Antioch's page

You are missing the point. Sites like Canonfire are not edition specific and never needed to be. You could write for a particular edition if you wanted to, but that only mattered for stat blocks and maybe a bit for the BECMI crowd. Now discussions there and other similar places are going to need to think about it. If a post comes in asking about eladrin, the first response is going to have to be: "uhh, do you mean the eladrin as celestials or the eladrin as faeries?" And you are gonna have folks who only play 1, 2, or 3 posting information that conflicts with what the only plays 4e guy is saying. And you'll have the same problem when someone asks about Pelor.. do you mean the GH Pelor? The 3e PHB Pelor? The 4e PHB Pelor? Because they aren't the same.

Cannonfire has a whopping 4500 people registered in the forums, and those forums are already divided into 1E & 2E, 3E, and 4E sections. Even in the download sections they note the edition for various material (such as adventures). Not that I exactly foresee a torrent of eladrin/archon articles flooding the site.

Again, if someone wants to post about 4th Edition eladrin, they can do so in the 4th Edition portion of the site. Otherwise, drop it in the other parts of the forums.

That could have been easily avoided but they didn't bother. They even said it was essentially laziness in the case of the gods' names/design.

Yes, it was probably extremely easy, but they were so busy high-fiving eachother on how they are bilking us out of money by making the game unplayable without laptops and a DDI subscription to be bothered to make a fun, functional game.

Oh, and I pointed out that the in your face aspect was unintentional. But there are still a lot of folks who reacted just like that. WotC may not give a rat's behind because quite a few are the sorts who probably wouldn't be going 4e anyway. But you really think its not going to cause needless problems for the people who run and post at Planewalker.com, for instance?

People who actually think that Wizards has "faced" them are taking it way too seriously, or are likely easy to offend.
Planewalker.com is, what, a stab at an unofficial 3rd Edition version of Planescape? I understand that it has a labeled 2nd Edition portion, but from what I'd gathered it was largely devoted to 3E.
It doesnt matter, since its not a 4th Edition source. Why would you go to a 3rd Edition site to get 4th Edition answers?

It's obvious.

What I mean by "tons" is everyone, from real life to message boards, loves multiclassing. Even the designers did it and ENCOURAGED it throughout 3rd Edition. You saw all sorts of characters and creatures, and that's what made 3rd Edition so fun, cool, and flexible.

Not everyone multiclasses, and certainly not everyone likes the way multiclassing works in 3rd Edition. I myself dislike the fact that its extremely punishing for any class that has something like spellcasting (which includes psionics, maneuvers, utterances, etc).
3rd Edition wasnt made "cool" by multiclassing. It might have been one potentially fun/crippling mechanic, but it didnt make or break the game.

To restrict multiclassing to this horrible hack, I believe, is only going to anger those very same people. I wouldn't even call it multiclassing, more like "dipping". That's not multiclassing and people are definitely going to want that back.

I actually like this new method, which disproves your claim that "everyone" likes the way 3E does it, and thus "everyone" will hate this method. The way I see it, this is helps to ensure that what you multiclass into is powerful enough for your level (since all powers scale appropriately), you arent swamped with more powers than you know what to do with (since you essentially are enabling yourself to choose your new abilities from two classes instead of one), and its less prone to power abuse.

Personally, were I playing 4E, I'd do it the way 3E did. If you're a Warlord level 5, and hit level 6 and want to make it a Fighter, then I will grant it and all abilities for the 1st-level Fighter.

I suppose you could do that and it could work out pretty well, since you can only "know" a set number of powers based on your level. I think Mike Mearls came out and said that if you really wanted, you could theoretically allow players to pick powers from other classes and it would work out mostly okay.
For example, in a military game, you could allow anyone to pick from the warlord list and it probably wouldnt break the game.

I believe a ton of people will do that.

I dont think so, as your model would likely break the game in the following ways:
Since BAB and Defenses scale a set way based on your level and not your class level, a player could keep multiclassing into other classes for the Defense bonuses and have them scale up way to high for their level, but they wouldnt suffer in other areas such as BAB (which is a problem with multiclassing sometimes).
Also, if you literally mean everything, you would get characters with 4+ at-will powers as well as a hefty chunk of encounter/daily powers. Now, these powers might not scale as well. I guess it depends on your level distribution. You might get a character rolling out twice as many daily powers as the other guy, allowing the party to easily trounce...anything, but if they scale poorly then you end up back in the 3E boat where characters are just too craptacular to function properly.

