| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Prak, the Mad05-10-07, 05:07 PM | so apparently, a friend of my girlfriend has a friend that works for wizards(yes, the 3 degrees of separation makes me suspiscious too...), and this friend said that 4e is coming out soon... so, well, pack you bags 3.xe players, looks like we're headed out... anyway, enough with the G&D, anyone have more concrete information? also, I believe that if 4e is coming out this person could lose their job, could they not? |
| Nautilus05-10-07, 05:12 PM | I prefer to reserve my judgments for confirmed events. Silly, but that's just me. |
| Romtos05-10-07, 05:13 PM | so apparently, a friend of my girlfriend has a friend that works for wizards(yes, the 3 degrees of separation makes me suspiscious too...), You don't say. And the fact you're a stranger to me drives me to the point I stopped believing you at this point. and this friend said that 4e is coming out soon... so, well, pack you bags 3.xe players, looks like we're headed out... This assumption is based on a rumor I didn't believe in the first place. anyway, enough with the G&D, anyone have more concrete information? No. also, I believe that if 4e is coming out this person could lose their job, could they not? Everyone could lose his/her job. |
| ENHenry05-10-07, 05:15 PM | No time to dig up all the references, but in a nutshell: Chris Perkins at D&D Experience said it's not in the pipeline for AT LEAST a year, and more likely two years, because we're seeing rumors for 3E product that's cheduled through early 2008. Plus, he stated that D&D Experience is going to be the Convention they're doing all their big announcements at from now on, so the earliest you're looking at is February 2009. |
| Mouseferatu05-10-07, 05:18 PM | No time to dig up all the references, but in a nutshell: Chris Perkins at D&D Experience said it's not in the pipeline for AT LEAST a year, and more likely two years, because we're seeing rumors for 3E product that's cheduled through early 2008. Plus, he stated that D&D Experience is going to be the Convention they're doing all their big announcements at from now on, so the earliest you're looking at is February 2009. This is the Internet, Henry. Stop trying to confuse things with facts. ;) (Miss you folks over at ENWorld. Stupid servers... :() |
| Samwise05-10-07, 05:35 PM | No time to dig up all the references, but in a nutshell: Chris Perkins at D&D Experience said it's not in the pipeline for AT LEAST a year, and more likely two years, because we're seeing rumors for 3E product that's cheduled through early 2008. Plus, he stated that D&D Experience is going to be the Convention they're doing all their big announcements at from now on, so the earliest you're looking at is February 2009. Yes, and he was very nice and polite about it. Everyone from the WotC team was quite nice at DDXP. It is still just as important to note what they don't say as what they do say. There were 2nd products right up to the release of 3E, and 3E products right up to the release of 3.5, so saying there are 3.5 products scheduled for the 1st quarter of '08 does not prove that 4E won't be released at Gen Con '08. Likewise noting that big announcements will come at DDXP doesn't mean it can't be announced at DDXP '08 for a Gen Con '08 release. And of course, "at least" a year from DDXP '07 only takes us to DDXP '08, leaving a whole 6 months more until Gen Con '08 for it to be in the pipeline for "more than" a year. |
| David Argall05-10-07, 06:03 PM | However the cancelling of the mags again puts 09 as the earliest date. for any 08 date, Dragon would have been just too useful an advertising medium to eliminate. The online idea may look neat to some desk jockey somewhere, but 4.0 will be a company shaking event. Anything that threatens its success is sucidal. So when they made the decision to axe the mags, 4.0 was too far in the future to affect their decision. I'll stick to my prediction of 2010, with an option to extend that to 2013. |
| jokamachi05-10-07, 06:15 PM | I have a pet groundhog that knows a cockatoo that has a friend whose sister told him that wizards is going to.... |
| Burgundy Lotus05-10-07, 06:32 PM | I have a pet groundhog that knows a cockatoo that has a friend whose sister told him that wizards is going to.... TO WHAT!!! don't leave me hanging man! :P |
| TheDarkLord05-10-07, 06:37 PM | I'll stick to my prediction of 2010, with an option to extend that to 2013. Well, I wouldn't bet on that extension, the Maiyan calander ends at 2012 ;). |
| Burgundy Lotus05-10-07, 06:39 PM | Well, I wouldn't bet on that extension, the Maiyan calander ends at 2012 ;). They can release it in the afterlife. We need something to do for all eternity. |
| fdailey05-10-07, 06:42 PM | Ah someone has posted about D&D 4E. It must be Thursday. :) |
| Khoran05-10-07, 08:00 PM | Well, I wouldn't bet on that extension, the Maiyan calander ends at 2012 ;). Oh no! The Maiyan Calendar! It's not like other calanders have ended, ever! I mean, the Western Calendar dosn't end yearly or anything! |
| TheDarkLord05-10-07, 08:03 PM | Oh no! The Maiyan Calendar! It's not like other calanders have ended, ever! I mean, the Western Calendar dosn't end yearly or anything! Well, I guess someone Didn't like the joke :P |
| Aetheryn05-10-07, 08:22 PM | I am gonna be skeptical at best, though I guess it is only a matter of time... Regardless, until I see WotC's Official announcement saying that 4E is coming out... |
| Splendide05-10-07, 08:41 PM | If it is coming out, I hope they do away with the idea of class skills. |
| CryoSilver05-10-07, 08:50 PM | You know, I just started working for Sikorsky Aircraft, and there's rumors that they're going to be moving to Alabama. Doesn't mean they're going to. My father has worked there for 28 years, and tells me that rumor has been around for that long at least. So I wouldn't believe anything from WotC until there's something official, like a press release or something. |
| Kazeofwinds05-10-07, 09:11 PM | I'll believe news about 4e when I see one of two things. 1. A press release from wizards 2. A copy of it sitting on my table Before that, I care about as much as I do about duke nukem forever. |
| Johnny_Angel05-10-07, 09:14 PM | I heard a rumor that WoTC was going to stop producing D&D products in '08 so that they could focus more attention to their new product - D20 NASCAR. The first edition is going to have three base classes: driver, crew chief, and pit crew member... |
| Nihzlet05-10-07, 09:28 PM | Posted by Kazeofwinds: Before that, I care about as much as I do about duke nukem forever.youch. :P me personally i dont care when or if 4e comes out. im having lots of fun with 3.5 right now, and im sure ill enjoy 4e when and if it arrives(after a short period of mistrust much like what happened in the transition from 2e to 3e, where i try to stick with all my old books). until that day i wont worry about it. |
| TyWebb05-10-07, 10:32 PM | Actually, I have it on reliable authority that they're gonna skip 4e and just go right to 5e. |
| Lina_Inverse05-10-07, 10:33 PM | If it is coming out, I hope they do away with the idea of class skills. Doesn't look like it, looks more like no more skill ranks. Hi starwars saga edition. Just because there brainstorming, play testing and working on 4E doesn't mean it's coming out soon. They probably started working on it the day 3.5 came out. |
| Reinforcements05-10-07, 10:36 PM | so apparently, a friend... This is about the point where I stopped lending the slightest credence to your information. The fact that your post continues to sprint at top speed away from reliability just makes it that much worse. |
| Aetheryn05-11-07, 12:39 AM | I heard a rumor that WoTC was going to stop producing D&D products in '08 so that they could focus more attention to their new product - D20 NASCAR. The first edition is going to have three base classes: driver, crew chief, and pit crew member...You mean I can't play as the rather obese man in the front row with the cooler full of beer next to him?! |
| Shadowhowler05-11-07, 12:58 AM | You mean I can't play as the rather obese man in the front row with the cooler full of beer next to him?! DAMN IT! I live in the south... that was the character archtype I was hopping to play! Gezz. No love. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-11-07, 01:47 AM | Actually, I have it on reliable authority that they're gonna skip 4e and just go right to 5e. Really? Well I heard that they're going to give up 4e and start releasing new books for 1e. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-11-07, 01:50 AM | I've been thinking something that hasn't been worth starting a thread, and since this thread is utterly pointless, I thought I'd ask it here. Doesn't D&D general sound like a hospital? |
| Kazeofwinds05-11-07, 01:55 AM | I've been thinking something that hasn't been worth starting a thread, and since this thread is utterly pointless, I thought I'd ask it here. Doesn't D&D general sound like a hospital? More like a hospital show on NBC. "next week on D&D General, Dragons with kidneystones." |
| Hallana05-11-07, 03:23 AM | What?!? You guys are still playing 3.5E? That's so cute! Old Skool! I've been playing 4E since the beginning of April. |
| Nihzlet05-11-07, 03:28 AM | psst. the 4e character in your sig attacks with a rapier, but apparently only carries a longsword. now theres a change i didnt see coming. nonmagical longswords morphing into rapiers when you pick them up, then turning back into longswords when you sheathe them. :P |
