Post/Author/DateTime	Post
18DELTA 02-23-08, 02:55 AM	-This link is now working (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a)! Discovered this on the 4E classes board. :) This month, we’re granting everyone a surprise round before the actual launch of the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. During this surprise round, a bunch of my staff is heading to the D&D Experience in Virginia to play 4E with people, show off the latest art, unveil the rest of the year’s slate of products, and provide a new look at the elements of D&D Insider. It’s an exciting time! Not only are we in the midst of seeing finished galleys of the core books here in the office, but we’re about to enter the final stage before the launch of 4E. To me, this last sprint kicks off with D&D Experience. At the show, fans and players get to mingle with Chris Perkins, Andy Collins, Rob Heinsoo, James Wyatt, Mike Mearls, and Chris Youngs from my R&D team, as well as with The Rouse and Sarah Girard from the Brand Team, Didier Monin, and the great folks in Organized Play. It should be a wonderful event. At the event, everyone will get to see the new game system in action. Games will be played, secrets will be revealed, and amazing D&D Insider features will take center stage. I’m sure the various tidbits that get revealed will be reported here and elsewhere as they happen, but I want to kick off the festivities with my own surprise round. What better way to get everyone excited and talking than to show off one of the class write-ups from the new Player’s Handbook? And what class more typifies the surprise round than the rogue? What follows is the opening spread for the rogue class, as well as a few of the powers available to rogue characters. You’re going to see something called “builds” in the information that follows. Builds present themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up. If you’re going to attend D&D Experience, say hello to the gang for me. In the meantime, enjoy this surprise peek at the rogue. Hurry, though. You know how sneaky the rogue can be. Rogue "You look surprised to see me. If you’d been paying attention, you might still be alive." CLASS TRAITS Role: Striker. You dart in to attack, do massive damage, and then retreat to safety. You do best when teamed with a defender to flank enemies. Power Source: Martial. Your talents depend on extensive training and constant practice, innate skill, and natural coordination. Key Abilities: Dexterity, Strength, Charisma Armor Training: Leather Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword Bonus to Defense: +2 Reflex Hit Points at 1st Level: 12 + Constitution score Hit Points per Level Gained: 5 Healing Surges: 6 + Constitution modifier Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level. Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity) Build Options: Brawny rogue, trickster rogue Class Features: First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, Sneak Attack Rogues are cunning and elusive adversaries. Rogues slip into and out of shadows on a whim, pass anywhere across the field of battle without fear of reprisal, and appear suddenly only to drive home a lethal blade. As a rogue, you might face others’ preconceptions regarding your motivations, but your nature is your own to mold. You could be an agent fresh from the deposed king’s shattered intelligence network, an accused criminal on the lam seeking to clear your name, a wiry performer whose goals transcend the theatrical stage, a kid trying to turn around your hard-luck story, or a daredevil thrill-seeker who can’t get enough of the adrenaline rush of conflict. Or perhaps you are merely in it for the gold, after all. With a blade up your sleeve and a concealing cloak across your shoulders, you stride forth, eyes alight with anticipation. What worldly wonders and rewards are yours for the taking? ROGUE OVERVIEW Characteristics: Combat advantage provides the full benefit of your powers, and a combination of skills and powers helps you gain and keep that advantage over your foes. You are a master of skills, from Stealth and Thievery to Bluff and Acrobatics. Religion: Rogues prefer deities of the night, luck, freedom, and adventure, such as Sehanine and Avandra. Evil and chaotic evil rogues often favor Lolth or Zehir. Races: Those with a love for secrets exchanged in shadows and change for its own sake make ideal rogues, including elves, tieflings, and halflings. Creating a Rogue The trickster rogue and the brawny rogue are the two rogue builds, one relying on bluffs and feints, the other on brute strength. Dexterity, Charisma, and Strength are the rogue’s most important ability scores. Brawny Rogue You like powers that deal plenty of damage, aided by your Strength, and also stun, immobilize, knock down, or push your foes. Your attacks use Dexterity, so keep that your highest ability score. Strength should be a close second—it increases your damage directly, and it can determine other effects of your attacks. Charisma is a good third ability score, particularly if you want to dabble in powers from the other rogue build. Select the brutal scoundrel rogue tactic, and look for powers that pack a lot of damage into every punch. Suggested Feat: Weapon Focus (Human feat: Toughness) Suggested Skills: Athletics, Dungeoneering, Intimidate, Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery Suggested At-Will Powers: Piercing Strike, Riposte Strike Suggested Encounter Power: Torturous Strike Suggested Daily Power: Easy Target Trickster Rogue You like powers that deceive and misdirect your foes. You dart in and out of the fray in combat, dodging your enemies’ attacks or redirecting them to other foes. Most of your attack powers rely on Dexterity, so that should be your best ability score. Charisma is important for a few attacks, for Charisma-based skills you sometimes use in place of attacks, and for other effects that depend on successful attacks, so make Charisma your second-best score. Strength is useful if you want to choose powers intended for the other rogue build. Select the artful dodger rogue tactic. Look for powers that take advantage of your high Charisma score, as well as those that add to your trickster nature. Suggested Feat: Backstabber (Human feat: Human Perseverance) Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery Suggested At-Will Powers: Deft Strike, Sly Flourish Suggested Encounter Power: Positioning Strike Suggested Daily Power: Trick Strike Rogue Class Features All rogues share these class features. First Strike At the start of an encounter, you have combat advantage against any creatures that have not yet acted in that encounter. Rogue Tactics Rogues operate in a variety of ways. Some rogues use their natural charm and cunning trickery to deceive foes. Others rely on brute strength to overcome their enemies. Choose one of the following options. Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier against opportunity attacks. Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to your Strength modifier. The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain rogue powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Rogue Tactics selection has on them. Rogue Weapon Talent When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls. Sneak Attack Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases. Level Sneak Attack Damage 1st–10th +2d6 11th–20th +3d6 21st–30th +5d6 Rogue Powers Your powers are daring exploits that draw on your personal cunning, agility, and expertise. Some powers reward a high Charisma and are well suited for the trickster rogue, and others reward a high Strength and appeal to the brawny rogue, but you are free to choose any power you like. Deft Strike Rogue Attack 1 A final lunge brings you into an advantageous position. At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling. Target: One creature Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack. Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level. Piercing Strike Rogue Attack 1 A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh. At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade. Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level. Positioning Strike Rogue Attack 1 A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you want him. Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade. Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. Will Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and you slide the target 1 square. Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier. Torturous Strike Rogue Attack 1 If you twist the blade in the wound just so, you can make your enemy howl in pain. Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade. Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. AC Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Strength modifier. Tumble Rogue Utility 2 You tumble out of harm’s way, dodging the opportunistic attacks of your enemies. Encounter ✦ Martial Move Action Personal Prerequisite: You must be trained in Acrobatics. Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed. Crimson Edge Rogue Attack 9 You deal your enemy a vicious wound that continues to bleed, and like a shark, you circle in for the kill. Daily ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade. Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target takes ongoing damage equal to 5 + your Strength modifier and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both). Miss: Half damage, and no ongoing damage. -So what do you guys/gals think? 18DELTA:detect:
Green Elven Vampire 02-23-08, 07:32 AM	Is this class for real? It's amazingly horrible! It it were food, I wouldn't feed it to a rat! Actually, rat would most likely leave a better taste in my mouth than this did.
