watch 4e just be a re-encorporating of current 3.5 stuff (such that you don't need to buy all this new stuff). "To be officially 4e, just toss out the Fighter class and make Warblade it's official core replacement, etc." hehe :P
Manus 08-16-07, 01:23 PM	I'm curious, and very apprehensive, about how much of the game mechanics that made it into Star Wars Saga Edition will be shoe-horned into 4E. Streamlined, and easier for new players to break into sounds a lot like the same press they were doing for saga. So.... look forward to talent trees. Prepare yourself for the end of iterative attacks. I honestly think these are two changes they're going to do. Changes they probably won't do, but it would be funny just to contemplate: "Use Arcane Magic" skill. "Use divine magic" skill. Changes they better not make: I don't want 9" d&d books. Also, if 4E includes as much artwork recycled from prior editions as saga, it is not getting my money. The single most depressing thing about the new star wars was paying new money for so much old art.
calvinNhobbes 08-16-07, 01:24 PM	Maybe by instituting a "base combat bonus" that applies to defense/AC as well as attacks? Just a thought. Definitely. Perhaps a "base combat bonus" that can be divided how you choose to boost either offense or defense. Example, you have +4 BCB, and allocate this round to have +2 to attack and +2 to defense. I was also thinking I'd like to see a "base magic bonus" as well instead of caster level.
Shadowhowler 08-16-07, 01:26 PM	I'd like to see a magic system that makes sense not just mechanically, but logically as well. I don't learn how to drive every morning, remember how until it's needed, then do it once, and then forget how until I get a good night's sleep and learn how to drive again tomorrow. Oh, no! I only learned how to drive once today! How will I get home from work? A greater focus on the character's abilities, rather than equipment. Especially the constant upgrading to new gear and throwing out the old (and yes, I realize there's a cynical metaphor for the release of a new edition in there). I just don't like the idea of Frodo pawning Sting because he accidentally ran across Sting +1. Magic items should be special, but they shouldn't be disposable. Some depreciation in abilities based on how much or little damage a combatant has taken. "Anything more than zero HP means I'm fighting at full capacity" does not work for me. (I'm told SAGA takes this into account, but I haven't actually managed to get a hold of a copy yet..) Less things that are evil "just because they are." There's a reason orcs raid human settlements, and it shouldn't be "just because they're orcs." Speaking of evil, an overhaul (or maybe complete scrapping) of alignments. Something less prone to misinterpretation. Make it clear that lawful good does not equal psychotic zealot and chaotic neutral does not mean someone who acts completely random or a free pass to do whatever you want and not have it "count" as evil. The simplest thing may be to rename things to something like "organized" and "rebellious," but I'd personally like to see a total, from-the-ground-up rethinking of the alignment system. Little things: - Half-elves and half-orcs need to go. If you want to play an elf, then just play an elf. And orc should be a standard PC race. - Elves that are significantly less horse-faced. And without the giant floppy ears. Pointy is fine, but let's be reasonable. - A way to make a power-based (read: average, or even low, Dex) melee combatant that doesn't rely on heavy, if any, armor. You know, like Conan. Or the Scorpion King. Or Kratos. Or the dudes from 300. Or any of dozens of other fantasy characters. Maybe by instituting a "base combat bonus" that applies to defense/AC as well as attacks? Just a thought. - Monkeys. With little hats. I'm with you on everything except the Half Elves & Orcs, i like them. :) Oh yeah, and I'm not sure about the monkeys with hats either.