I mean, this would anger my players even more if I personally ended up going 4th. I have a player with a Paladin 8/Fighter 2/Cavalier 5. He's worked and advanced as a paladin to a specific point, became a master at mounted combat and riding, and slowed progression of his rise through those two to increase his combat capability. That's how he sees his character and it was all set on heavy RP and story development.

So, he basically plays a paladin with fighter training, and then you give him some kind of mounted paragon path? Or better yet, he can just stick with paladin and go into a mounted paragon path. Of course, since people cant actually guage a character's exact class/level distribution, he could just as easily go paladin and some other paragon path entirely, but spend feats on mounted stuff.
Whose going to know? How will anyone tell that he doesnt have those fighter levels?

My group is going to LOVE this, as they can now spread out their character without fear of having a character who barely scrapes by.

I have a another who has a Ranger 11/Fighter 1/Shadowdancer 2/Tempest 4. He's a ranger of Mielikki, who slowed advancement in his path to learn new fighting techniques, was stranded on the Plane of Shadow and developed shadow-abilities upon returning to the Material Plane (hence the Shadowdancer levels) and is becoming a two-weapon fighting master (through Tempest) beyond what other two-weapon fighters could accomplish. He's known as the Ranger of the Shadows, able to hide as if he were invisible and even in plain sight within dark areas. I can go on, but you get the point.

So...ranger with some rogue powers and that ranger paragon path that makes you better with two weapons? Perhaps a ranger/rogue with a paragon path centered around a shadow-theme. Again, how can anyone tell that you dont have that one stupid fighter level? I would daresay that this would be dipping.

3E allowed these awesome concepts through their balanced and unrestrictive multiclassing rules.

Ah, but they ARE unbalanced and restrictive. There are some concepts that just dont work (unbalanced) and thus people dont do them (restrictive). A fighter/wizard is a prime example of this. Sure, you can get halfway decent with it, eventually. Maybe.
You could just go with a duskblade or other class that manages a multiclass combo in a more functional way (and with only one class to boot!), but then you are still forgoing it.
Or, you could use more globally working mechanics.

4E is destroying this. You can't even accomplish half of what those 2 characters have with 4E rules and probably never will, at least not without house ruling a bunch of things.

Not really, without knowing the full rules I just illustrated a way to get the point mostly across. Not bad, especially for a game with drastically overhauled mechanics.
I think I'm in a worse situation than you are, half of my group is playing characters with classes that wont even exist, but I'm not complaining. As long as we get the basic ideas across and have FUN, we're not going to nitpick that the class has a different name.

Playing 4E, they'd have to trash their characters because 4E doesn';t allow the flexibility needed to bring those characters back. I wouldn't call this "Multiclassing", it should be renamed "Class Dipping" cause that's all it really is.

I disagree. I’m strongly considering converting my Age of Worms campaign to 4th Edition, and I have a cleric/divine mind/divine theurge, bard/seeker of the song, and artificer to contend with. There was a guy gunning with a conjuring sorcerer, but we can just go wizard with the Cha modifier as well.
For the cleric guy, we’ll likely multiclass him into wizard and do some name changes on the powers he selects. I’ll probably create divine theurge as a paragon path. For the bard, she’ll probably do a full change into warlord with some wizard multiclassing (though we’ll link it up to Charisma instead of Intelligence).

The basic concepts of the characters will carry across, and everyone ends up happy.

And you guys say that's a GOOD thing? Funny.

And you DON’T think it’s a good thing? Funny.

What else is destroyed in D&D next, I wonder? Oh yeah, it's not D&D, I forgot, it's W&D (Wizards&Dragons), cause it sure as heck ain't the D&D I know for the 12 years I've played it. Enjoy your MMORPG on paper folks.

You see these things as destroyed, but most of us don’t. You have an edition of D&D that you are apparently perfectly happy with, and no one here is showing up to mock you and your “crappy Edition”. You have perfection, I guess, but still aren’t satisfied with that?

4th Edition IS the new D&D, get over it.

I was going to continue with Pathfinder, as it seemed pretty cool. However, I realized that my play schedule is only weekly, and since Wizards is beginning to publish their own modules now, I'd rather stick with them instead of getting stuff from Paizo that I have to spend time to convert over on top of normal routine planning.
Personally, I dont exactly have a lot of free time, so thats an added step that I'm happy to do without.