| Hallana05-11-07, 03:42 AM | whoops, corrected! you 3.5E old guard people are so good at Perception checks... or should I say Spot checks, like back in the old good days *wink* |
| Splendide05-11-07, 03:47 AM | I just had a look at the skills for SW:SE as previewed, they look OK, but lumping Sense Motive into Perception seems a bit rubbish to me. |
| Yaeri05-11-07, 04:06 AM | TO WHAT!!! don't leave me hanging man! :P Makes me think of "Life of Brian". -"Why won't he tell?" -"Is it a secret?" -"TWENTY SHACKLES!!!" (or whatever the currency was) |
| forsaken111105-11-07, 04:32 AM | Why would they just be releasing 4e when you can already get PDF books for DND 4.5e on torrent sites? Duh.. Man the 4.5e remastered expanded uberpsionics handbook is pretty damn cool. I can be a 4th level Psychic Fraud and use bluff checks to force people to give me money out of pity. |
| Steely_Dan05-11-07, 06:33 AM | I myself can't wait for the edition that shall not be named. Here's hoping for: -No more favoured classes -No more dead levels -No more skill ranks -No more save or die spells -No more absolutes (absolute immunity etc) -No more multi-classing restrictions (monks and paladins) -No more death from massive damage -No more iterative attacks -Fixed hit points for levelling -Skill folding -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system. |
| LeuktheSavior05-11-07, 07:03 AM | everyone keeps speculating. Just wait. |
| OravennasBrother05-11-07, 10:07 AM | However the cancelling of the mags again puts 09 as the earliest date. Not necessarily. Cancelling Paizo's Dragon/dungeon lisences could be a step to making 4e NOT OGL. Then it would be out as early as Christmas with a big ad campaign in OTHER media (to attract NEW gamers who won't recognise the futility of purchasing anything beyond 3 Core books) I'll stick to my prediction of 2010, with an option to extend that to 2013. Not 2013, that's when the Cyberpunk revision is due to hit. (Talsorian reference FWIW) |
| Tanus05-11-07, 11:59 AM | I heard that's it's in development and the new books are being made with the revised rules in mind (IE Tome of Battle, Complete Mage Reserve Feats), but it won't be released until after Summer '08. That's from a guy I know who works in the M:TG department though, so take it with a grain of salt. |
| tankschmidt05-11-07, 12:14 PM | You mean I can't play as the rather obese man in the front row with the cooler full of beer next to him?! I call that LARPing! |
| RobbyPants05-11-07, 12:22 PM | so apparently, a friend of my girlfriend has a friend that works for wizards(yes, the 3 degrees of separation makes me suspiscious too...) A friend of a friend told me that your friend of your girlfriend's friend is lying, and my source is reliable. :P Seriously, go check out www.snopes.com (www.snopes.com). It's full of friend-of-a-friend urban legends. You wouldn't believe how many things get spread around as truth merely because someone adds that "friend-of-a-friend" tag to it. It's like they think it must be true, because it was attached to a ficticious real person. |
| Nickoleye05-11-07, 12:50 PM | Yeah, 4.0 is comming out soon. Soon as in 2011... Have you not seen the press release form Wizards? http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010401a |
| epifreak05-11-07, 05:07 PM | I call that LARPing! Wow, that's a LARP I would actually attend. Too bad I'm not obese, though......:( And as for the obese man on front row with beer cooler, that base class will be released in one of the early splatbooks. People will complain that it is overpowered, due primarily to the "iron liver" class feature received at first level that makes the class a phenomenal one level dip. |
| tahngarth4005-11-07, 05:36 PM | My half-brother's, uncle's, sister's, cousin's, aunt's, nephew that works at wizards has it on good authority that in 4e you can only play elves and scimitars to 2d12 with a 17-20x3 and they're light weapons that you can still power attack with. The greatsword does 1d3 |
| Wiseblood05-11-07, 05:47 PM | whoops, corrected! you 3.5E old guard people are so good at Perception checks... or should I say Spot checks, like back in the old good days *wink* They didn't read it they just wanted to post in the 4e thread. It would seem that people equate 4e with the death of D20. Or that 4e will be completely incompatible with 3.x. IMHO watch out for fluff books like Drizzt's Guide to the Underdark then 4e will be on the horizon. |
| green_yawgmoth05-12-07, 09:43 AM | My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said that all of the current plans for books are ust a ruse to lull us into a false sense of security about 3e, so that we'll still buy 3e books until 4e! The end is nigh! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif |
| Caedis05-12-07, 11:26 AM | Wasn't 3.5 actually the 4e build in disguise? Clever Hasbro, *pats Hasbro upgrade executives on the head and throws them a dog biscuit*. |
| Magrus05-12-07, 11:44 AM | Just because there brainstorming, play testing and working on 4E doesn't mean it's coming out soon. They probably started working on it the day 3.5 came out. This is probably the only intelligent response I've heard on the 4E rumors yet. If the people working there were smart, they'd be doing this. The question then is, are they smart enough to be doing this? :P |
| Luis_Dragunov05-12-07, 11:59 AM | There's still so much to milk about 3.5e! When you start seeing stuff like "Ultimate Magus" and stuff, then you know 4e is comming up! |
| penchant05-12-07, 12:45 PM | 4e.. people count funny First we had D&D Then we had Advanced D&D Then AD&D revised (yellow bindings) Plus all the revisionist fluff like Unearthed Arcana but that's more like a .5 ed Out comes AD&D 2nd ed (blue books) Then the 2nd ed revised (black books) Then the skills and powers experiments (another .5) finally 3rd ed and 3.5 My my figuring we are around D&D 8.5 or so. |
| VrecknidjX05-12-07, 04:34 PM | My cousin's best friend's dog ate a press release that said that 4th edition would be surprise released at GenCon 2007. Dave |
| memorax05-12-07, 04:52 PM | I myself can't wait for the edition that shall not be named. Here's hoping for: -No more favoured classes -No more dead levels -No more skill ranks -No more save or die spells -No more absolutes (absolute immunity etc) -No more multi-classing restrictions (monks and paladins) -No more death from massive damage -No more iterative attacks -Fixed hit points for levelling -Skill folding -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system. Agreed and seconded. |
| JustinA05-12-07, 06:54 PM | so apparently, a friend of my girlfriend has a friend that works for wizards(yes, the 3 degrees of separation makes me suspiscious too...), and this friend said that 4e is coming out soon... so, well, pack you bags 3.xe players, looks like we're headed out... Interesting. I have a friend who's a friend of a friend of a priest, and the priest talked to God. And according to my friend, who's a friend of a friend of the priest, God said that 4th Edition is definitely coming out. So there's at least one confirmation of your unsubstantiated rumor. :rolleyes: |
| Raymond_Luxury_Yacht05-12-07, 07:44 PM | Well, I wouldn't bet on that extension, the Maiyan calander ends at 2012 ;). No it doesn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#2012_an d_the_Long_Count) |
| Ogre4Hire05-13-07, 12:58 AM | I myself can't wait for the edition that shall not be named. Here's hoping for: -No more favoured classes -No more dead levels -No more skill ranks -No more save or die spells -No more absolutes (absolute immunity etc) -No more multi-classing restrictions (monks and paladins) -No more death from massive damage -No more iterative attacks -Fixed hit points for levelling -Skill folding -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system. Why stop there? Why don't we get rid of those silly dice while we're at it:rolleyes: |
| Man in the Funny Hat05-13-07, 12:10 PM | -No more favoured classesHeaven forbid you should ignore a rule. :) Are you sure it's D&D you want to play and not another game entirely that's just CALLED D&D? :) -No more iterative attacksI'm not sure I understand this one... -Fixed hit points for levellingYou really do need to understand that it's okay to change, add to, and ignore rules. Really. It is perfectly legal. Nobody will arrest you. In fact, see the DMG p.198 for this very option of fixed hit-points per level. What more do you NEED? -Skill foldingWhat? Like Origami? Or just keeping your drawers tidy? This must be new terminology that I haven't yet seen. -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey.I've heard this one before too. Could you refresh my memory on where this particular malarky is derived from? I'd like the opportunity to debunk it. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system.Now that is sacrilege. It is a unalterable staple of any version of D&D to have a travesty of a magic system. I mean, I've been calling for a revision since 1st Edition and it's survived TWO full rules revisions. Clearly we are both in the wrong and must change our points of view on this one at least. In all seriousness it doesn't have to be THAT drastic of a reworking. I mean you could keep the 9 spell levels, keep spell slots and Vancian aspects - just re-write the spells, ONE BY ONE, to fit a sane, measured scheme of power advancement. It would almost certainly have eliminated the save-or-die thing you mentioned as well, so that sort of makes it the same topic... * * * * * Oh yeah - to the OP: bollocks. 