nastynate 08-16-07, 01:26 PM	I AGREE WITH THIS! Seriously. I love Eberron, love it to DEATH. But its not core. IMO its the best official setting, but still it is not core. I don't like greyhawk, it is core. Something wrong with that. I want the 'campaign' setting in the core 3 as non descript as possible. I don't want Greyhawk gods. I don't want Greyhawk mages. I don't want greyhawk anything. Give us a world that we can build for ourselves, and later on release Eberron, FR, and Greyhawk for all the happy setting campers*. *I don't like Greyhawk, that doesn't mean I HATE it. On contrary, I want it to thrive, I want it to have a lot of fans. Same with FR, different tastes and all. I may love Eberron, but I like most other campaign settings and want them to thrive for the fans that love them too, I can only hope the same for Eberron after all. I'm with you 100%. The core rules should include nothing pertaining specifically to any setting. The core rules should be...wait for it...rules! Here's my recipe for success: 1. The core books and supplemental splat books remain completely campaign neutral, with no setting implied or suggested. No more Geyhawk gods, Red Wizards, Bigby's Hand spells, etc. Crunch sells, and crunch easily usable in any world sells even better. 2. The campaign worlds receive only one book each, a campaign setting book. All mechanics are drawn from the core rules and generic splat books (aka the campaign settings will be entirely fluff). Campaign settings divide the market, and campaign splats cut into the core splats. A single book without any specific crunch however will not cut severely into the core splats (aka WotC's cash cow). Heck under this model WotC could have several campaign worlds going at once. 3. Additional material for specific campaign settings will be available through the DI. This makes it possible to support popular settings with material submitted by freelancers and WotC staff without cutting into the normal product schedule. Perhaps annual compilations will be available for popular stuff. 4. Game aids: Dry erase mats, area of effect templates, character generators, free watermarked PDFs with the purchase of books, condition trackers, large battle maps, and other cool, well-marketed tools to make gaming easier. 5. Adventures available through the DI that actually utilize the things we have. I want tie ins with my minis, dungeon tiles, and other resources. I'd love for WotC to actually acknowledge the products they are selling us. 6. Splats should not be divided into small niche fields like Complete X and Heroes of Y. Splats should be large compendiums of things like spells, feats, magic items, classes (or talents if that is the direction they are headed), and psionics. I'd much rather have a single source for something, than have it scattered throughout ten books. That's all for now. Laterz.
Shadowhowler 08-16-07, 01:29 PM	6. A better way to scout somebody's powerlevel. Sounds like someone has MMO on the brain.
Lawlicron 08-16-07, 01:30 PM	I'd like to see a system similar to Saga Edition. Also I'd like Kobolds and Changelings as core. And nobody spout that "I don't want that campaign specific crap in my games! Thats dumb-sauce!". Even if Changeling became core you'd never know they were there.
Salla 08-16-07, 01:30 PM	Until such a press release appears on the WotC page it is still just rumor. This is correct. Until it's on the Wizards or D&D websites, it's just another putrid, time-wasting rumor.
Eberik 08-16-07, 01:31 PM	After seeing this thing on another board, I made the comment of Hell no and am sticking to it. I spent so much money of 2ed and was totally irate when it was obsolete come 3ed. But I did buy in and came to like the system a lot more. 3.5 was a needed update and clerification, but a 4ed? Not in my life. I have spent well over what some people probobly make in a few months of full time work and to simply brush it away and say here's 4ED with not so much as a blink, nope, not gonna do it. I know I will stick by this because I will simply hit up Noble Knight Games and buy up all of the 3.5 stuff I need and be more then happy to sit back and develope a world all my own to the n'th degree and have all of it be d20. As some have already said, I know more then a few who still haven't played 3. or 3.5 and they sure as hell aren't going to bite 4ed so soon either I am more then willing to bet. Wizards, and Hasbro, are in it for the money. Make you rebuy all the core books, setting books, and expansion books for the newest edition and to hell with the old. Don't believe me? Look at the shotty editing and layout of past books within a year or 2. All of the errata that would have been found with a good playtest past right under their noses. The release of 3!!!! versions of d20 star wars? Starting a line of product (d20 Modern) and without so much as a ok it's done from them, stop producing product and even work on the site itself. (which has D&D materials on it and has for some time now) Nope, if this is what many say it to be, a 4ed, I am done with this company and when I have bought my share of soon to be out of print and value books, I'll go back to a company that does care about such things like say ShadowRun or Gurps or hell.... I might just make my own. (Whaiting for the impending other boot to fall)
Lawlicron 08-16-07, 01:32 PM	6. A better way to scout somebody's powerlevel. IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!