Razz wrote:

You can only dip in ONE extra class. And only dip.

These rules are stupid. I know a ton of people who will simply ignore this style of multiclassing...

So...can we infer that you know a ton of people who will be playing 4E? That just seems odd, because I seem to remember you saying that no one you know has any plans to ever play 4E, whereas this implies you know many. Or maybe you just know a few and they are really, really fat?

;-)

Whenever Razz says "lots" or "tons" or "everyone he knows", I presume he is just referring to himself and his circle of gamers. Definitely not the majority body of gamers: not anywhere close.

Razz wrote:

...If I want a Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 10, I should be able to have that...

What you fail to see is that you won't be able to play the mechanical aspect of the Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 10, but the CONCEPT of that character.

In 3E you say :" I'll play a fighter/rogue/ranger."

In 4E you say :"I'll play a mobile striker/defender hybrid"

Which can be a Warlock/Paladin, Warlock/Fighter, Rogue/Fighter, Rogue/Paladin, Ranger/Paladin or Ranger/Fighter.

Stop thinking about the mechanical aspect of 3E...think in concept.

Thats my thought as well. Playing a character that emphasizes the concepts of that class combination will not only still be feasible, but also likely much more functional as well.

Of course the concept of a rogue/ranger/fighter is made even easier if you choose the two-weapon style ranger, which still exists in 4th Edition, since the rogue and fighter are likewise melee-oriented.

I was kind of concerned about that initially. I thought, "A lot of these powers are basically deal damage and perhaps do something else neat." When I compared the attack powers to the options that classes get in general, I quickly realized that EVERY class has stuff that does basically the same thing.
Sure, the wizard spell writeups differ from the fighters weapon block, but both are just damage dealing actions. They do it in different ways, and sometimes deal different damage types, but the end result is just style.
Compare THAT to the fact that most classes in 3rd Edition basically do weapon damage for their attacks, and its actually pretty dry. A barbarian might occasionally rage, and a ranger might use two weapons, but they are just making routine attack rolls for routine damage.
Since combat is part of almost every D&D game, making it as elaborate and fun as possible makes a lot of sense.

I'm no longer concerned that some classes might have very similar combat powers. I'm sure that more than one is going to be deal X type of damage and push creature one square. Thats totally fine by me. After all, there are only so many different things that they can use, but its still more elaborate than what 3rd Edition does, which could be summed up as "make attack rolls back and forth until the monster dies."
Sure, a DM can attempt to describe attacks, but there are only so many varieties on explaining how the fighter hits the monster with his sword. By including stuff like, "push the monster about", the player can get more engaged in the game whether or not the DM is actively describing every action.

Sounds like you had a fun time!

I have a question: Did you feel like you had a good variety of things to do among the party? I haven't been following every piece of information regarding 4E so far, but somehow I got the impression that combat could end up something like:

DM: You encounter 5 hobgoblins.
Wizard: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and makes the target unable to move for 1 round.
Fighter: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and shifts the target one square.
Cleric: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and heals some hp.
Rogue: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and allows me to move one square.
DM: O.K. The hobgoblins attack now, using their per-encounter abilities. They do some damage, and you move some squares.
Wizard: I use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Fighter: I also use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Cleric: I also...etc., etc.

O.K., that's probably a huge exaggeration. :) But did you like the range of abilities that people had available?

I know that a few people are upset about the powers that are doled out to every class, but the way I see it is that even a fighter getting all of two unique attack forms each round (such as Tide of Iron or Cleave), its still three times as many choices that they would otherwise be choosing from (including the basic attack that most fighters just end up doing anyway).

So, if the players are going to just sit there and say "I use my encounter power that deals X damage and does Y", they were probably just saying "I attack" in 3rd Edition. If players are more into the game, or the DM is into describing the action, then its probably going to be just the same, if not more so because the DM now has variations to work with.
For example, a DM can describe a basic attack as a sword slash, but if the character uses Tide of Iron, he can now describe the shield bash effect and have it actually DO something.

Razz wrote:

You can only dip in ONE extra class. And only dip.

These rules are stupid. I know a ton of people who will simply ignore this style of multiclassing and go back to the way it's supposed to be done in 3E. No one I know "dips" into a class. And many people I know grab more than one, to better suit their style of play and character.

