Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[Sand]

Well, I am done arguing about it. I will most certainly will have nothing to do with 4e in any of its forms. I hope Obsidian keeps up with doing expansions for NWN2 because when 4e is released I don't think we are going to get a decent DnD CRPG for quite a while. I will just be sticking to Arcana Evolved. Its a damn shame that Monte Cook is retiring from gaming to, just when 4e was announced. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

I doubt there's a relation. Didn't he leave WotC in 2001? I'm reading that on the wiki entry for him.

[Sand]

True enough, but I need to keep my drama queen reputation going.

[TravisPennington]

Oh see...actually I like those skill changes. There were way too many skills that accomplished very similar things. It's good to see them getting rid of some, combining others, etc. That doesn't bother me at all. As for completely eliminating skill ranks, though...yeah, I'm not so sure on that one.

 

I wouldn't call it D&D Lite, though. 3'rd Edition brought in a lot to D&D that 1E and 2E AD&D simply didn't have. The skill system, even in its upcoming "dumbed down" form, is still more complex than all of the proficiencies that were in 2E.

 

I don't like how they're eliminating some of the core classes, though. In addition, the whole Tier Hierarchy they're doing for abilities and whatnot is just too much like a videogame. I'm sure professional CRPG developers are totally digging it (with good reason), but I'm not.

 

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't give 4E a chance. I'll pick up the Players Handbook and read through it. If a group of people want to play, I'll try it out and see how it works out. If I don't like it better than 1E and 2E, I won't keep playing it. If I do, then I will.

[Deraldin]

With all this griping about skills being "dumbed down" for 4th edition, would someone care to explain just how they are supposed to work now?

Edited August 24, 2007 by Deraldin

[Sand]

Instead of skill ranks everyone who is trained in a skill will have the same base bonus. Everyone who specializes in a skill will have the same, but higher bonus. The only possible variation from one person who specializes in a skill is the Ability modifier.

[Sammael]

Instead of skill ranks everyone who is trained in a skill will have the same base bonus. Everyone who specializes in a skill will have the same, but higher bonus. The only possible variation from one person who specializes in a skill is the Ability modifier.

This is incorrect.

 

The base modifier for every skill will be 1/2 times the class level. This means that every character of the same level will have the same base modifier, but that's hardly "everyone."

 

If you choose to be trained in a skill, you get a +5 bonus. This also opens up new trained-only skill uses to you. There are three ways to become trained in a skill: at a character creation, you receive a number of "slots" for trained skills (+Int modifier, +1 for humans); later one, you can take a feat (multiple times) which lets you select another trained skill. You do not gain additional trained skills if you multiclass; also, if your Int increases, you gain a new trained skill.

 

Skill focus adds another +5.

 

Other than ability modifiers, that's it. There will be no other way to increase the skill modifiers, which is GOOD. DC 25 checks will still be meaningful at 10th level (even if you're trained and focused, the max bonus you will be able to have is +15 +ability modifier, which is not an auto-success). I am sick and tired of characters with +30 to skills at 10th level (because of equipment, racial and synergy bonuses.

 

Rather than skill bonuses, your race will give you an option to use a skill in a way unavailable to other races, or give you re-rolls on failed checks for certain skills.

 

 

To summarize:

 

In 3.x, you had skill points. It was possible to spend those skill points in any skill, but you had to pay double for "cross-class" skills. Unless you invested in certain skills, their modifier never went up (e.g. a wizard could ride on horseback across the world, but his Ride skill would still be +0 unless he chose to put some ranks in the skill). You also had to deal with the somewhat bizarre (X+Int) x4 formula at first level, which created a HUGE gap between the classes. There were numerous issues and exceptions related to multiclassing and skills. Finally, creating a high-level NPC was a nightmare if he was multiclassed and/or his Int changed at some point in his life. Add to that the bazillion possibilities to increase the skills and break the system (half-elf with +36 to Diplomacy at 3rd character level), and what you have is a colossal mess.

 

In the end, most PCs ended up with one or two skills which were "maxed out" and then several ranks in most other skills in which they dabbled.

 

Pro: Greater granularity, more ability to customize and differentiate characters.

Con: Bookkeeping nightmare, more exceptions than rules, easy to break the system.

 

In 4E, it is assumed that everyone gets a little better (+1 per two levels) in all skills over time. However, only those who are trained

can use the skills to their full potential. The "trained" and "focused" degrees of skill mastery add some granularity, but it's not so fine as before. However, bookkeeping is minimal. Skill modifier is extremely easy to calculate - at any level. There are fewer ways to break the system (for now).