4E will not be a reality for AT LEAST another 2 years and ANYONE claiming otherwise is woefully mistaken, flatly uninformed or outright lying. As for the comment about 2E products being released right up to the publication of 3E - that is true. But 3E had been announced, what, 2 YEARS prior to that? It had been planned, announced, and was being playtested and every new detail of the rules that was released was being discussed at length on line for AT LEAST a year. The 2E products being published in the interim were almost entirely those that had been left over from TSR's production pipeline before it had been forced to shut down, that is - prior to the purchase of TSR by WotC, and prior to 3E being started. One of the last of the 2E products was a module (The Apocalypse Stone) that was designed/intended or at least capable of being used to bring a 2E campaign to an apocalyptic conclusion. The OP here is essentially talking consipiracy and sudden, unexpected, undesired, and massive change in D&D as we know it - the sky is falling. That is just not true. It is not what is happening now. It is also not what was happening then, with the release of 3E. ACCEPT IT. It just drives me INSANE, this obsession with seeming to WANT it to be true that WotC will spring a new version of D&D upon an unsuspecting public, by stealthy design with an evil, Simon Legree glint in their cold, heartless eyes and black souls, and there will be great wailing of despair and gnashing of teeth. And so every freakin' WEEK we get ANOTHER utterly unfounded, heartfelt, but yet delusional insistence that THE END IS NIGH. Where's the Tylenol? |
| Optimized_Commoner05-13-07, 12:21 PM | I'm not sure I understand this one... Iterative attacks = +1 +6/+1 +11/+6/+1 +16/+11/+6/+1 This must be new terminology that I haven't yet seen. Skill folding = Spot + Listen = Perception, etc. I've heard this one before too. Could you refresh my memory on where this particular malarky is derived from? I'd like the opportunity to debunk it. The 4 encounters per day is pretty much everwhere in D&D. However for a specific reference see Page 49 DMG 3.5, "What's challenging?"... or pretty much any discussion, by any designer, ever. Good luck debunking. |
| protonik05-13-07, 12:35 PM | Yes, and he was very nice and polite about it. Everyone from the WotC team was quite nice at DDXP. It is still just as important to note what they don't say as what they do say. There were 2nd products right up to the release of 3E, and 3E products right up to the release of 3.5, so saying there are 3.5 products scheduled for the 1st quarter of '08 does not prove that 4E won't be released at Gen Con '08. Likewise noting that big announcements will come at DDXP doesn't mean it can't be announced at DDXP '08 for a Gen Con '08 release. And of course, "at least" a year from DDXP '07 only takes us to DDXP '08, leaving a whole 6 months more until Gen Con '08 for it to be in the pipeline for "more than" a year. They are also doing major releases at D&DXP and not Gencon. |
| protonik05-13-07, 12:40 PM | Not necessarily. Cancelling Paizo's Dragon/dungeon lisences could be a step to making 4e NOT OGL. Then it would be out as early as Christmas with a big ad campaign in OTHER media (to attract NEW gamers who won't recognise the futility of purchasing anything beyond 3 Core books) Not 2013, that's when the Cyberpunk revision is due to hit. (Talsorian reference FWIW) It's out... BUUUURN |
| Optimized_Commoner05-13-07, 12:45 PM | It's out... BUUUURN Yeah, if you call that a proper release. That book is half finished damnit, which is a pity because I loves me my cyberpunk. (clearly not my grammar though). I'm waiting for cyberpunk 2.5 |
| protonik05-13-07, 01:04 PM | 4e.. people count funny First we had D&D Then we had Advanced D&D Then AD&D revised (yellow bindings) Plus all the revisionist fluff like Unearthed Arcana but that's more like a .5 ed Out comes AD&D 2nd ed (blue books) Then the 2nd ed revised (black books) Then the skills and powers experiments (another .5) finally 3rd ed and 3.5 My my figuring we are around D&D 8.5 or so. Non 4e people are funny. The "revised" 1e books were just reprints of books that had minor art alterations over time. Unearthed Arcana wasn't an edition change and is no different than a supplement. It changed zero in rules, just added some optional rules, races and classes. If you want to go so far as to call Unearthed Arcana a .5 edition you need to include the Survival Guides! Skills and Powers were also rules supplements filled with OPTIONAL rules rather than an edition and were designed as part of the revision launch of the core books, which had ZERO rules content change and were reprints with new covers and errata included but needed errata ANYWAY!!! |
| LNhumanExpert05-13-07, 01:35 PM | So many of the new ideas for d20 are aimed at simplifying it for the sake of simplifying it, rather than necessarily making the game more fun. I like skill ranks. I like class skills. I like iterative attacks. They make characters and classes more unique from one another and interesting. Variety is good. (I’ll take skill folding and a new magic system any day though, hehe.) |
| bonethug010805-13-07, 03:30 PM | -No more favoured classes. Agreed. Why should some races be "locked-in" to being only suited to one class. And with all the stuff out there that encourages multi-classing, why have a rule that severely discourages it. -No more dead levels. Whole-heartedly agreed. -No more skill ranks. I've actually been trying to tinker with this for a while. I think a better soultion would be not to get rid of them, but to consildate them and have 4 or 5 "levels" of a skill. At each level, you get a higher bonus(like plus 3 or so) and a special "trick" or advantage of having that skill over someone who doesn't. One example of a "trick" would be the tracking feat. Instead of it being a feat, have it where you get it at survival "level 2" or something. -No more save or die spells. Agreed. Just have them be save or be seriously hurt or killed through damage, not auto death. -No more absolutes (absolute immunity etc). Agreed to an extent. Beings made of a certain element should be immune to it. But your average tough monster should just be highly resistant at best. -No more multi-classing restrictions (monks and paladins). Disagreed. I think having a feat to allow them to multi-class would be better. But it makes sense for those classes to be "restricted" from straying from their path. -No more death from massive damage. I think it would be better to integrate a dazed, unconciousness, etc. for massive damage. That would be both more realistic and also more fun as you no longer auto die from a bbeg attack. -No more iterative attacks. Agreed. -Fixed hit points for levelling. Not sure on this. I think they need to fix the hitpoint system in general. Take a page from M&M and adapt it better to fit d&d. -Skill folding. For some skills this definitely makes sense. Spot and listen, yes. But if you just decrease the number of skill ranks, it may not be necessary and may actually be better to keep them seperate. -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. Most definitely agreed 2000%. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system. Definitely agreed. A mana point system would be preferred. |
| bonethug010805-13-07, 03:39 PM | No time to dig up all the references, but in a nutshell: Chris Perkins at D&D Experience said it's not in the pipeline for AT LEAST a year, and more likely two years, because we're seeing rumors for 3E product that's cheduled through early 2008. Plus, he stated that D&D Experience is going to be the Convention they're doing all their big announcements at from now on, so the earliest you're looking at is February 2009. What's not in the pipeline. The announcement, the developement, or the release? Just curious as to what he was directly referring to. And they can still announce it in 08. Just because 3.5e products are possibly running into sometime in 08 or 09 or whenever doesn't mean it can't be announced in 08. Announcement and actual release are to very different things. They can announce it in 08 that they are releasing it in 2010. So we all just have to sit tight because nobody knows until it is actually on the shelf. My guess would be they have been working on it for at least a year, more likely 2. They would likely want to make it as smooth as possible, and there is no way to put a definite time on how long that takes. But likely it is in the testing and redeveloping/redesigning stages. So maybe my guess would be in late 08/early 09 on it's release. If so, it will likely be announced in 08. But like I said, that is my guess |
| memorax05-13-07, 09:36 PM | I'm not a huge fan of the current magic system and rather it be replaced with a smiliar system found in the XPH. The fire and forget magic system is a pain in the behind and if it's the same system used in the next edition I'm not touching it. |
| penchant05-13-07, 09:38 PM | Non 4e people are funny. The "revised" 1e books were just reprints of books that had minor art alterations over time. Unearthed Arcana wasn't an edition change and is no different than a supplement. It changed zero in rules, just added some optional rules, races and classes. If you want to go so far as to call Unearthed Arcana a .5 edition you need to include the Survival Guides! Skills and Powers were also rules supplements filled with OPTIONAL rules rather than an edition and were designed as part of the revision launch of the core books, which had ZERO rules content change and were reprints with new covers and errata included but needed errata ANYWAY!!! Stop shouting. you 4e people get so worked up. Take a breath and relax. |