These multiclass rules are RESTRICTIVE. If I want a Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 10, I should be able to have that. 4E is becoming as restrictive as 2e, it seems.

I am surprised some of you even like this, because I know tons who will hurl at the sight of this. There's no point in multiclassing in this game anymore with those rules.

Here you are not correct. Wotc mentioned that you can exchange your paragon path to take a second class, so it is not that restrictive.

And I cannot understand the point in creating that type of character except for min/max. This style can be created through the use of prestige classes (for 3rd) and (I suppose) paragon paths much easier.

On the other hand, spending just a feat you can dip (liked the word) at a feature of another class that you like without so much as creating unbalanced characters. Perfect.

Ah, I'd forgotten about swapping your paragon path. I dont expect Razz to actually acknowledge this counterpoint, except perhaps to say that well, you still cant play a fighter/ex-monk/rogue/wizard.

You can only dip in ONE extra class. And only dip.

These rules are stupid. I know a ton of people who will simply ignore this style of multiclassing and go back to the way it's supposed to be done in 3E. No one I know "dips" into a class. And many people I know grab more than one, to better suit their style of play and character.

Why do you think the rules are stupid? Remember that characters have the same progressions when it comes to attack bonus and Defense increases, so all thats left to really tackle are class-specific powers.
Did you have a problem with how multiclassing evolved from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition?
See, everyone that I know rarely multiclasses except to transition into a presige class. Occasionally someone may go into another class, but its always been to just try to meet the requirements for a prestige class (such as a class that requires both divine spellcasting and psionic manifesting).
Otherwise, I've tried to pull of a fighter/wizard character at the start of 3rd Edition, and I basically had to stick to scribing and using scrolls in order to be effective at spellcasting (or just using spells that had long durations).
However, I dont forsee players grabbing more than one extra class in almost all situations, especially given how classes scale (as in, if you dont play a full wizard, you are underpowered for your level).

These multiclass rules are RESTRICTIVE. If I want a Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 10, I should be able to have that. 4E is becoming as restrictive as 2e, it seems.

No, they are not. They are far more flexible than they were before, as now it opens the door for constructive and effective multiclassing between spellcasting classes. Actually, ANY class combo has no become not only viable, but useful. This means that a tactical wizard can take warlord powers and better control the flow of combat, or a cleric devoted to some god of stealage can pick up rogue powers to help represent that. A fighter could also better fit the assassin mold by taking rogue powers.
See, here's the thing, the class combination that you cite is basically a heavy melee character that may have high mobility (depends on how much armor you are wearing). You can take Trapfinding as a feat to do the rogue bit with traps, and you can just take multiclass feats to pick up ranger powers. Whose going to know that you actually dont have Sneak Attack?
Of course, not that I actually expect anyone to play that kind of combination: I'm sure you threw it out as another extreme example to prove some kind of point. I mean, the fighter is basically a bonus feat giver, and I'd think it would be more effective to play just a rogue/ranger, unless you really, REALLY wanted that tower shield proficiency.
Oh, and hopefully you were playing a human, half-elf, or dwarf with that combo, otherwise go ahead and take a 40% XP penalty.

I am surprised some of you even like this, because I know tons who will hurl at the sight of this. There's no point in multiclassing in this game anymore with those rules.

I'm surprised you dont, because I know a ton of people who will absolutely LOVE this, as they can now play a character with spellcasting utility and actually be good at it.
Okay, I liked. I'm not surprised that you hate this, as you seem to automatically hate any and everything 4th Edition simply by association.

I really like this, as it does exactly what multiclassing is intended to do without allowing for overpowered combos or characters that are just too crappy to function properly.
It fixes the problems of previous editions by allowing some iconic characters to be feasible and functional (such as a fighter/wizard). Even better, it allows for spellcasters in general to effectively multiclass.

It also helps alleviate the complaints of, "It took my character years to become a wizard, how come Bob the Fighter got all the same spells I did in only a few weeks time?!"
You can cite RPing all you like, but its certainly not required: characters can apparently spontaneously acquire arcane powers instantly. Generally in my games I always assumed that such research or practice was taking place behind the scenes, even if I had to do so retroactively, but having a character gain a single power at a time (or other powers in place of the ones that they would get) makes far more sense/is more reasonable in the narrative context.

I dont mind the one-class limitation, either. I cant think of many people who spread themselves out into more than one other class anyway, not counting prestige classes.