 

Pro: Harder to abuse the system, much easier bookkeeping, fewer exceptions, automatic skill advance makes sense for adventurers

Con: Less granularity, less ability to customize and differentiate between characters

 

In the end, what I think I'll do is this: I'll give the PCs more ability to customize, while keeping the default method for NPCs. Instead of picking N trained skills at +5 to begin with, I'll give them N x 5 skill points to spend on class skills (with a maximum of 5 ranks). However, they won't be considered trained until they put 5 ranks in a skill. Similarly, I'll change the feat which grants another trained skill to give 5 additional ranks instead.

 

I strongly suspect that my idea above (or something similar to it) will be present as an option in the DMG.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Sammael

[Sammael]

I just noticed a small error (but I don't see the EDIT button): the second sentence should read "1/2 times the character level.

[aVENGER]

I just noticed a small error (but I don't see the EDIT button): the second sentence should read "1/2 times the character level.

 

 

Apparently, the Obsidian boards now also have that pesky "You can only edit your post x minutes after you've posted. After that interval your post becomes locked." rule.

 

On topic, kudos to WotC for finally getting rid of the craptastic Vancian magic system.

[Sammael]

On topic, kudos to WotC for finally getting rid of the craptastic Vancian magic system.

IMO, it's not craptastic. It may not be the best system in the world, but it's certainly more falovrful than the generic mana/spell point systems.

 

BTW, they are not getting rid of it. They are just making it more flexible. It appears that a wizard will have a fixed number of spells to memorize which will remain more or less constant during his career. However, as he progresses, he will be able to use his lower-level spells more freely without having to re-memorize them.

 

Example:

 

A 1st level wizard will have 3 slots, which he will use to memorize magic missile, shield, and mage armor. Once he casts them, they are gone. He will also be able to use a number of cantrips once per encounter, and some sort of weak attack spell which he will be able to use at will (this is pretty much confirmed).

 

By the time he is level 9, he will still have those 3 slots (maybe 1 more?), and will be using them to memorize cloudkill, teleport, and the like. At the same time, he will be able to cast stuff like flaming arrow once per encounter, and stuff like magic missile at will.

 

And so on...

Edited August 24, 2007 by Sammael

[Sand]

I still prefer the 3.5e skill system and the Vancian spell system, though Monte Cook's take on it in AE. The only thing I like about 4e is the talent tree system, but then I have been using that when I play d20 Modern. In any case I rather have full control and variation on what skills I learn. I also like using metaskills like Craft, Perform, and Knowledge. My current character in Eberron has 4 Craft skills, 3 Knowledge skills, and 1 Perform skill that are central to his backstory and continual development. In 4e my character would not be possible.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

Maybe I should find a group of nerds to leach a P&P game off of. And by this I mean find a group of people who play and join them.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

Maybe I should find a group of nerds to leach a P&P game off of. And by this I mean find a group of people who play and join them.

If you ever find yourself in Ames, Iowa...

[Cantousent]

Aside from making the character's governing attribute much more comparatively useful in using a skill, this also makes it a lot easier on DMs to write skill checks into the module. A lot of you DnDers out there are going to focus on how players abuse the system. For those of us who play with folks who don't crunch the numbers as much, the real treat is that casual players won't be abused by the system.

 

I'm not sold on 4th edition by any means. There are some things that make me ecstatic, such as getting rid of redundant checks for stealth and whatnot. I don't like the fact that governing attributes mean more because I hate virtually all character creation schemes and there is a special place in hell for weighted point buy. That and the fact that, while buying skills is the biggest pain to teach new players, at least they got the idea that training something over time was an important part of character development. Now, the two biggest factors for same level characters are attributes and a one time trained purchase. You may select some at creation and then burn a feat later.

 

I'm not sure I'm picking up the 4th edition books, which is a change from last time, when I purchased 3rd edition almost immediately. In the past, advocates of the cursed weighted point buy system cited it as a way to balance the game. I've argued that they're wrong because things like skill ranks diminished the impact of attributes anyhow. Now, however, we're a step closer to saying that attributes are king. A few more changes, say to feats, and attributes really will be the deciding factor, where they should only be a deciding factor.

 

The way I see it, some of these changes reinforce weighted point buy, but I've never shaken the notion that weighted point buy is nothing better than a player policing measure created by some guy who thinks it's unfair that those (munchkins, min-maxers, powergamers, insert some asinine label here) create characters with high attributes. I tell you what, they should implement a way to make sure that stat increases at every four levels are weighted also.

[Sammael]

I am not a fan of weighted point buy myself, and I hope they will use a non-weighted system as the default. I very much doubt that rolling for stats will be the default, particularly with the need to balance the characters used for Digital Initiative online play and RPGA games (it appears to me that they will try to bribe the DMs, via the reward system, to register all games as RPGA games; I always wanted to do that, but the "must schedule the game two weeks in advance" thing was retarded, as my work schedule and that of my players is way too hectic for us to know what we'll be doing in two weeks' time.