Jiggawha 02-23-08, 08:29 AM	where's the roleplaying part?
Fabius Maximus 02-23-08, 10:26 AM	I think there can be no logical in-game explanation why the per encounter and per day powers can only used once per encounter or once per day, respectivly.
Lord Karsus 02-23-08, 11:01 AM	I think there can be no logical in-game explanation why the per encounter and per day powers can only used once per encounter or once per day, respectivly. -No, there really can't. -That said, whoa! Rogues get 12 HP per level. Wow. What ever happened to the goot 'random' part of rolling a die, rather than a flat number? -I like how Rogues can take all of those various special powers/abilities/feats, and don't necessarily have to have Sneak Attack. I know, a lot of the Rogues I've played weren't assassin/thief-type Rogues, and Sneak Attack did seem a little out of place. -Mind you, I'm forcing myself to like all this 4e stuff here, so...
Khaelieth 02-23-08, 11:11 AM	Religion: Rogues prefer deities of the night, luck, freedom, and adventure, such as Sehanine and Avandra. Evil and chaotic evil rogues often favor Lolth or Zehir. Has Lloth turned into a godess for anyone chaotic and evil!? And looks much like WoW's take on rogues. Don't like it, as the RP has dissapeared.
carnasus 02-23-08, 12:27 PM	4ed is going to be a tactical battle game from the perspective of a single character with role-playing elements, at least that's the immpression I am getting with the rogue write up and other aspects I have read. Let's ramp up the tactical element possibly, to sell more minis. That being said, I will pick it up mself at the very least to see what it's like and if I don't like what I see I will continue with 3.5
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-23-08, 08:01 PM	Has Lloth turned into a godess for anyone chaotic and evil!? 4E gods are going to be less "racial" than gods were in previous editions. And looks much like WoW's take on rogues. Don't like it, as the RP has dissapeared. People can (and always have been able to) roleplay as much as they want.:) Thanks for posting this, Delta, it was interesting.
Khaelieth 02-23-08, 08:11 PM	People can (and always have been able to) roleplay as much as they want.:) Certainly, but when they start focusing on builds and such, I think it's gone the wrong way. Also, roles really annoy me. Gonna do a campaign with 3 druids now, to Hell with roles and pissh. Role: Striker. You dart in to attack, do massive damage, and then retreat to safety. You do best when teamed with a defender to flank enemies. I didn't like the 3rd ed rogue (Misspellings aside) and I certainly don't like this one! I just don't see Bilbo doing "massive damage" (he might argueably been an Expert in 3rd ed). Sneak attack I hated, and with all these abilities as well... BAH! HUMBUG! They might as well change the classes to Tank, DPS, Caster, Healer etc. Now I'm definitely not gonna buy 4th ed! Thieves were so close to my heart; WotC crushed my heart to kill the thief!
Lord Karsus 02-23-08, 08:17 PM	Now I'm definitely not gonna buy 4th ed! Thieves were so close to my heart; WotC crushed my heart to kill the thief! -You know, if you've feeling lost and hopeless, the Hands of Karsus have the answers to life's problems...
Khaelieth 02-23-08, 08:23 PM	-You know, if you've feeling lost and hopeless, the Hands of Karsus have the answers to life's problems... Nah, not lost and hopeless, just boycotting! i think the origin of that word has to do with girls denying boys something... Not quite sure yet...
Lord Karsus 02-23-08, 08:28 PM	Nah, not lost and hopeless, just boycotting! i think the origin of that word has to do with girls denying boys something... Not quite sure yet... -Could be...Boy...Cot...Sleeping on the cot, and not the bed...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-23-08, 08:56 PM	Certainly, but when they start focusing on builds and such, I think it's gone the wrong way. Also, roles really annoy me. Gonna do a campaign with 3 druids now, to Hell with roles and pissh. Well, since the designers are trying to "simplify" things, hopefully the game will be less about lists and lists of rules, so people who are so inclined can spend more time on the story.:)
Khaelieth 02-23-08, 09:04 PM	Hey, if i could DM when i was 13, so can anyone! Simplifying things isn't necessarily a good thing! But LK, you could can be a "Foot of Khae" if you want? ;p
18DELTA 02-24-08, 08:17 PM	But LK, you could can be a "Foot of Khae" if you want? ;p -:yuck: :raincloud :allalone: :noway: :bored: :uh-huh: :rant: :nonono: :bigeyes: :censored: :tantrum: :headexplo :banghead: :hoppingma FEET STINK!!! 18DELTA;)
Lord Karsus 02-24-08, 08:18 PM	But LK, you could can be a "Foot of Khae" if you want? ;p -Eh, I think I'll pass on that one.