Shas'O 08-16-07, 01:34 PM	I like the way you think. I think I'll add my ideas 1. Look if anything good can be stolen from Original/Basic D&D and D20 Modern. Maybe class advancement? (Base Class [Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Cleric] - Advanced Class [Paladin, Monk, Druid, Bard etc] - PRC) 2. More Love, more Bloom, more mudkips, more GAR, more Desu and more DAKKA! 3. Artificer as a Core Class. 4. Less NEEEEERRRD RRRAAAGE, less fail, less elfitis. 5. Warforged, Shifters and Changelings in the 4'th ed. MM. 6. A better way to scout somebody's powerlevel. 7. Include Modrons in the 4'th ed. MM. 8. More Om Nom Nom monsters. Agree'd with the vast majority! Anonymous has spoke, Wizards must listen to the internet hate machine. And definately less Elfitis, maybe we should take 4e as the initiative to totally remove ALL DROW, please? That would be a start. Undergrounds closed, aids. Sounds like someone has MMO on the brain. Sage goes in the email field.
Archus Forix 08-16-07, 01:36 PM	well, for those of us who have started to get into 3.5 and indeed, all those who play 3.5, if 4e comes out now, I do hope that we can simply get a rules update like there was for 3.0 -> 3.5 But would they post the errata for the conversion of 3.5 to 4.0 before they sell the core books? I mean, regardless of what everyone is thinking, I'm pretty sure we would want to see what it is like, you know, to determine how compatible it is with 3.5 (I do hope so) and subsequently wether or not we would buy the core books when they come out. But I suppose there is ONE HUGE MEGA underlying point. Accepting the postulate that in less than 12 hours it is a 'hey! 4.0!', the only single question you have to ask is, 'do I like playing 3.5?' If you have a lot of books or are feeling a bit dismayed at the possibility that your books are now the same worth as toilet paper, simply ask yourself as to wether or not you ACTUALLY LIKE PLAYING 3.5. If you do, then continue playing it. What is there to stop you? 4.0 is coming out. Great. Perhaps we could buy a couple of suppliment books and perhaps shove some sweet new mechanic into Eberron, or even bring some cool prestige classes we found in any of the Complete... series and bring them to 4.0 standard (or down to, depending on how it goes). I, being a beginner here having recently purchased the 3.5 cores and also the PHB II and a few others (it is in my sig), am not too dismayed because with my friends, we can keep playing 3.5, if there is an errata for 3.5 to 4.0, then WOOHOO! If not, then it will certainly be interesting to see the differences between 3.5 and 4.0, hell I'll buy them even if I think the artwork and layout is cool. But if not, then 3.5. I mean, there are people still playing AD&D! There is 3.5 out and they are playing 2nd ed. They are having fun using those rules, and why should we stop them? If they enjoy playing that, despite that perhaps 3.5 is easier to understand, they know how to play AD&D. So they do, and for 3.5, if we enjoy playing it, what is to stop us from continuing? 4.0 may be the best in the entire series, in terms of accessibility and also general playing structure. But we know how to play 3.5. A lot of DMs find the preparation time for an adventure to be some of the most tedious and at once rewarding parts of the entire game. 4.0 seeks to rectify that 'anomaly'. D&D isn't just a game, it is an experience. You spend more time reading it and preparing for it than actually playing it. For goodness sake, at least spend that time using the material that you enjoy reading and know how it works. Plus, the D&D books are the first and foremost best source material for coming up with fantasy stories, bar none. If you like 3.5 in terms of the 'feel' of the game, the medieval fantasy where you can have a leather backpack and velvet robes, with sunshine rolling over luscious greens and all destroyed by a BBEG, if you enjoy being in that atmosphere, stay in it! With each edition WOTC brings out, a new atmosphere is brought to the table. AD&D seems to be quite narrow and simply 'Dungeon and Darkness', from what I have experienced, but with 3.0/3.5, you get towns, cities, mountains, lakes! It brings a new feel to the experience, and we should be glad at out collections, for they are wonderful material to bring to 4.0, should we choose to. We can bring ideas and concepts to the table to have a wonderful hybrid where it can truly work for one reason and one reason only, and this is why AD&D and 3.5 can actually work together, and why FR has stood the test of time: the d20 system. The system is what makes up D&D, you keep to that, the rest is aesthetic. So therefore, there is nothing stopping you playing 3.5 are 4.0 comes out, and certainly nothing bringing 3.5 to the table of a 4.0 game. If you're the DM, what you say goes...