| UltimateReality05-13-07, 11:52 PM | anyway, enough with the G&D, anyone have more concrete information?They already have 7th edition in Japan. …Of course it's smaller, faster and cheaper. |
| Ogre4Hire05-13-07, 11:56 PM | But it only works on 5% of all gaming tables. |
| bonethug010805-14-07, 12:01 AM | But it only works on 5% of all gaming tables. They've increased capacity to 6% and added neon lights. They already have 7th edition in Japan. …Of course it's smaller, faster and cheaper. Ahh, you mean just like there wom... I better not finish that.:embarrass |
| Man in the Funny Hat05-14-07, 05:45 PM | Iterative attacks = +1 +6/+1 +11/+6/+1 +16/+11/+6/+1It's not that I don't know what iterative attacks are. It's that I don't know why someone thinks they are evil. Skill folding = Spot + Listen = Perception, etc.So this is a call for having skills combine to make MORE skills, as opposed to, say, merely providing synergy bonuses, or introducing Perception as a skill that stands alone with spot and listen as subskills or prerequisites? The 4 encounters per day is pretty much everwhere in D&D. However for a specific reference see Page 49 DMG 3.5, "What's challenging?"... or pretty much any discussion, by any designer, ever. Good luck debunking.This is just miscommunication then based on extremely abbreviated statements in that post. As referenced in the post in question it amounts to a desire for... well, I'm still not entirely sure what as that is still not clear. Eliminating the CR system as used to balance encounters? Wanting that system to be geared toward more encounters in a row being possible? Fewer? The problem I was having there was that I've heard of people building encounter charts intended to shovel just that many encounters out per day. That is, instead of thinking it was a built-in limitation on just how much a standard PC party could handle before requiring rest and resupply, that it was also a call for trying to ensure that there really WAS that many encounters every day. THAT is the foolishness I had intended to dispell. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-14-07, 05:50 PM | It's that I don't know why someone thinks they are evil... snip ... So this is a call for having skills combine to make MORE skills, as opposed to, say, merely providing synergy bonuses, or introducing Perception as a skill that stands alone with spot and listen as subskills or prerequisites? I don't know, I'm just providing definitions of terms that you seemed unfamiliar with. Since you're not unfamiliar with them that's pretty much it from me. The problem I was having there was that I've heard of people building encounter charts intended to shovel just that many encounters out per day. That is, instead of thinking it was a built-in limitation on just how much a standard PC party could handle before requiring rest and resupply, that it was also a call for trying to ensure that there really WAS that many encounters every day. THAT is the foolishness I had intended to dispell. Wow, haven't heard of people doing that. It's rather weird. |
| bonethug010805-14-07, 07:20 PM | So this is a call for having skills combine to make MORE skills, as opposed to, say, merely providing synergy bonuses, or introducing Perception as a skill that stands alone with spot and listen as subskills or prerequisites? Skill folding is eliminating two or more skills into one skill. That spot+listen=perception means that spot and listen are now only perception. I would like to see this with some of the diplomacy type skills too. |
| protonik05-14-07, 07:55 PM | Stop shouting. you 4e people get so worked up. Take a breath and relax. Not shouting and I could care less about 4e... |
| Raymond_Luxury_Yacht05-15-07, 01:09 AM | Skill folding is eliminating two or more skills into one skill. That spot+listen=perception means that spot and listen are now only perception. I would like to see this with some of the diplomacy type skills too. The only problem is that the logic used to fold them into one skill works impeccably to fold every skill in the game into one. |
| Steely_Dan05-15-07, 04:16 AM | It's not that I don't know what iterative attacks are. It's that I don't know why someone thinks they are evil. It's not that they are evil, it's just that they a bit dribbling and clunky, IMO. I'm just hoping for the game (combat) to be smoother, tighter and faster (don't laugh). |
| Lina_Inverse05-15-07, 07:24 AM | It's not that they are evil, it's just that they a bit dribbling and clunky, IMO. And what do we scale fighters on? If you don't include a built in extra attacks system you'll need to create a new system to scale fighters with which. Which would alter how everything else scales for fighters. Things that would grant extra attacks would have there value highly inflated as they would become multiplicative with fighter scaling instead of additive. While the simplest execution of fighter scaling +damage would make +damage additive with scaling instead of multiplicative as current thus devaluing strength(the overall weakest attribute) further and makeing damage bonuses from other sources(such as weapon properties) unattractive at high levels. |
| Steely_Dan05-15-07, 07:52 AM | And what do we scale fighters on? Instead of iterative attacks you could have increased damage. So when a character gets to BAB +6 he could deal additional weapon damage. So let's say you have a 6th level fighter with an 18 Str and a longsword: Melee +10/+5 (1d8+4/19-20) Or you could have: Melee +10 (2d8+4/19-20) |
| MHolland05-15-07, 07:54 AM | The only problem is that the logic used to fold them into one skill works impeccably to fold every skill in the game into one. Only if your definition is "Fold two skills into one." Then you can fold everything into a single skill. Fortunately for us most of us are smart enough to realize there will be more criteria than that for two skills to be folded into each other. Check out the SW:SE preview where they talk about the skill folding. They use an example and explain the thought process behind all the folds. Each fold is a well thought out process and it should be. |
| Lina_Inverse05-15-07, 08:01 AM | Instead of iterative attacks you could have increased damage. So when a character gets to BAB +6 he could deal additional weapon damage. And you completely ignored the pitfalls of that i mentioned? |
| Steely_Dan05-15-07, 08:41 AM | And you completely ignored the pitfalls of that i mentioned? Not to be rude, but your post was a little unclear to me, if you could maybe re-word it for me and use some examples that would help me see exactly what you are getting at. Ta. |
| Lina_Inverse05-15-07, 08:59 AM | Not to be rude, but your post was a little unclear to me, if you could maybe re-word it for me and use some examples that would help me see exactly what you are getting at. Ta. Lvl20 fighter does 100 damage per swing on average say. He has 4 attacks and we will assume his base attack hits 75% of the time(ie on a 6 or higher), this nets him about 1.5 hits per round. so an average damage per round of 150. As it currently stands. +1 damage nets a benefit of +1.5 average damage. +1 to-hit nets a benefit of +20 average damage. +1 attack nets a benefit +75 average damage. All of these values scale with level generally, becoming more valuable as you increase with level. And each one becomes more valuable as you increase the others multiplying the benefits. Now lets say we use damage as a base to determine scaling, first off whatever scaling system we use needs to average 150 damage per round for our test fighter to remain the same but would greatly scew all fighters towards the middle of the road damage wise(good or not you decide). But lets see how it affects the stats fighters use to generate damage. +1 damage is worth +.75 average damage. +1 to-hit is worth +5 average damage. +1 attack is worth +150 average damage. Notice how +damage no longer scales with level at all and is much worse? +to-hit also becomes much weaker and has a much lower cap(after you hit 100% hit chance +hit is worthless). While an extra attack is worth a whole LOT more. Two weapon fighting becomes the ONLY valid option for fighters, while hastes is twice as effective a damage buff. |
| Steely_Dan05-15-07, 09:12 AM | Lvl20 fighter does 100 damage per swing on average say. He has 4 attacks and we will assume his base attack hits 75% of the time(ie on a 6 or higher), this nets him about 1.5 hits per round. so an average damage per round of 150. As it currently stands. +1 damage nets a benefit of +1.5 average damage. +1 to-hit nets a benefit of +20 average damage. +1 attack nets a benefit +75 average damage. All of these values scale with level generally, becoming more valuable as you increase with level. And each one becomes more valuable as you increase the others multiplying the benefits. Now lets say we use damage as a base to determine scaling, first off whatever scaling system we use needs to average 150 damage per round for our test fighter to remain the same but would greatly scew all fighters towards the middle of the road damage wise(good or not you decide). But lets see how it affects the stats fighters use to generate damage. +1 damage is worth +.75 average damage. +1 to-hit is worth +5 average damage. +1 attack is worth +150 average damage. Notice how +damage no longer scales with level at all and is much worse? +to-hit also becomes much weaker and has a much lower cap(after you hit 100% hit chance +hit is worthless). While an extra attack is worth a whole LOT more. Two weapon fighting becomes the ONLY valid option for fighters, while hastes is twice as effective a damage buff. I have to admit; I'm still not following your numbers/examples (it's probably me). We have to take into account that not all of his iterative attacks will hit. Would you rather chance maybe hitting for some extra damage with an extra attack, or knowing that your one attack that will most likely hit will do more damage? And as for TWF being the only option, what about Cleave, Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack? In my opinion it would be a good thing to make Cleave a little more attractive – I've never seen anyone take it. |