Jiggawha 02-25-08, 12:54 PM	it's not that bad considering combat, has some potential, but still I think that we'll make major houserule adjustements, and use only use components that we like. The idea of paths was appealing but not in this way, maybe we'll be back to three base classes: warrior, arcanist and rogue, abilities and features will depend much more on roleplaying and adventuring, official rules will be used only as balancing guidelines
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-25-08, 01:20 PM	Hey, if i could DM when i was 13, so can anyone! Simplifying things isn't necessarily a good thing! True. As you can tell, I'm trying to look on the "bright side" of 4E.:)
Khaelieth 02-25-08, 01:51 PM	it's not that bad considering combat, has some potential, but still I think that we'll make major houserule adjustements, and use only use components that we like. The idea of paths was appealing but not in this way, maybe we'll be back to three base classes: warrior, arcanist and rogue, abilities and features will depend much more on roleplaying and adventuring, official rules will be used only as balancing guidelines Make it warrior, arcanist and thief and you've got my vote!
18DELTA 02-25-08, 01:51 PM	Thanks for posting this, Delta, it was interesting. -:embarrass :blush: :tie: :bravo: :tiphat: :D 18DELTA:cool:
Jiggawha 02-25-08, 02:37 PM	Make it warrior, arcanist and thief and you've got my vote! thief as a path, not all rogues are thieves, rangers could be considered rogues as well, tough the word ''thief'' appeals to me too cause of the good old 2E days :)
msatran 02-25-08, 02:52 PM	I hated it. Every rogue gets 5hp per level, and 12 at first + con mod? I mind the "healing surges' which are not D+D less than not rolling for hit points anymore. Quite frankly, I think Wizards turned, put D+D on a motorcycle with Fonzie, and had it jump the shark.
Lord Karsus 02-25-08, 02:54 PM	...and 12 at first + con mod? -That high number was the first thing that raised my eyebrow.
Fabius Maximus 02-25-08, 06:48 PM	-That high number was the first thing that raised my eyebrow. That's probably because of the "damage threshold" rules that will most likely be imported from SW Saga, and the new critical hits that don't need confirmation. I.e., all characters will deal more damage now, so they need more HP.
heretic888 02-25-08, 08:39 PM	I think there can be no logical in-game explanation why the per encounter and per day powers can only used once per encounter or once per day, respectivly. Hi Fabius Maximus, You have made this assertion in the past and, every single time, it was refuted. Rather easily. At least as far as encounter powers go. Seriously. I can, in less than five minutes, think up about a dozen or so narrative devices for why a certain attack, technique, stunt, ability, move, or maneuver can only be utilized once during any given encounter. It requires little more than the ability to make use of abstract thought. Everything from tactical positioning to a sudden burst of adrenaline to a moment of perfect timing and concentration to focusing one's animus and everything in between. If you sincerely cannot come up with a narration for how such abilities could work in your campaign's worldspace then you are, quite frankly, not trying. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and I came up with several in just a few minutes. The daily powers are a bit more difficult to justify, but to be perfectly fair, its nothing the Barbarian (rage), Monk (stunning fist), Paladin (smite evil), or Rogue (defensive roll) didn't have in 3E anyway. Laterz.
heretic888 02-25-08, 08:43 PM	-I like how Rogues can take all of those various special powers/abilities/feats, and don't necessarily have to have Sneak Attack. I know, a lot of the Rogues I've played weren't assassin/thief-type Rogues, and Sneak Attack did seem a little out of place. Hi Lord Karsus, I'm not sure what article you may be reading, but the one I have lists sneak attack as one of the Rogue's base class features, independent of whatever powers or feats he or she chooses. That said, I'm sure you could play a Rogue who never uses sneak attack. If you really want to. ;) Laterz.
Lord Karsus 02-25-08, 11:37 PM	That's probably because of the "damage threshold" rules that will most likely be imported from SW Saga, and the new critical hits that don't need confirmation. I.e., all characters will deal more damage now, so they need more HP. -They also have more 'Negative Hit Points' as well. Hi Lord Karsus, I'm not sure what article you may be reading, but the one I have lists sneak attack as one of the Rogue's base class features, independent of whatever powers or feats he or she chooses. -The article specifically says, "Choose one of the following options", of which the 'Sneak Attack' is one, which implies that a Rogue does not have to choose this ability, as he/she might take one of the other "Choose one of the following options" abilities.
Kiioro 02-26-08, 01:01 AM	The first and my most beloved class has been rogue. Now, this is interesting, but... Somehow I don't like it. Maybe I just need to play it. So far, I've been remaining neutral on the coming 4e, but what's been planned for the cleric and the rogue hasn't made me any more convinced on trying it. Also... When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls. If there's anything close to "two weapon fighting", I could easily see a rogue with a shuriken in one hand and a longsword in the other. After all, "your weapon damage increases by one size", not the shuriken damage. Seems easier to 'munchkinize'. On the other hand... 12 HP seems to downright imply that there will be a lot more of damage done, as it was said. I don't need to receive / give a lot more damage to feel I'm getting more out of the game, so, as long as it doesn't end like in the Final Fantasy games where you end up with hundreds and hundreds of HP that come and go in an instant... But then again, I have to try (or read a lot of reviews of actual play) to make up my mind.
MarkusTay63 02-26-08, 01:22 AM	I've always given more HP... in fact, 12 sounds about right for a Rogue. My personal formula was always maximum HD +1d6 per level, meaning a Mage got 4 + D6, a Priest got 8 +d6, etc... Since the new game is combat-heavy, it makes sense that peeps need MORE HP, because things do MORE damage now. I don't like the fact that there won't be any randomized HP... I've seen that in other games, and its not bad, but I like my D&D to still be D&D, know what I mean? 'Builds', BTW, is something I am painfully familiar with. They are from WoW, or any other 'skill' based electronic RPG. I remember when I first heard of them, back in Diablo - my son would find 'builds' on the net, and pick his skill tree exactly to a precise formula. I NEVER did that - I picked what I thought sounded fun (did the same in WoW). In Warcraft, it meant I wasn't the most powerful character in the group, but I was usually the most well-rounded. In Diablo, however, I came up with a few 'tricks' that weren't in any 'builds', and since all the 'good' players had 'formulas' for fighting the various 'builds', no one new how to take me down. :devil: My son, the 'pro', couldn't believe what I came up with for two of my characters, that were unlike anyone else's, and still kicked ass! He used to borrow them from time to time, when he had trouble with a PKer... My barabrian that instantly killed ANYTHING that appeared on my screen was especially fun. They can keep their 'builds' - I'll keep getting creative and surprising the two million other 'Rogue Clones' that followed the prescribed formulas. :rolleyes:
Fabius Maximus 02-26-08, 07:25 AM	Hi Fabius Maximus, You have made this assertion in the past and, every single time, it was refuted. Rather easily. At least as far as encounter powers go. So you say. Maybe you and others can more easily look past the illogical things? I mean, stuff like this: Everything from tactical positioning to a sudden burst of adrenaline to a moment of perfect timing and concentration to focusing one's animus and everything in between. is no explanation why your character can do this only once per encounter.