[Monte Carlo]

Weighted point buy: paper-scissor-stone, cookie cutter characters. Corporacy in D&D? FFS.

 

I once went to a game and created a character where the DM used a strict 4d6 discard the lowest, roll seven times, drop the lowest stat and arrange as you see fit system.* That's great, it's how I more or less always ran my games too. Except when he said, "You can't have any stat at 18."

 

When I asked why he said that it was "power-gaming." My arse. I'm playing a fantasy game, mate. I want to be a 20 STR half-orc carrying an axe as big as he is. Sue me. I don't want to talk fakespeare and read about basket-weaving crafting skills in your painfully researched home-brew.

 

It clearly wasn't going to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship so I walked.

 

* Just did it using a dice rolling programme, here's my half-orc fighter using the racial mods on top of my natural rolls:

 

STR 19

DEX 12

CON 14

INT 7

WIS 9

CHA 7

 

Wow, what a munchkin character! Don't tell me I could have done it with WPB because (a) where's the fun in that and (b) if I'd have got better scores I'd have used them!

 

Cheers

MC

[steelfiredragon]

im not completely sold on the 4.e either.

but i will wait and see.

i might get the frcs 4.e anyway, but thats not guarantied either.

 

ps the weighted point buy still sux.

 

as for 4e ill wait and see on how much they butchered it

[Stephen Amber]

Hopefully they axe the sorcerer... or at least alter it so it doesn't use the same spell lists as wizards. Something doesn't jive with that: in the one case the wizard uses intellect to decipher the formulae, or whatever the writing on scrolls contains, while the sorcerer gets an identical effect through charisma, force of will, spirit, or something intangible even if he/she is dumb as a box of rocks. Sorc should probably use some sort of mana system in a more narrow category of magic... an elementalist or something.

[steelfiredragon]

i always liked the mana system better than spell slots.

 

maybe they will axe the arcane archer too

[Sand]

Everyone practically uses mana. Name one ofther spell casting system in a PnP RPG that uses spell slots than the d20 System/DnD.

[Tale]

I like spell slots. Mana has always seemed uninspired to me.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Tale

[steelfiredragon]

either way you still have to be careful on how much a day you cast.

no matter difference of oppinion.

 

i hear they did away with the racial subrace stat blocks.

not sure this is a good idea.

[Tlantl]

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e

 

It seems obvious that there are those who are easily impressed with junk. I sit at the gaming table with my 3e books scratching my head. During my last gaming session I killed the party with a monster who's CR was one level less than the group's without doing any massive damage or casting instant kill spells. Just using the full attack action and the creatures own special abilities. The absolute need to carry more equipment than a small army just to be able to overcome damage resistance, spell resistance, energy resistance, and to augment the player's skill, feats, and ability scores is just plain stupid. Why must I give a party of 10th level characters 80,000 in gold just because they are 10th level. (77,314gp according to the DMG pg 54 3.5e) Where in the heck am I going to find that kind of money in a wilderness hundreds of miles away from the nearest town with enough people to have that kind of wealth. But, if the group doesn't have it they die. If I give an npc equipment to challenge the group they walk away with 20,000 in goods, before I even add henchmen (another dumb thing they did.) or other unrelated creatures who have the same outrageous treasure requirements. I know for a fact that your average player has near a million gold in assorted junk by tenth level I added it up on a DM run PC after reaching 11th level.

 

A new, better thought out approach to the game, is something I would appreciate. The only thing I would like more is for the return to the game in it's 1e form tweaked a little to define a few of the skill and combat options a little better. I hated having to make judgement calls all the time. But the skills as they are now are pretty overwhelming which makes creating new npcs a chore.

 

I think hating something that doesn't exist yet, is a sign of prejudicial thinking not objective thinking.

[Cantousent]

"I hated having to make judgement calls all the time."

 

I don't see how you can DM without making judgment calls all the time. Unless you take a prepackaged module from a prepackaged campaign and then forbid your players from trying anything creative in the least, you're going to make judgment calls as a DM.

[Iolo]

My only problem so far from what I have heard about 4th edition is the use of objects by the Wizards. From what I read, they have the use of Orbs, Wands, Staffs and Tomes as objects that are pretty much essential to always have. I read about this from this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/d...;authentic=true. You'll have to join D&D Insider to read it. I don't have a problem with some changes to Wizards like lower level spells being per encounter or at will but this seems like too much and seems like an attempt to make Wizards more like LOTR or Harry Potter or even Dresden Files.

 

What sets wizards apart from others who attempt to wield arcane magic are wizards

Edited September 17, 2007 by Iolo