| Frozen Yakman05-15-07, 11:23 AM | Haven't read through the thread yet but I've seen some comments about the magic system and replacing it with a mana pool system (like a video game or the XPH). I'll agree that the Vancian system is clunky but you guys are seriously crazy. The only system WORSE than the Vancian system is a point-pool system. You get all the upkeep problems already found in the current system plus a metric ton more book-keeping. You think the game slows down when the mage decides what spell to cast, now imagine that slow down another ten fold as they decide how many points to allocate and remember to adjust their totals. The advantage of the Vancian system is all you have to do is check off that spell once you've resolved its effects. If the Vancian system is replaced, which I agree it should, it should be replaced by something actually superior to it, not inferior. The Warlock, Binder, Truenamer (though this needs rebalancing), Martial Adepts (Book of Nine Swords), and Meldshapers (Magic of Incarnum) all have superior systems that with some thematic changes could make fine replacements. |
| Steely_Dan05-15-07, 11:32 AM | If the Vancian system is replaced, which I agree it should, it should be replaced by something actually superior to it, not inferior. The Warlock, Binder, Truenamer (though this needs rebalancing), Martial Adepts (Book of Nine Swords), and Meldshapers (Magic of Incarnum) all have superior systems that with some thematic changes could make fine replacements. This is exactly what I'm hoping for the next edition magic system. And this is the way the new Star Wars: Saga Edition system is going with Force powers. |
| tankschmidt05-15-07, 11:56 AM | The only problem is that the logic used to fold them into one skill works impeccably to fold every skill in the game into one. C&C folds them into six, and that works rather nicely. |
| protonik05-15-07, 03:20 PM | How does the Vancian system slow down combat if a mage decides to cast a spell? It seems the fastest system to me though I think the best system is the Arcana Unearthed/Evolved system. |
| Frozen Yakman05-15-07, 03:51 PM | How does the Vancian system slow down combat if a mage decides to cast a spell? It seems the fastest system to me though I think the best system is the Arcana Unearthed/Evolved system. Your assuming that they've figured out which spell to cast before their turn comes up. The AU system is definitely a step up from DnD's system. |
| SilvercatMoonpaw05-15-07, 04:31 PM | -No more favoured classes Most definitely agree. This is simply imposed flavor, something that shouldn't be in the core book, if at all. -No more dead levels Might be hard to get them to do this one. If you've read the "Dead Level" articles on the D&D site they do make a case that those levels are completely dead, they just increase stats that aren't very impressive. -No more skill ranks Skill ranks aren't so bad, if you eliminate a lot of other hassles. If they were the only thing that was really complex they wouldn't seem that bad. -No more save or die spells Seriously agreed. One consideration that a game has to make that fiction doesn't is that the randomness of the die can cause powerful spells to foil the carefully planned "hero fights off the ultimate spell" idea. -No more absolutes (absolute immunity etc) Absolutes are actually easier to deal with. I do see your point that it sometimes doesn't make sense for a certain creature to be immune to a great heaping of damage, but sometimes it does. -No more multi-classing restrictions (monks and paladins) No multiclassing restrictions at all, unless it's for flavor (in which case we can ignore it at our leisure). -No more death from massive damage I support the condition track massive damage idea. -No more iterative attacks For those of you naysayers: I've played in systems that do away with iterative attacks. Combat definitely goes faster. If you're worried about damage output then all we need is a slight tweaking of the damage system. Plus some of the proposed alternatives gives fighters guaranteed scaling damage. -Skill folding Some skills like Appraise and Forgery really need to be folded due to their specialized natures. -The game designed/balanced around per encounter, instead of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. Amen. -And most importantly; a complete re-working of the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic/spell system. FIRST rework the spells so that they aren't hideously abuseable (I don't think complete non-abuseability is possible, but there is progress to be made). Disagreed. I think having a feat to allow them to multi-class would be better. But it makes sense for those classes to be "restricted" from straying from their path. There are feats. It stinks to have to spend a precious feat slot to allow those classes to multiclass without restriction. It's only a flavor restriction, it shouldn't appear as anything other than a called-out option. Not sure on this. I think they need to fix the hitpoint system in general. Take a page from M&M and adapt it better to fit d&d. Agreed. Combat is faster and damage scales in exact amounts. |
| bonethug010805-15-07, 05:25 PM | Haven't read through the thread yet but I've seen some comments about the magic system and replacing it with a mana pool system (like a video game or the XPH). Well what I was talking about is something like the spell point system in UA. I use it and it is very fast and user friendly once you understand it. I actually learned it quicker than what I learned the traditional system. I know I said mana, but to me mana system = point system. No I don't play MMORPG's, it is just what I see alot of people saying.:P |
| Lina_Inverse05-15-07, 06:09 PM | For those of you naysayers: I've played in systems that do away with iterative attacks. Combat definitely goes faster. If you're worried about damage output then all we need is a slight tweaking of the damage system. Plus some of the proposed alternatives gives fighters guaranteed scaling damage. You ignored my post on why this is infeasible as well i see. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-15-07, 06:22 PM | Check out the SW:SE preview where they talk about the skill folding. They use an example and explain the thought process behind all the folds. SW:SE? These initials mean Southwest and Southeast to me. What do they mean to you? Because this sounds like something I'd like to read. |
| GhostStepper05-15-07, 06:27 PM | SW:SE? These initials mean Southwest and Southeast to me. What do they mean to you? Because this sounds like something I'd like to read. Star Wars: Saga Edition. Many think it may be a preview of some the possible 4E mechanics. |
| SilvercatMoonpaw05-15-07, 07:35 PM | You ignored my post on why this is infeasible as well i see. No, I read it, and attempted to understand it to the best of my ability. That's why I said "if you're worried about the damage output…". Are you worried about loosing extra attacks because you believe that there isn't any better way to deal large amounts of damage, or is there another reason also? |
| JolanthusTrel05-15-07, 11:42 PM | In my opinion it would be a good thing to make Cleave a little more attractive – I've never seen anyone take it. Cleave is an awesome feat! As a first level human fighter, take power attack and Cleave. You are being flanked by Two goblins no problems, Kill one get a second hit at the other! Instead of iterative attacks you could have increased damage. So when a character gets to BAB +6 he could deal additional weapon damage. So let's say you have a 6th level fighter with an 18 Str and a longsword: Melee +10/+5 (1d8+4/19-20) Or you could have: Melee +10 (2d8+4/19-20) Option A does at max (hitting both times) 24 HP damage & at min 10 HP Option B does at max 20 points of damage and at min 6hp Option A has two chances to hit Option B has one chance More damage does not make a better fighter. The ability to hit and how often makes a better fighter! |
| TheDarkLord05-16-07, 01:19 AM | Interesting. I've always thought about getting rid of Iterative attacks for my campaign though I haven't fully fleshed it out. Iterative attacks could be part of the "Full Attack Action" which would grant you three additional attacks but at a cumulative -5 penalty(not including TWF and other similar feats and weapon enhancements). Fighters and the like, instead of getting more attacks per say, could get a flurry like bonus instead, at 10th level they get two main attacks at +10/+10, and at 20th level get three at +20/+20/+20. You could mix and match melee types so others wouldn't get as many attacks on a single attack and whatnot, and would go along way in making melee balance with magic i believe. I haven't thought the Idea through yet, but when I get the chance i might give it a shot. |