Aldareth 02-26-08, 08:09 AM	So you say. Maybe you and others can more easily look past the illogical things? I mean, stuff like this: is no explanation why your character can do this only once per encounter. sure it is, the positioning part requires stealth, your adrenaline burst only once in a fight ( maybe there will be a feat about this or the number increases with lvl) after your use of the power your mentally exhausted so that you cant focus anymore on the next perfekt momment until you calm down betwen 2 encounters...easy like that. as to the write up mechanics are really secondary, you can make the new rogue anything you like, an assasin, a thief , a investigator ( bluff & intimidate as cha- based class skills ) its really up to you
Lord Karsus 02-26-08, 11:43 AM	sure it is, the positioning part requires stealth, your adrenaline burst only once in a fight ( maybe there will be a feat about this or the number increases with lvl) after your use of the power your mentally exhausted so that you cant focus anymore on the next perfekt momment until you calm down betwen 2 encounters...easy like that. -You aren't limited to a single burst of adrenaline during any one situation, in actuality.
Rauric 02-26-08, 11:58 AM	I liked it. Looks like a fun class to play. Where is the roleplaying? In my head. You know how many WOD games I played where people just played the numbers and not the charcter? That is a setting with tons of fluffy goodness and people still hacknslash in it. "Rauric" is one of my most favorite characters because I roleplayed the hell out of him. Plus he could "mess up" the bad guys something fierce. "Hemogoblin" from Vampire had the same thing going for him. I had a great roleplaying idea and attitude for the characters and that made the numbers come alive.
Keryth 02-26-08, 12:14 PM	Certainly, but when they start focusing on builds and such, I think it's gone the wrong way. Also, roles really annoy me. Gonna do a campaign with 3 druids now, to Hell with roles and pissh. I didn't like the 3rd ed rogue (Misspellings aside) and I certainly don't like this one! I just don't see Bilbo doing "massive damage" (he might argueably been an Expert in 3rd ed). Sneak attack I hated, and with all these abilities as well... BAH! HUMBUG! They might as well change the classes to Tank, DPS, Caster, Healer etc. Now I'm definitely not gonna buy 4th ed! Thieves were so close to my heart; WotC crushed my heart to kill the thief! They are Tank, DPS, etc. Thats what this whole Roles thing is. I keep trying to ekep an open mind about 4E I really do. I loved SW:Saga and Tome of Battle was a fun twist, but this is getting too munchkin, and I thought 3e was munchkin. 6 healing surges, what the Frell is that? That mean they can spontaneously heal themselves 6 times in a fight? Guess my monsters should just roll over and die cuz there will never be any threat fo the characters dieing.
Fabius Maximus 02-26-08, 12:37 PM	sure it is, the positioning part requires stealth,That's BS. Tactical positioning includes stuff like taking the higher ground, flanking, and the like. It can include stealth, sure, but that's not all. your adrenaline burst only once in a fight ( maybe there will be a feat about this or the number increases with lvl) after your use of the power your mentally exhausted so that you cant focus anymore on the next perfekt momment until you calm down betwen 2 encounters...easy like that. Do you know how adrenaline works? It hasn't got anything to do with mental faculties. Your adrenaline burst starts when the fight begins and ends when the fight ends. Using that explanation should result in an all-out combat bonus that's lasts as long as the battle and ends in an exhaustion much like the one following the Barbarian Rage. as to the write up mechanics are really secondary, you can make the new rogue anything you like, an assasin, a thief , a investigator ( bluff & intimidate as cha- based class skills ) its really up to you Wrong. How you do things and their results are equally important. In politics, this is called "good governance".
heretic888 02-26-08, 01:15 PM	The article specifically says, "Choose one of the following options", of which the 'Sneak Attack' is one, which implies that a Rogue does not have to choose this ability, as he/she might take one of the other "Choose one of the following options" abilities. Hi Lord Karsus, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Rogue Class Features All rogues share these class features. The "choose one of the followings options" only refers to the Brutal Scoundrel and Artful Dodger abilities. Laterz.
heretic888 02-26-08, 01:35 PM	So you say. Maybe you and others can more easily look past the illogical things? Hi Fabius Maximus, I suppose it depends what you mean by "illogical" in this context. If you are referring to some kind of compliance to realism, I would point out that in 3E fifth-level Fighters can beat the world long-jump record in full plate armor, second-level Monks and Rogues can completely avoid a 10 x 10 explosion in a 4 x 4 room, and creatures the size of dragons can actually fly. Oh, and Vancian spellcasting. 'Nuff said. If, however, you are referring to some form of internal verisimilitude then I see no problem whatsoever with per-encounter and per-day martial powers. At least, not anymore than I have with hit points, armor class, or combat rounds. These are mechanical conceits of the game world that are supposed to represent abstractions of real-life concepts while encouraging balanced and fun play. In much the same way that "your Fighter just lost 5 hit points" is a rather ambivalent abstraction of real-world psychophysical endurance and does not necessarily mean your Fighter was physically injured, "your Fighter just used his per-encounter power" is a gameworld abstraction of the kind of cinematic maneuvers that one typically only sees once in any given fight. It is not necessarily that your Fighter can only use this power once in a fight (although this may be true), it is that he won't (for whatever reason). The strength of this type of design is that it puts narration into the hands of the players and leaves them free to construct their own interpretations as they see fit. One could opt for a design in which one must meet a set of rather taxing mechanical requirements before using such techniques (such as your rather convoluted combination of Combat Focus and ToB maneuvers that you posted on the class forums some months ago), but this does little more than needlessly complicate and slow down gameplay and imposes narrative restrictions and monotony on the players. I mean, stuff like this: [Everything from tactical positioning to a sudden burst of adrenaline to a moment of perfect timing and concentration to focusing one's animus and everything in between.] is no explanation why your character can do this only once per encounter. Sure, it is. But it actually requires an ability to utilize abstract thought to make use of. Laterz.