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 08-16-07, 01:39 PM	Definitely. Perhaps a "base combat bonus" that can be divided how you choose to boost either offense or defense. Example, you have +4 BCB, and allocate this round to have +2 to attack and +2 to defense. I like that. Sort of an extension of the existing rules for fighting defensively (or the Combat Expertise feat), taken to another level and turned into a "core mechanic" of combat. A character could choose just how aggressive or defensive he wanted to be in a fight. There are some definite possibilities with that. I was also thinking I'd like to see a "base magic bonus" as well instead of caster level. Absolutely. A fighter who multiclasses to wizard still gets better at fighting, even if it happens very slowly. A wizard who multiclasses to fighter should get better at casting the same way (no new spells or anything, but what he already knows should improve a little over time).
MHolland 08-16-07, 01:40 PM	This may be an elaborate hoax but... This rumor is coming at us from different locations with big names attached (the one source on Gleemax was Mike, the liaison from here on the forums). I think this is the real deal. WOTC said they had a massive announcement for GenCon and it wasn't DI or Gleemax. There isn't much more than that to offer us other than the next edition of D&D. I agree though there is nothing to worry about. 3.5 is a highly developed game system now and if you don't like 4.0 you can survive on 3.5 for many, many years to come.
adamb0nd 08-16-07, 01:48 PM	I really believe that it will function a lot like star wars saga edition. If you guys haven't read the book, it's changed the d20 system enough that it could be considered a 4th edition on its own. I wouldnt mind that sort of evolution.
Keladelros 08-16-07, 01:52 PM	Good Job Wizards! Way to not give us a complete set of books and material for 3.5 before jumping to 4th. We're missing Epic Level Handbook, Stronghold Builders Guide. I'll be the first to say we're all appreciative to hear of 4th edition. But I am a little peeved at this. I only ask that we get a full set of books before you move on to 4.5 or 5th edition this time please...
Arkat 08-16-07, 01:55 PM	$500.00 says Wizards' D&D site officially announces 4th Edition today at 6:30 PM EDT. That's 3:30 PM Pacific time for you left coasters.
Da Black Cat 08-16-07, 01:59 PM	I do NOT want Forgotten Realms or Eberron or any other campaign setting as core. I want core as core. I like to build my own campaign settings and don't want the DMG or anything like it telling me what's in my world. Agreed.
SokenzanMarauder 08-16-07, 02:01 PM	What happened to them giving us a years warning? -Gene
unundindur 08-16-07, 02:02 PM	I find the current system flawed enough to justify a new. What i am not sure about is how its done. I cannot understand why they cannot just openly say "this and that will be changed, what do you people think about that?" I am just afraid the new system will not target the real flaws of the game, and instead head onto tiny bugs here and there. I suspect this change to be a small one, abeit I woulc cherish a really big change.
Frozen Yakman 08-16-07, 02:09 PM	One thing about replacing the magic system's fundamental nature. Spellpoints are WORSE than the Vancian system. Spellpoint systems require even more bookkeeping on the spellcasters part which is a BAD THING (tm). Low bookkeeping casting systems like Vancian, Invocation (Warlock), Tome of Battle, Binder, Truenamer, and to some extent Incarnum (Essentia has small enough numbers to make it tolerable) are all superior to spellpoint/power point systems.
MHolland 08-16-07, 02:12 PM	What happened to them giving us a years warning? -Gene Release is May 2008. Not quite a year but definitely time enough to get used to the idea. And I completely disagree about spell points. I've played in a couple spell point games and it was so easy to use (book keeping as well as game play) that it was silly. If D&D moves to spell points I will be 100% happy with that decision.
ORC_Nashira 08-16-07, 02:12 PM	merging threads of similar topic, talk on good patrons!
xmen510 08-16-07, 02:13 PM	In games I run I take out the Sorcerer and allow the Wizard to cast any spell he knows. I also take out specific memorization for Clerics as well. I like that to be put in myself.