| TVLLestatTVL05-16-07, 02:07 AM | 4E is so totally like 1E now and i'm not even talking AD&D. lyke totally. Dice are so lyke omg ferkin gawd lyke out. Now we roll marbles. Playing 6.39402 Edition is awesome! Well for now till they change Versions on us next week. To 6.39403. and then 6.39404 the week after that. So you pay an extra 30 bucks per book. To get pretty much the same content of the previous edition in 6.39403 and 6.39404. Except that there's 10 more monsters in the MM with minor tweaks " we like to call them fixes" to Monsters stats. So lyke wow why wouldn't you want to pay 60 dollars for the next edition just incase your dog urinates on 6.39402 or 6.39403 or both. Then you're still good to go when your buddies show up for the session that same night! |
| GhostStepper05-16-07, 02:19 AM | 4E is so totally like 1E now and i'm not even talking AD&D. lyke totally. Dice are so lyke omg ferkin gawd lyke out. Now we roll marbles. Playing 6.39402 Edition is awesome! Well for now till they change Versions on us next week. To 6.39403. and then 6.39404 the week after that. So you pay an extra 30 bucks per book. To get pretty much the same content of the previous edition in 6.39403 and 6.39404. Except that there's 10 more monsters in the MM with minor tweaks " we like to call them fixes" to Monsters stats. So lyke wow why wouldn't you want to pay 60 dollars for the next edition just incase your dog urinates on 6.39402 or 6.39403 or both. Then you're still good to go when your buddies show up for the session that same night! :confused: |
| Shadowhowler05-16-07, 02:19 AM | No, I read it, and attempted to understand it to the best of my ability. That's why I said "if you're worried about the damage output…". Are you worried about loosing extra attacks because you believe that there isn't any better way to deal large amounts of damage, or is there another reason also? There is more to lossing extra attacks then just lossing damage output. You lose versitility as well. A Fighter whipping out the full attack can lay a Major beatdown on one guy... *OR* he can split his attacks over a few differant foes. This is key in the 'Battlefeild Control' concept, as well as defending your alies and many other things. Lossing extra attacks would suck. |
| GhostStepper05-16-07, 02:24 AM | There is more to lossing extra attacks then just lossing damage output. You lose versitility as well. A Fighter whipping out the full attack can lay a Major beatdown on one guy... *OR* he can split his attacks over a few differant foes. This is key in the 'Battlefeild Control' concept, as well as defending your alies and many other things. Lossing extra attacks would suck. And you cant Disarm, Trip, and bludgeon one guy in one round without iteratives. |
| Shadowhowler05-16-07, 02:39 AM | And you cant Disarm, Trip, and bludgeon one guy in one round without iteratives. Another good point. There are a lot of combat actions that require an attack. If you only have 1 attack a round, your choices are very limited. |
| StrahdVonZarovich05-16-07, 03:07 AM | Oh yeah - to the OP: bollocks. 4E will not be a reality for AT LEAST another 2 years and ANYONE claiming otherwise is woefully mistaken, flatly uninformed or outright lying. As for the comment about 2E products being released right up to the publication of 3E - that is true. But 3E had been announced, what, 2 YEARS prior to that? It had been planned, announced, and was being playtested and every new detail of the rules that was released was being discussed at length on line for AT LEAST a year. The 2E products being published in the interim were almost entirely those that had been left over from TSR's production pipeline before it had been forced to shut down, that is - prior to the purchase of TSR by WotC, and prior to 3E being started. One of the last of the 2E products was a module (The Apocalypse Stone) that was designed/intended or at least capable of being used to bring a 2E campaign to an apocalyptic conclusion. The OP here is essentially talking consipiracy and sudden, unexpected, undesired, and massive change in D&D as we know it - the sky is falling. That is just not true. It is not what is happening now. It is also not what was happening then, with the release of 3E. ACCEPT IT. It just drives me INSANE, this obsession with seeming to WANT it to be true that WotC will spring a new version of D&D upon an unsuspecting public, by stealthy design with an evil, Simon Legree glint in their cold, heartless eyes and black souls, and there will be great wailing of despair and gnashing of teeth. And so every freakin' WEEK we get ANOTHER utterly unfounded, heartfelt, but yet delusional insistence that THE END IS NIGH. Where's the Tylenol? I love you soooooooooo much for saying that! My thoughs exactly about 4e thread-starters I just CAN'T stand it anymore! |
| TVLLestatTVL05-16-07, 03:19 AM | :confused: It was a mere joke. Part of it was a rant how 3.5 is no different than 3.0 except for some minor changes. A few new things but, not the price of paying for an extra book. WOTC should have just made a 3.5 book. That had DMG, PHB, MM all in one book just the added content of 3.5. My thoughts though. |
| Steely_Dan05-16-07, 03:43 AM | Interesting. I've always thought about getting rid of Iterative attacks for my campaign though I haven't fully fleshed it out. Iterative attacks could be part of the "Full Attack Action" which would grant you three additional attacks but at a cumulative -5 penalty(not including TWF and other similar feats and weapon enhancements). Fighters and the like, instead of getting more attacks per say, could get a flurry like bonus instead, at 10th level they get two main attacks at +10/+10, and at 20th level get three at +20/+20/+20. You could mix and match melee types so others wouldn't get as many attacks on a single attack and whatnot, and would go along way in making melee balance with magic i believe. I haven't thought the Idea through yet, but when I get the chance i might give it a shot. That's an interesting idea, I also thought about these: I'm not a Mr Math Whiz, but I ran some damage averages using the standard system of iterative attacks and 3 variants. I'm leaving critical hits out of the equation for now. Variant I: Multiply base weapon damage by the number of attacks the character would have under the standard system (BAB +11 = base weapon damage x 3 etc). Variant II: Add BAB bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11 to damage) Variant III: Add BAB and iterative bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11, +6, and +1 to damage) Examples: 11th level fighter, 18 Str, +1 greatsword: Standard: Melee +1 greatsword +16/+11/+6 (2d6+7) – average damage on one hit: 14, average damage on two hits: 28, average damage if all three hit: 42 Variant I: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (6d6+7) – average damage: 28 Variant II: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+18) – average damage: 25 Variant III: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+25) – average damage: 32 20th level fighter, 20 Str, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, +5 greatsword: Standard: Melee +5 greatsword +32/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+16) – average damage on one hit: 23, average damage on two hits: 46, average damage on three hits: 69, average damage if all four hit: 92 Variant I: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (8d6+16) – average damage: 44 Variant II: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+36) – average damage: 43 Variant III: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+25) – average damage: 73 Which do you think is the best variant to go with to compensate for no iterative attacks? |
| ArcTan05-16-07, 04:50 AM | However the cancelling of the mags again puts 09 as the earliest date. for any 08 date, Dragon would have been just too useful an advertising medium to eliminate. The online idea may look neat to some desk jockey somewhere, but 4.0 will be a company shaking event. Anything that threatens its success is sucidal. So when they made the decision to axe the mags, 4.0 was too far in the future to affect their decision. You assume too much. They could've just as easily decided that it'd be better to get all the big changes over with at once, to make it one bitter pill to swallow for the grognards rather than several, and to create a big buzz of excitement among the non-grognards about all the new stuff going on. It might be a misguided strategy, of course, but it doesn't mean it's not the strategy. |
| ArcTan05-16-07, 04:54 AM | So many of the new ideas for d20 are aimed at simplifying it for the sake of simplifying it, rather than necessarily making the game more fun. At this point, the length of time it takes to familiarize oneself with the rules really does cut into fun in a major way for a lot of people, so that yes, anything that simplifies the game for the sake of simplifying it makes the game more fun because it's simpler. A lot of us forget how long it often takes to get a newbie into the game and stop having to handhold them through everything. |
| guru789205-16-07, 04:57 AM | 4e is coming out FINALLY, I knew it was a waste to upgrade to 3.5 |