heretic888 02-26-08, 01:40 PM	They are Tank, DPS, etc. Thats what this whole Roles thing is. Hi Keryth, This is incorrect. Not only have these combat roles existed in the game since 1E in an implicit form, but the striker is most definately not the same as "damage-per-second". To assert otherwise demonstrates one has not bothered to actually read what the developers have told us about the roles. I keep trying to ekep an open mind about 4E I really do. I loved SW:Saga and Tome of Battle was a fun twist, but this is getting too munchkin, and I thought 3e was munchkin. 6 healing surges, what the Frell is that? That mean they can spontaneously heal themselves 6 times in a fight? Guess my monsters should just roll over and die cuz there will never be any threat fo the characters dieing. I believe you are misinterpreting the text. The healing surges entry most likely refers to how much hit points are recovered per healing surge, not how many times a day one can have them. Laterz.
heretic888 02-26-08, 01:52 PM	That's BS. Tactical positioning includes stuff like taking the higher ground, flanking, and the like. It can include stealth, sure, but that's not all. Hi Fabius Maximus, Once again, abstract thinking if you please. ;) When I say "tactical positioning", I am not necessarily referring to anything like flanking, stealth, or really anything that shows up in terms of game mechanics (although the narration can include such things, if needed). It is an abstract narrative device to refer to the fact that when your character used his per-encounter martial power he was in just the right position, at just the right distance, with just the right timing to use that technique, maneuver, or stunt most effectively. In the context of this narration, those exact circumstances did not reproduce themselves during the course of the encounter. As such, your character didn't use that particular ability again. Its as simple as that. Like I said before, its not necessarily that the character can't use that power more than once (although the narration may call for that, if necessary). Its simply that he won't, because it didn't fit the narrative. Do you know how adrenaline works? It hasn't got anything to do with mental faculties. Your adrenaline burst starts when the fight begins and ends when the fight ends. Using that explanation should result in an all-out combat bonus that's lasts as long as the battle and ends in an exhaustion much like the one following the Barbarian Rage. If you don't like the "sudden burst of adrenaline" narration, then don't use it. Its your narration, so its in your hands. Wrong. How you do things and their results are equally important. In politics, this is called "good governance". I'm not really sure what you're saying here, Fabius, but are you suggesting that every single minutia of the gameworld must have a concrete mechanic or rule to go along with it?? That might explain why you have difficulty representing the things I'm talking about abstractly. Laterz.
18DELTA 02-26-08, 08:02 PM	-Whats that old saying on some of these boards..."when you butcher a game system or a game setting for realism, God kills a kitten. So PLEASE THINK OF THE KITTENS.:weep: -Come on people its a GAME. Its not ment to be realistic.:rolleyes: -Think of the kitties, ok.:weep: 18DELTA;)
Khaelieth 02-27-08, 09:03 AM	-Whats that old saying on some of these boards..."when you butcher a game system or a game setting for realism, God kills a kitten. So PLEASE THINK OF THE KITTENS.:weep: -Come on people its a GAME. Its not ment to be realistic.:rolleyes: -Think of the kitties, ok.:weep: 18DELTA;) Supposed to be a mix of reality and balance. They just seem to be sterotyping the classes. Me and my players don't usually have roles, as they're a bit naff and too MMO in my opinion. That roles have been around since 1st ed, fair enough. But not all of us play that way. Too many abilities in that class too. A few things irked me about 3rd ed, mostly rogue abilities. The whole dodging and trapfinding thingy.
Fabius Maximus 02-27-08, 09:36 AM	I suppose it depends what you mean by "illogical" in this context. I mean the inabilitiy to reproduce said effects if they are completely mundane. That's illogical. And that has nothing to do with realism. We're still talking about humans and other human-like beings with material bodies that all work in a similar way. If you are referring to some kind of compliance to realism, I would point out that in 3E fifth-level Fighters can beat the world long-jump record in full plate armor, second-level Monks and Rogues can completely avoid a 10 x 10 explosion in a 4 x 4 room, and creatures the size of dragons can actually fly. Oh, and Vancian spellcasting. 'Nuff said. Your definition of "realism" (or the lack of it) is obviously: "If the world has some unrealistic sthings in it, the rest of it has to be unrealistic, too." The strength of this type of design is that it puts narration into the hands of the players and leaves them free to construct their own interpretations as they see fit. This was as true before as it is now. In the context of this narration, those exact circumstances did not reproduce themselves during the course of the encounter. As such, your character didn't use that particular ability again. Its as simple as that. Like I said before, its not necessarily that the character can't use that power more than once (although the narration may call for that, if necessary). Its simply that he won't, because it didn't fit the narrative. I know what you mean. But the question still remains: Why wouldn't the character use it again? If the ability is effective, the character would seek ways to use it again, and again, and again. For the sake of story-telling? That brings us right back to the "Cool stuff does not have to make sense" argument. Btw, I am familiar with abstract thinking. But if I have to forcefully twist my brain around a concept just to make it work, then that's unnecessary bad game design. One could opt for a design in which one must meet a set of rather taxing mechanical requirements before using such techniques (such as your rather convoluted combination of Combat Focus and ToB maneuvers that you posted on the class forums some months ago), but this does little more than needlessly complicate and slow down gameplay and imposes narrative restrictions and monotony on the players. You forget Psionic Focus. It's actually more easy and faster to use than the ToB rules, because it's one rule for all martial artists that takes up about one DIN A4 page (with fluff text, that I didn't post). The ToB has three different subsets of rules for the three base classes taking up several pages, not to mention the unnecessary complicated casting-like system which I managed to get rid of. And I cannot say that it "imposes narrative restrictions and monotony on the players." Edit I'm not really sure what you're saying here, Fabius, but are you suggesting that every single minutia of the gameworld must have a concrete mechanic or rule to go along with it?? No. That's impossible. I'm saying that stuff that works in the real world should work like that in a game world, if that world is mundane enough. That would be a part of "good governance" in game design. Rules have to be easy to understand and easy to use. They have to be consistent with real world physics, biology, and the like, except when they are not. In the latter case, you have to come up with an easy to understand explanation why they are not consistent. That can include magic or similar supernatural powers. If you start blurring the line between those two, the whole system goes to hell, because mundane and magical cannot possibly work the same way.