Armsman 08-16-07, 02:15 PM	I don't want to get D&D SAGA Edition. I wouldn't mind seeing iterative attacks dropped in favor of how SAGA does it, but that's about it. I don't like "per encounter" abilities at all. I don't like the untrained/trained/focused rules for skills, either. Remember, Darth Vader can't be trained in Mechanics under SAGA's rules. Keep attacks of opportunity and the 5-foot step, too.New core classes. I'd pick one from each of the first four "Complete" books -- Swashbuckler, Spirit Shaman, Warlock and either Ninja or Scout. Maybe the Knight, too.Kobolds, Goblins and maybe Orcs as PHB races. Perhaps some others, too.Spell points for all spellcasters. Some don't like it, but I think it makes more sense than Vancian spellcasting, in addition to adding flexibility.One page per monster, and include more core monsters. If they make psionics core, include the gem dragons, for instance.A bigger core pantheon.Psionics integrated from the start. It doesn't need to actually be core, but the core should be designed for easy addition of psionics.More magic items that don't just give a bonus to some stat. I love my Magic Item Compendium.Either back off on the push for minis, or start selling non-random packs. I know, not gonna happen, but hey, this is my list.Playtesting, playtesting, playtesting.
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 08-16-07, 02:16 PM	Another little tiny itty-bitty change I'd like to see: Magic-user was a dumb-sounding name for a class. Descriptive, sure, but "wizard" just sounds more impressive and less clinical. And more fantastical! Fighters need to finally get that same treatment. Doesn't "warrior" just sound more impressive? It implies a little more "oomph," I think. Anybody who fights is a fighter, but it takes some real skill at slaughtering one's enemies to be a warrior.
TheAnthroDM 08-16-07, 02:18 PM	WoTC wording and good advertising abilities have set my standards high, I hope that 4e delivers. In the mean time I will be sorting through my books, and seeing ordering them by usefulness based on flavor content. Get a faster move on on my new campaign setting so that it will have an easier transition to 4e, sit back, and have fun. I hope that all the "4e is evil" supporters will remember that WoTC isn't going to come to their house and burn all their 3.5 books.
TheAnthroDM 08-16-07, 02:20 PM	$500.00 says Wizards' D&D site officially announces 4th Edition today at 6:30 PM EDT. That's 3:30 PM Pacific time for you left coasters. West coasters. There is not left on a sphere as far as I can tell.
Arkat 08-16-07, 02:21 PM	$500.00 says Wizards' D&D site officially announces 4th Edition today at 6:30 PM EDT. That's 3:30 PM Pacific time for you left coasters. Isn't anybody going to ask me how I know this? It is pretty dang specific you know. :D West coasters. There is not left on a sphere as far as I can tell. You seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever. :(
Hochiu 08-16-07, 02:23 PM	I'm worried that it said that design began in 2005 and it ended already. That...does not seem good, to me. With all the crap that Wizard's has been putting out lately, I'm worried that 2 years isn't enough for a company that doesn't seem to know the value of editors and playtesters.
MHolland 08-16-07, 02:23 PM	Add intermediate saving throws to a lot of classes where the total would be +9 at level 20, not +12 or +6; but +9. Fighter: Good Fort, Int. Ref, Poor Will Wizard: Poor Fort, Int. Ref, Good Will Cleric: Int. Fort, Poor Ref, Good Will Rogue: Int. Fort, Good Ref, Poor Will or... Poor Fort, Good Ref, Int. Will ECT... However I think making saving throws would have some personal selection. They would have a set saving throw and the other two probably be able to chose between one as poor and the other as int. with the set one being good. That is a brilliant idea imho. Even further customization of character without adding too much to the rules structure. Wow, thread merge has me all confused... Going to need to read it twice over to figure out what I am replying to next.
mdhprime 08-16-07, 02:29 PM	I'm worried that it said that design began in 2005 and it ended already. That...does not seem good, to me. With all the crap that Wizard's has been putting out lately, I'm worried that 2 years isn't enough for a company that doesn't seem to know the value of editors and playtesters. First off, WotC does not put out crap. While some products have been better than others, the overall quality has been there all along. It is unprobable that something as important as a new edition will be released before it is ready. Your concerns sound rather unjustified.