| ArcTan05-16-07, 04:58 AM | Heaven forbid you should ignore a rule. :) Are you sure it's D&D you want to play and not another game entirely that's just CALLED D&D? :) I'm not sure I understand this one... You really do need to understand that it's okay to change, add to, and ignore rules. Really. It is perfectly legal. Nobody will arrest you. In fact, see the DMG p.198 for this very option of fixed hit-points per level. What more do you NEED? We need WotC to actually figure out what's good and what isn't so that they can put together a well-tested and well-designed core set of rules for us to use as a default to build off of, which is what we're paying them to do. People who keep saying houseruling is the answer seem to think that every single person is a DM who has absolute power to set houserules in every game they play in, and that inexperienced or new DMs *never* blindly follow rules just because they're the rules. It just drives me INSANE, this obsession with seeming to WANT it to be true that WotC will spring a new version of D&D upon an unsuspecting public, by stealthy design with an evil, Simon Legree glint in their cold, heartless eyes and black souls, and there will be great wailing of despair and gnashing of teeth. And so every freakin' WEEK we get ANOTHER utterly unfounded, heartfelt, but yet delusional insistence that THE END IS NIGH. Where's the Tylenol? A lot of people who keep talking about 4e do it out of desire rather than fear, actually. I myself am hoping that the more people talk about 4e the sooner it will happen, because a lot of this crap needs to be fixed. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-16-07, 06:52 AM | People who keep saying houseruling is the answer seem to think that every single person is a DM who has absolute power to set houserules in every game they play in, and that inexperienced or new DMs *never* blindly follow rules just because they're the rules. Well yes, but D&D is fine. Not saying I'm not looking forward to the next edition or that I don't make my own house rules. But I don't pity new DMs stuck blindly following the rules, most of them are quite good rules. One day, when those new DMs have more experience they'll make their own house rules or steal ours from the forum. Personally I like the idea of a beginners set for introducing new players and an advanced set for experienced gamers, but that's probably a bad marketing decision. Still, when I read several pages explaining basic concepts I can't help but feel that I could have gotten a new class or some new spells instead if the game wasn't catering to everyone in the market. |
| The White Sorcerer05-16-07, 07:04 AM | Your assuming that they've figured out which spell to cast before their turn comes up. That's not exactly a problem with the Vancian system, though. |
| SilvercatMoonpaw05-16-07, 09:52 AM | I thinkt he biggest problem with Vancian is preparing spells. I played a wizard in my first D&D game, and it sucked that I just never had enough of the right spells. And please don't tell me "Well you need to play such characters intelligently." If you're going to argue that then there really should be a Basic rules and Advanced rules so that the newbies don't make bad decisions. |
| TVLLestatTVL05-16-07, 04:28 PM | Well yes, but D&D is fine. Not saying I'm not looking forward to the next edition or that I don't make my own house rules. But I don't pity new DMs stuck blindly following the rules, most of them are quite good rules. One day, when those new DMs have more experience they'll make their own house rules or steal ours from the forum. Personally I like the idea of a beginners set for introducing new players and an advanced set for experienced gamers, but that's probably a bad marketing decision. Still, when I read several pages explaining basic concepts I can't help but feel that I could have gotten a new class or some new spells instead if the game wasn't catering to everyone in the market. Your posts always seem to be thoughtful and well put. I think most. DM's expecially the new ones come up with some form of house rules. I don't think WOTC intended for any DM to follow the rules 100% is it just me or are the editions coming and going to fast? I think WOTC should invest more time in an edition. Surely they haven't exhausted 3.x's material ideas. They never made a 3.x Ravenloft did they? |
| fdailey05-16-07, 06:32 PM | You all know the funny part about all of this? Whenever they release 4E, we will all buy it and start fussing about the coming of 5E. I love this board. |
| bonethug010805-16-07, 06:53 PM | Which do you think is the best variant to go with to compensate for no iterative attacks? Variant 3 appears to be quite interesting. It keeps on the level of the current damage output with some dropoff, but give more guaranteed damage, which is always good. |
| bonethug010805-16-07, 06:58 PM | At this point, the length of time it takes to familiarize oneself with the rules really does cut into fun in a major way for a lot of people, Amen to this. I can't tell you how long it takes to get a whole damn group to learn. There are very few experienced players where I live, so I usually just play with friends. First, you have to let them look at all the classes. Then you have to help four people fill out character sheets(OMG:weep: ). Then you have to ease them into what you can and can't do in combat. And then explain why the rule is that way. Maybe this is why we run roleplay and simple quick combat games.:P And the basic game is no help. We need it to be made simplier out the box, with options for advanced rules. Release the phb, dmg, mm, and advanced ruleset book as your core.:cool: |
| TVLLestatTVL05-16-07, 07:05 PM | You all know the funny part about all of this? Whenever they release 4E, we will all buy it and start fussing about the coming of 5E. I love this board. So true so true... We will have the ooo's and ahhhs of 4E, we will reminense about 3.x days even though they were just yesterday. And the cycle will continue. |
| bonethug010805-16-07, 07:08 PM | I thinkt he biggest problem with Vancian is preparing spells. I played a wizard in my first D&D game, and it sucked that I just never had enough of the right spells. And please don't tell me "Well you need to play such characters intelligently." If you're going to argue that then there really should be a Basic rules and Advanced rules so that the newbies don't make bad decisions. On top of starting off with so few spells. You get to prepare a base of 4 spells as a 1st lvl wizard. So you spend 2 in one encounter and 2 in another then you try to fight with a weapon in the other 2 encounters?(based on the 4 en per day, that absolutely must go) Or maybe you spend them all in one, or you try to save them for later and someone dies when you could have prevented it. Etc, etc, etc. Spell points are a must have because you can slightly increase spells per day(or just cast more lower level spells, and save some points in case you need the one big one) and you can chose from a wider selection of what to cast instead of being "locked in" to what you picked. Say you can prepare 4 spells. You prepare Resistance, Detect Magic, Daze, and Magic Missle. Say you get into alot of fights that day. Now you can use magic missle more than once. It gives you more flexibility and requires a little less planning over whether you should prepare one or two resistance spells. |
| Ogre4Hire05-16-07, 10:47 PM | I'd think the lack of spells at 1st level would be a bigger problem for a wizard if he didn't have a crossbow that had a higher damage output than any of his spells available to him. Seriously, low level wizards make great archers. (Waits for inevitable three pages of complaints about how wizards shouldn't have to use crossbows) |
| Shadowhowler05-16-07, 10:51 PM | Variant 3 appears to be quite interesting. It keeps on the level of the current damage output with some dropoff, but give more guaranteed damage, which is always good. But no one addressed the lose of versitility I mentioned in my before post about removing extra attacks. :( |
| bonethug010805-16-07, 11:31 PM | I'd think the lack of spells at 1st level would be a bigger problem for a wizard if he didn't have a crossbow that had a higher damage output than any of his spells available to him. Seriously, low level wizards make great archers. (Waits for inevitable three pages of complaints about how wizards shouldn't have to use crossbows) /complains:P I know, but their spells should be their focus, but eh. |
| bonethug010805-16-07, 11:39 PM | But no one addressed the lose of versitility I mentioned in my before post about removing extra attacks. :( Sorry, I'll address it now. I think that yes, you lose versatility per round. But overall, I think it would be better. Do I just attack? Do I try and trip him? Should I grapple him? If you make it one attack per turn, you have to use more strategy(yes I know more attacks let's you use stratgey too) because you have one precious move to do, so you must chose wisely. It would make battles more intriguing than the "i hit him three times" thing that we often see now. You still have the choice to trip, but now you either have to trip or attack, not both. This would also make it a more cooperative effort among teams, as it would benefit to work together more often. I'm not sure I'm explaining it they way I want.(I'm a little tired from work=brain is fried) I guess we're just viewing it different. I'll try to think on it and explain better.:) |