18DELTA 03-01-08, 01:09 AM	-Check out this PDF (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExperienceCharacters.zip). Its the pregenerated characters that is up on the main site.:D 18DELTA:cool:
SuperGnome 03-04-08, 10:55 AM	Why is the stance taken that all the classes need to play a role in battle? Is that all this game is now, just a strategic combat game? Sure, it's a big part of the game and where most of the rules come in, but seeing it as the primary focus makes me frown. *8( See! They talk about non-combat encounters, and that's encouraging, but are all the powers listed for the rogue are combat oriented? If so, HUGE mistakes have been made IMO. Assuming a class isn't useful unless they have specific COMBAT abilities makes some disasterous assumptions. I might be making some assumptions myself here... It's possible that since most of what was put out was for quickplay, they'd mostly include combat items. Fair enough. I expect to be able to create a rogue who's almost useless in combat. Sneak attack has always made sense, as they don't want to fight as it's not their strong suit. Why not take a foe out quick and quiet when they're least expecting? Why not stick to missile weapons since you have the natural talent (DEX) anyways and lack the HP for toe to toe? The PURPOSE of the role dictates how they fit into whatever is going on in the game at that time. Assigning a long list of COMBAT options just so they don't feel left out in combat is just lame. It short changes the entire spirit of class roles in the game world in my eyes. Perhaps I've fallen out of the target audience? I've always enjoyed stretching the roles of the various classes. If each class was refocused to make them more combat worthy, I'd have to say I'm extremely disappointed. My games fall somewhere around 25% combat at most (kind of a non-scientific generalized guestimate of table time). I know we have a pretty narrow view of what 4e is. I'm not poo pooing the entire system based on what little there is to know right now. I'm saying that if it is as it SEEMS so far, it's a tragic de-evolution of a once immersive FULL experience. If the Rogue simply has a long list of mostly COMBAT options for their powers in the finished product, then my utter disappointment will be confirmed. *that being said, taking out the rules-for-everything approach of 3e is fantastic! Keeping modular character creation is fantastic! Assuming a character is useless and boring unless they have a dedicated role in combat is... unfanstastic! *edit - added a couple words to the last sentance
Jiggawha 03-04-08, 11:39 AM	agreed, these roles in a battle seem ridiculous
GreenKnight 03-04-08, 12:18 PM	Why is the stance taken that all the classes need to play a role in battle? Is that all this game is now, just a strategic combat game? Sure, it's a big part of the game and where most of the rules come in, but seeing it as the primary focus makes me frown. It's not just a strategic combat game, but combat has always been an important part of the game. So of course every class has to play a role in battle. Creating a class with the intention of having it suck for part of the game (a major part of the game in most peoples games, at that) is just bad game design and a disservice to the players. If you want to suck in combat, then that's your choice. But that shouldn't be the norm. I don't think combat is being made the primary focus, though. Hell, I remember reading elsewhere that it's now possible to have a campaign without combat at all! Combat and killing is no longer the sole method of garnering XP, and with the new social encounter rules, it's possible to play a game without combat. They're providing more options for combat, but they're also providing more indepth non-combat encounters. More variety all around isn't what I'd call a bad thing.
SuperGnome 03-04-08, 12:29 PM	Just checked out Races and Classes for the Rogue. The first part is general rogue goodness, about hangouts and what you'd expect in general. Class Role starts off with "The rogue is the prime example of a striker. Capable of delivering more damage to a single target...." The second paragraph actually talks about general stealth, but again finishes with a bit about them in combat. Third paragraph? Starts with "Rogues excel at hitting unprepared enemies...". 4th paragrph - "Another source of extra damage..." 5th? At the highest end of the rogue's power list come difficult maneuvers that incorporate multiple attacks and tactical movement." The Role section is followed by a Sneak Attack section. That's followed by the What's New with the Rogue section. Unfortunately, that starts: "The rogue character class retains the core of what it has always been, a class that focuses on light armor, light weapons, skills, and dishing out extra damage to unprepared opponents." Well, they did mention skills, right? Seriously, what the :confused: ?! Did any of these guys play the same game I did? They go on with a section on Skills which is alright. IMO they don't need to oversimplify skills. They're not that hard to deal with. If they want them easier, remove synergies and maybe combine a couple skills. The thing is, these were a good place to make characters different. To add color. Apparently that's not terribly important. ROLE PLAYING game people! There's a little block in there with sample powers (just 3) which are all combat related. Instead of a rogue, this is apparently a sneaky and quick fighter. (there is the skills section, but all this focus on abilities which all seem to be combat related is just too much for me not to comment) After that there's a Weapons and Armor section. Important regardless... not ragging on it being mentioned. It ends talking about Traps and Rogues, which I would think would appear closer to the top. Another dubious sign. Thought I'd share some more supporting info for my doubts and fears.
SuperGnome 03-04-08, 12:39 PM	GreenKnight - I agree with your post in general. Nobody should -suck- at combat, and that would be a lousy system. I guess I'm worried that all the focus is put on combat roles, rather than character class roles. The class role should drive them in any situation, including combat. All the emphasis here is on combat roles, and that includes the abilities. That's specifically what worries me. Combat IS a very important part of the game, don't get me wrong. Wizards also does make a point to mention a new non-combat encounter system. That's very encouraging, but there is no balanced approach to character creation as far as combat vs noncombat. I seriously doubt that's simple oversight that we don't see more content related to noncombat.