Kadasbrass 08-16-07, 02:29 PM	Well this goes a long way to explaining why alot of the recent books sucked. I might pick up few of the good 3.5 books I missed, but that would be it for me.
ZeronHitaro 08-16-07, 02:30 PM	First off, WotC does not put out crap. While some products have been better than others, the overall quality has been there all along. It is unprobable that something as important as a new edition will be released before it is ready. Your concerns sound rather unjustified. Two words: Complete Psionics. Crappy editing, poor play testing, pointless nerfing while equally pointless boosting in some areas. Personally I'm going to be not surprised at all if 4.0 is equally crapping due to the rushed production (Assuming the rumors are true).
TheAnthroDM 08-16-07, 02:33 PM	You seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever. :( Not on the forum, hun. ;)
mdhprime 08-16-07, 02:38 PM	Two words: Complete Psionics. Crappy editing, poor play testing, pointless nerfing while equally pointless boosting in some areas. Personally I'm going to be not surprised at all if 4.0 is equally crapping due to the rushed production (Assuming the rumors are true). Judging something before it even sees the light of day is not a very wise thing to do. Whatever rumors you've heard are unfounded since no one has even seen this product yet.
ZeronHitaro 08-16-07, 02:40 PM	Judging something before it even sees the light of day is not a very wise thing to do. Whatever rumors you've heard are unfounded since no one has even seen this product yet. True, but I don't need to touch a blue fire to know it'll burn my hand just as badly as a red fire. WotC's rushed products usually have something gone wrong to some degree. 4th edition, if released next year, is rushed in comparison to past editions.
MHolland 08-16-07, 02:43 PM	True, but I don't need to touch a blue fire to know it'll burn my hand just as badly as a red fire. WotC's rushed products usually have something gone wrong to some degree. 4th edition, if released next year, is rushed in comparison to past editions. That's the speculation I can't get behind though. I have a feeling 4E has been in playtesting for some time now and they just didn't say anything about it. Swift actions, immediate actions, rules changes along the way, SAGA - I think those were all bleed off from the playtesting going on for 4E. If that is the case then the game has been in the works for a couple years now and with a "probable" release next year that gives it a game development time frame of a few years in the works. If the announcement comes today then I doubt that means they start working on it now. I think they have been working on it for quite some time now. I can get behind that idea much more easily and if true that means this edition has had plenty of time to get the proper playtestig and development it needs.
mdhprime 08-16-07, 02:44 PM	True, but I don't need to touch a blue fire to know it'll burn my hand just as badly as a red fire. WotC's rushed products usually have something gone wrong to some degree. 4th edition, if released next year, is rushed in comparison to past editions. No product is perfect and to be honest it sounds as if you are nitpicking over little errors that most products of the same type suffer from. It sounds as if your opinion of D&D products is rather negative in general and perhaps you prefer a different game or game system. To each their own.
hawkinsthedm 08-16-07, 02:52 PM	We are officially upgrading the 4e Alert level. Stay tuned for further announcements. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q101/MCP1/4ealert-elevated.jpg "...and there was a loud wailing and gnashing of teeth." --Someone, Someplace, Sometime
ItaraKoturo 08-16-07, 02:57 PM	True, but I don't need to touch a blue fire to know it'll burn my hand just as badly as a red fire. WotC's rushed products usually have something gone wrong to some degree. 4th edition, if released next year, is rushed in comparison to past editions. According to the news article posted at ICv2.com, 4th Edition has been in development since 2005. Three years for development (including some live testing of new ideas) is plenty of time and certainly not "rushed".
WizO_Brak 08-16-07, 03:06 PM	As there is already an ongoing thread on this subject here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906910, I'm going to close this thread and ask that discussion be carried on there. Mostly this is to keep discussion, speculation and applicable information in one location. Generally I would merge the threads together, however, since both of these threads are large and have a great number of posts it would likely cause confusion if merged. Thanks, and happy speculating! ~Brak