| Optimized_Commoner05-17-07, 12:09 AM | Your posts always seem to be thoughtful and well put. Thankyou, I try. I think most. DM's expecially the new ones come up with some form of house rules. Yes, if only something as simple as "let's not use the grapple rules because I don't understand them". I don't think WOTC intended for any DM to follow the rules 100% They admit it themselves here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060519a) in the design and development (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/dd) set of articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/features) is it just me or are the editions coming and going to fast? I started the game playing OD&D, from the old red basic set. What I didn't realize was that AD&D was already out by this time. Still I started learning with OD&D and then a year later, when I was looking for another OD&D book I discovered that AD&D 2nd edition was out (I think it had just been released) and bought the 2nd edition PHB. A few months later and I was playing 2nd edition. I played it for many years (close on a decade if I remember the dates correctly) and many campaigns before 3e was released. I didn't really care much for 3e at the time, so I didn't buy it. I kept running 2e for a while. Then one of my friends announced he had bought 3e and was going to run a game with it. I made up my first 3e character (an acrobatics based rogue/monk) and discovered that 3e was a lot of fun. I bought my own copy of the PHB, was given the DMG for christmas and used my friend's MM. Played and ran in a lot of games, and have been updating my book collection since. I've already played in at least 5 or 6 full length 3e D&D games with many hundreds of hours of enjoyment. If 4e were released today and there was never another 3e book published, I'd still feel like I got my money's worth out of 3e. Let's face it, keeping your roleplaying collection up to date is a lot cheaper and easier than doing the same with your computer. I think WOTC should invest more time in an edition. Surely they haven't exhausted 3.x's material ideas. I can say with some certainty that they haven't. By looking here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20070503a&o=) I can see that they are working on a few things to be released in the near future. Drow of the underdark, return to the sinister spire, expedition to undermountain. They never made a 3.x Ravenloft did they? WoTC didn't, if I recall correctly they sold the liscence to a 3rd party producer who made several Ravenloft books. |
| Steely_Dan05-17-07, 03:20 AM | Sorry, I'll address it now. I think that yes, you lose versatility per round. But overall, I think it would be better. Do I just attack? Do I try and trip him? Should I grapple him? If you make it one attack per turn, you have to use more strategy(yes I know more attacks let's you use stratgey too) because you have one precious move to do, so you must chose wisely. It would make battles more intriguing than the "i hit him three times" thing that we often see now. You still have the choice to trip, but now you either have to trip or attack, not both. This would also make it a more cooperative effort among teams, as it would benefit to work together more often. I'm not sure I'm explaining it they way I want.(I'm a little tired from work=brain is fried) I guess we're just viewing it different. I'll try to think on it and explain better.:) I think you explained it rather well. My main concern right now is addressing sneak attacks with theses variants, and I still don’t know which variant to go with. There have been a lot of people on these boards and Enworld (thanks to everyone – Lina Inverse, starfire311, Flynn, Sorcica, Ashanti, bonethug etc) who have been really helpful on this subject, but I can't get a consensus on which of my proposed 3 variants to use. Just when I think everyone is leaning towards Variant I, two other people, whose opinions I respect, say go with Variant II, or III. Maybe a new variant, which, as Ranger REG (thanks, dude) suggested, where you trade of swift actions for more attacks (at BAB) and add half your character level (rounded down) to damage, ala Star Wars: Saga Edition? |
| Izodor_Shadowcaster05-17-07, 03:22 AM | I would buy 4e if it doesn't have Vancian casting.... |
| Lina_Inverse05-17-07, 03:28 AM | I would buy 4e if it doesn't have Vancian casting.... No spell slots, no D&D. |
| TVLLestatTVL05-17-07, 04:05 AM | I would have to agree. I too have had many a session with 3.x and could say i've gotten my money's worth out of it. But, i'd have to say if 4E came out tomorrow or soon I wouldn't purchase it. Not saying at all. I'd wait till quite of bit of material was released that striked my interest. Be hesitant to make an edition change and then finally whomp down a heft sum of money buying books as I did when I switched to 3.x I still feel there's still vastness to 3.x and i feel more time should be invested in it before 4E comes along. |
| Optimized_Commoner05-17-07, 04:27 AM | if 4E came out tomorrow or soon I wouldn't purchase it. I might, if I had the money. I wouldn't be in a huge rush to get it, but I think I'd be curious enough to want to have a look. I still feel there's still vastness to 3.x and i feel more time should be invested in it before 4E comes along. I think it's starting to run out, but 4e would be a little premature just now. Maybe in a year or two. I'm beginning to feel almost ready for an edition jump. |
| LandeM05-17-07, 04:43 AM | a friend of my buddy of my ex's brothers wifes sisters cousin said dont bother with threads like this |
| ArcTan05-17-07, 06:47 AM | WoTC didn't, if I recall correctly they sold the liscence to a 3rd party producer who made several Ravenloft books. The d20 Ravenloft campaign setting was made by White Wolf under their Sword & Sorcery imprint before the license expired, and was pretty decent, all things considered, even if you could tell pretty easily that it was a White Wolf production. WotC then put out Expedition to Castle Ravenloft after they got the license back, which is a really good module but -- like the original AD&D Ravenloft -- is just a horror-themed module set in a generic D&D campaign setting, not the whole Demiplane of Dread business. |
| Shadowhowler05-18-07, 04:51 AM | Sorry, I'll address it now. I think that yes, you lose versatility per round. But overall, I think it would be better. Do I just attack? Do I try and trip him? Should I grapple him? If you make it one attack per turn, you have to use more strategy(yes I know more attacks let's you use stratgey too) because you have one precious move to do, so you must chose wisely. It would make battles more intriguing than the "i hit him three times" thing that we often see now. You still have the choice to trip, but now you either have to trip or attack, not both. This would also make it a more cooperative effort among teams, as it would benefit to work together more often. I'm not sure I'm explaining it they way I want.(I'm a little tired from work=brain is fried) I guess we're just viewing it different. I'll try to think on it and explain better.:) However... this weakens the fighter even more then he is already. One of the main benifits to a fighter is his BAB. This allows him a lot of attacks, giving him a lot of options per round and the ability to do more damage per round then a non-fighter. If EVERYONE has only one attack, but you give the fighter more damage with that one attack, you have still weakned the fighter. He losses the extra options per round he used to have, now getting the same options per round as the wizard or rogue. Thats bunk. |
| Tordex05-18-07, 05:24 AM | *turns and looks at his bookshelf covered in massive amounts of loose papers, well used D&D books, old camp setting folders, retired dice, and dumb looking dragon figures to accent it* Hrm... nope...staying in 3.5 land. My players want 4e...they can spend the money this time. Tor |
| SilvercatMoonpaw05-18-07, 08:40 AM | No spell slots, no D&D. Well then, why change anything? |
| bonethug010805-18-07, 08:42 AM | However... this weakens the fighter even more then he is already. That's why you give him class features to make him better at fighting. I always thought just the bonus feats were kind of weak. New editions allow you to do alot of "fixin", which is why I'm hoping that it is not rushed out and very solid. I want a new edition, but only if it is good. |
| Evicmar05-18-07, 01:47 PM | Well, whenever they release a new core game they change mechanics in some way. IE THAC0 to Bonus to hit. And AC 10 improving to -10 vs AC 10 increasing to 30. The only real changes between 2nd and 3rd were classes level progression, skill system, and class XP tables. Everything else was a different way of representing the same thing. Magic Resistance turned into SR. A 10 HD monster with MR 50% be cast at by a 5th level wizard had MR75% vs the wizards spell. They just made the math easier in 4th there and moved the roll to the wizard to make instead of the DM. To hit and AC are the exact same. Then 3.5 came out. All that was done was some minor tweeks to fix major tears. Like rhino hide armor, power critical, and a mercurial greatsword fighter once a day doing 100+ damage in one attack. Reduced the effectiveness of the save or die hold person at 2nd level. For 4th ed to be released something major has to change as far as game mechanic go. I think that magic of incarnum and tome of battle are test runs of what will become 4th ed. Remember folks, it is wizards. When they start releasing stuff in mass they break things along the way. IE Magic The Gathering: Alpha, Beta, Revised, ...................etc. Every time things get badly broken they shore up the reins and release a newer fixed version and still allow the old busted up broken stuff too. It'll be up to the DM's as to whether or not to allow 3.X ed stuff in their game or not. |
| Lord Karsus05-18-07, 06:50 PM | I have a pet groundhog that knows a cockatoo that has a friend whose sister told him that wizards is going to.... TO WHAT!!! don't leave me hanging man! -We're still waiting...:rolleyes: |
| Prak, the Mad08-23-07, 08:41 PM | bump... :D I was right... that is all. |
| bonethug010808-23-07, 08:56 PM | This will be closed soon.:P And I was right on how they will fix some things.:P |