GreenKnight 03-04-08, 12:46 PM	but there is no balanced approach to character creation as far as combat vs noncombat. I seriously doubt that's simple oversight that we don't see more content related to noncombat. Combat is where the rules are needed the most, so of course that's the part of the game where the rules are going to be at their thickest. You don't need rules to roleplay, although I like their ideas for a "non-combat encounter", and getting more use out of skills like Diplomacy and so on. Not to mention giving Fighters a means of contributing out of combat (Kathra has Streetwise, for instance). But it's always been the case that combat gets the lions share of rules applied to it, because combat is the point of the game where the rules are needed the most.
SuperGnome 03-04-08, 01:38 PM	I agree most of the rules belong in combat, but it's in the overall mechanics of the game that rules are required. I was thinking I might be coming across that I thought rules were required in the RP portion, but that's not what I'm getting at. (I'm at work and it's kind of hard to make good complete posts.) I'm trying to point out that all of the focus is on how character classes work in combat. How all of the abilities seem to be combat related. It's too gamey to me. I've always enjoyed D&D because of the generalities of it. This is your character in this world, and these are some guidelines on how they interact with it. If a character is pretty much a list of COMBAT abilities, with a few watered down skills, the choice of class becomes mostly how you want to interact in combat situations by default. If this is the case, then this isn't the same game I fell in love with. This is where preference comes in I suppose. I like to come up with a character concept, try and wrap a class around that and go. I'm probably overthinking all this, and am trying to avoid certain labels which are probably not fair. I'll make the point again though, creating a character should be more than listing COMBAT abilities. This is usually balanced by skills and feats which don't pertain directly to combat. Skills are being simplified, so that becomes a worry. There isn't much on feats, so I can't take them into account either way. What I'm left with is all this info on combat combat combat. If there was a balanced approach to various types of play... a well-rounded set of mechanics for a character in their own world of the game system, you wouldn't see 95% of the weight of info and character creation on combat. The system is so radically different, and the character roles\representations in particular, we can't take any of what once was for granted. I'm aware of simplification of general rules to smooth out game play. As I said, that's good news. I want to make it clear I do NOT wan't rules for everything. I just don't wan't D&D to be all gamey, and too much focus on combat roles being mistaken for character class roles is unnerving. Done with work for the day! Good thoughtful posts GK, thank you, Gnome
heretic888 03-04-08, 04:19 PM	Why is the stance taken that all the classes need to play a role in battle? Hi SuperGnome, I'd say for two principal reasons: 1) The combat roles espoused in 4E have always been a part of the game, as far back as 1E. The Fighting Man smacked the monsters in the front lines, the Thief sneaked around and backstabbed them, the Cleric healed everyone, and Magic-User blasted a whole bunch of them from far away. The difference in 4E is that they are making the roles more explicit and making sure every class has some way of meaningfully fulfilling one (as opposed to the mess in 3E, where certain classes couldn't do any role and other classes could do them all). 2) Because "balancing" a class's combat ability with its non-combat ability is extremely poor game design. For a DM to ensure a class that has high non-combat ability/poor combat ability is actually participating in a balanced fashion, he or she has to artificially inject more non-combat scenarios into the campaign. Its essentially saying, "If you play X class, proportionally increase Y scenarios accordingly." Its much better to make sure every class is balanced in combat *and* out of combat, rather than relegating some to "fightin'" and some to "roleplayin'". That being said, Rangers and Rogues still have more skills than everybody else. Incidentally, I *love* the glimpse we've gotten of the Skill Challenge mechanic and I think this provides solid mechanics for non-combat encounters for every class in the game. Laterz.
heretic888 03-04-08, 04:48 PM	I mean the inabilitiy to reproduce said effects if they are completely mundane. That's illogical. And that has nothing to do with realism. We're still talking about humans and other human-like beings with material bodies that all work in a similar way. Your definition of "realism" (or the lack of it) is obviously: "If the world has some unrealistic sthings in it, the rest of it has to be unrealistic, too." [...] I know what you mean. But the question still remains: Why wouldn't the character use it again? If the ability is effective, the character would seek ways to use it again, and again, and again. For the sake of story-telling? That brings us right back to the "Cool stuff does not have to make sense" argument. Btw, I am familiar with abstract thinking. But if I have to forcefully twist my brain around a concept just to make it work, then that's unnecessary bad game design. [....] No. That's impossible. I'm saying that stuff that works in the real world should work like that in a game world, if that world is mundane enough. That would be a part of "good governance" in game design. Rules have to be easy to understand and easy to use. They have to be consistent with real world physics, biology, and the like, except when they are not. In the latter case, you have to come up with an easy to understand explanation why they are not consistent. That can include magic or similar supernatural powers. If you start blurring the line between those two, the whole system goes to hell, because mundane and magical cannot possibly work the same way. Hi Fabius Maximus, It seems we are simply working from different assumptions for how the game should work. I don't take it for granted, as you seem to do, that D&D should conform to real-world facts, "except when it doesn't", nor do I assume that the "mundane" and the "magical" absolutely have to work in different ways. So-called "mundane" characters regularly break our laws of physics . These are not exceptions, as you seem to believe, but are pretty consistent markers of the D&D world. Hell, there is an entire category of abilities in 3E - Extraordinary - that flat out states this. With the exception of Fighters, every core melee class uses Extraordinary abilities (which admittedly break the laws of physics). And, once you get to 5th level or so, everyone is transcending the "mundane" with skill checks, anyway. I personally believe that it is impossible to balance spellcasters and non-casters with the assumptions you seem to hold. Limiting warriors to the New York Postulate while mages are doing things like Wish and Gate is, in my opinion, ridiculous. While you assert your have no problem with abstract narration, your insistence that your characters should be able to do the same cool cinematic attacks over and over and over again suggests otherwise. And, yes, "because it makes good story-telling" is a perfectly valid principle in a role-playing game. Your character simply didn't do X attack again because he wasn't in position or his timing was off or he didn't have enough innate reserves remaining to pull it off. The rules shouldn't impose a metanarrative straight-jacket on players. I think we just have different ideas on how D&D should run, and never the twain shall meet. You seem to think that the physically impossible stuff is "magical", non-magical characters should be realistic in most every way and when they're not its an exception to the norm. I assume that both magical and non-magical characters break the laws of physics at pretty much every turn and a unified mechanical system for balancing their abilities is actually good design. For me, "realism" has pretty much no bearing in D&D. Internal believability and "verisimilitude" does, but that's a pretty damn far cry form conformity to the laws of physics. Laterz.
GreenKnight 03-05-08, 12:12 PM	with a few watered down skills Personally, I think what they've done with skills in 4E is better for the non-combat side of the game, not worse. Especially when it comes to classes like the Fighter, who had a limited number of Skill Points. Cutting down the number of skills, and rolling some of them together, means that characters can do more out of combat with the skills they have, even if they only have a handful. And taking that into account, skills can hardly be considered "watered down" if they're meatier then they were. There're fewer of them, yes, but it looks likely that you'll get more bang out of each skill then before. Sure, the combat side gets the lions share of the attention, but it needs it. The non-combat side, however, does get some play. For instance, Tieflings get a +2 bonus to Bluff. Elves get a +2 bonus to Nature (4E version of Knowledge: Nature). That's at least two examples of races who provide non-combat racial bonuses, and they're likely not the only ones. Likewise, Fighters have been given Streetwise as a Class Skill. From the look of it, it's a combination of Intimidate and Knowledge: Local. That certainly gives a Fighter more to do out of combat, aside from just growling at people. And of course, I've already mentioned the "social enounter" rules they've developed. We haven't seen a whole lot of that, but then again, most of what we've seen involves the classes at 1st-level, when there's 29 more levels for each of them to go. So however much we know now, it doesn't compare to all the stuff we don't know. I don't think you have anything to worry about, though. Earlier today I was reading about a chase scene they had in D&D XP which was pretty involved. They've made combat more interesting, but given their statements over the past few months, it's apparent that they're making every aspect of the game more interesting, not just combat. And given that they've outright stated that you can have a campaign without combat, I don't think you'll have to worry about the non-combat side of the game lacking. :)
motovoxbox 03-21-08, 06:07 PM	In regards to the discussion of how much Combat is discussed in the article, I think there could be a couple reasons for it. 1. Combat is an exciting part of DnD, and its very possible that this preview is covering what they think most of the public might want to hear about. I would be dissapointed in a "preview" that only gave me fluff that I already knew, or would have created myself, with little or no mention of new Rogue combat changes. I mean lockpicking and trapfinding will likely in concept be the same from system to system, but I would think combat would vary widely based on the system in reference. That said though, I wouldn't mind having my cake and eating it too (have no idea what that means by the way) and seeing some new non-combat abilities included. So I think they could have balanced the preview a bit better. 2. Regarding non-combat information I think that there may a good deal of Rogue non-combat options available that we'll see in the finished product (or perhaps a later article). Their always going to try and catch the publics eye with the "best" selling points, and often Combat is the most bang for your buck in regards to marketing. I would suspect an article regarding combat would generate more hype (or at the very least discussion) then an article on the frequent haunts of Rogues and the new trap abilities (of which their may be none). So I guess my point is that they have to market to a wide audience, they have a limited amount of material they want to leak, and so they choose the most "exciting" material to generate the most market buzz. Just my 2 cents.
MarkusTay63 03-22-08, 01:16 AM	The game has devolved into Squad Leader. :( From the point of view I'm getting here, it sounds very much like what Games Worshop attempted to do when they created Mordheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordheim) - it was a cross between their miniatures game, and their RPG (sound familiar?) Although it was a pretty cool concept, it died out fairly quickly once the 'coolness' wore off.
Another Gnome 03-22-08, 04:45 AM	As opposed to 3E that's currently breathing only because of a revision of its entire core and half a dozen optional subsystems that barely look like the same game as the one it was during release? They repeated the exact same mistakes with 3E as they did with 2E, and much of it no doubt stemmed from the fact the system was too limiting and boring from the start and needed some serious pimping up to make it at least look interesting after a few games. Of course there's no guarantee that 4E won't go the way of the D&D just as all its predecessors have, and sooner or later it will regardless, but the modular build of classes and the overall design philosophy where upcoming races, classes, and subsystems add to the initial ones with more breadth and not height, is promising. (Even though I'm still extremely disappointed that they didn't have the guts to go to the same length of freedom and customization offered in SWSE. I'd love to see someone try and explain what the hell were they thinking with that decision...)
Rauric 03-22-08, 07:38 AM	As opposed to 3E that's currently breathing only because of a revision of its entire core and half a dozen optional subsystems that barely look like the same game as the one it was during release? They repeated the exact same mistakes with 3E as they did with 2E, and much of it no doubt stemmed from the fact the system was too limiting and boring from the start and needed some serious pimping up to make it at least look interesting after a few games. Of course there's no guarantee that 4E won't go the way of the D&D just as all its predecessors have, and sooner or later it will regardless, but the modular build of classes and the overall design philosophy where upcoming races, classes, and subsystems add to the initial ones with more breadth and not height, is promising. (Even though I'm still extremely disappointed that they didn't have the guts to go to the same length of freedom and customization offered in SWSE. I'd love to see someone try and explain what the hell were they thinking with that decision...) D&D was always a minis game. Yeah now there is an official rule book but c'mon. Warhammer fans are even more niche that D&D fans. Now that more games are coming out prepainted to get the quasi-masses involved Gamesworkshop better step up to the plate. Gnome, maybe they did not go complete customization because they thought that would be too much for D&D. Since their take on Star Wars is fairly new and recent they could get away with doign things differently with that game. Anyway everyone I know in S. Jersey is pretty excited about 4E. Every week the buzz is getting stonger. I am sure there is someone around here that doesn't like the changes but I caouldn't find them in my LGS. Not that what I just said is any concrete proof of anything. Just saying.