Antioch,

The only problem with them recycling the names is that you are creating a generation gap in communication. Maybe you only talk to folks playing the latest edition, but there are lots of places where folks playing a variety of editions of D&D mingle. The fact that eladrin used to be celestials and now are faeries... or that archons used to be angels and now are elementals... is that every time I want to talk about archons or eladrin in a post or article, I now have to specify what I'm talking about. That's never been an issue before. Writing edition free fan articles is now much more difficult than it was before. Until 4e comes out, I can write a 'fluff' article and post it on canonfire and it'll be equally useful to a 1e, 2e, or 3e guy. In the future, I'll have to add a bunch of verbiage to cover 4e as well. That's annoying. They could have stopped using the old stuff and come up with new stuff and that wouldn't have been a problem. Now you can argue that WotC shouldn't care about that and you might be right. But its just a needless 'in your face', intentional or not, that is going to be a constant annoyance going forward.

Assuming that you were writing something for prior D&D editions, and the material happened to overlap, you could just as easily distinguish it by citing the relevant edition somewhere in the article's title, subtitle, or somewhere near the top.
Failing that, if you manage some kind of article archive, you could also organize them by edition (which is how I would do things anyway, assuming I wanted to write for older editions of a game).

Now, assuming I am regaling an game story to some friends, I'd just say what I already do now, opening it up with, "I remember back when I used to play 2nd Edition..."
See, I played 2nd Edition and even transitioned a character to 3rd Edition. I already HAVE to start off my stories ahead of time by telling whomever which edition I was playing my human fighter in, just to keep things clear.

Finally, you could look at the new naming conventions as an "in-your-face-thing", if you want. I dont see why you would, as I doubt that Wizards had any kind of baleful intention behind removing past symmetries for the same of symmetry and keeping some need-sounding names for other, more unique things.

Most of those changes between older editions were mechanics. Mechanics changes are not a problem. And yes, I would have preferred that they didn't turn eladrin into a type of elf and archons into a type of elemental and so on. If they were similar things with different mechanics it would have been better.

I disagree. I think when it comes to mechanics and background, that mechanics pose a larger problem during transition between editions, as it requires players to learn new things, forget old things, and can cause problems as players attempt to remember the "right version" of the rules they are dealing with.
We still poke fun at some 2nd Edition rules, when you had a bend bars/lift gates percentage, as well as the fighter iterative attacks.

The reason I dont have a problem with altering background material is because D&D is a sandbox game. Many groups run their own campaign settings that deviate from the implied setting of the books themselves, or use published campaign settings that ALSO deviate from the implied setting.
People are upset about the Great Wheel cosmology getting the axe? I used it during my Planescape days, not that the arrangement actually mattered (for all I cared, it could have been a neat, orderly row and nothing would really change except for the map of the planes that is allegedly not accurate anyway).
People are upset that the angel-formerly-known-as-archon got the axe? Well, we dont know if the monster themselves got the axe, but certainly a name-change (which is easy enough to fix, just change it BACK).
Eladrin didnt actually go anywhere. They got a noble prefix, and thats it. They still exist, looking and acting much like they did before, if my bralani mini and stat card is any indication of this.
It just really sounds like people are griping because they arent re-publishing the same implied setting in this new edition.

And it may well prove that they have all this cool non combat stuff hidden away. I just find it very odd that after all this time and all these revelations, next to none of it has made an appearance anywhere. That strikes me as speaking volumes about what they think is important.

They're doling out various crunchy bits that we are familiar with, to give a good comparison. They threw out the rogue class so we could compare and contrast to the old rogue class. The same goes with feats, paladin abilities, and monster stats. This gives us an idea of how things will differ from the old edition.
Now, they have mentioned rules that arent for combat before, and people have were able to check those out during D&D XP. They just havent posted the fine details as part of a preview article (perhaps due to it taking up too much space/revealing more than what they want with a preview).
This does go right back to the fact that D&D is an action-oriented game, so giving us small reveals of the action bits makes perfect sense.

I'm well aware that most people prefer to play D&D as a combat intensive game. Its one of the reasons that I hardly ever buy D&D modules and don't subscribe to Dungeon magazine.

Well, since 4th Edition openly supports non-combat challenges right out of the gate, then it should appeal to you moreso: you could more easily design entire adventures without combat and still accurately challenge and reward players.

However, I think you have no basis for saying that "most" people seem to like the changes. Neither of us knows what the majority of folks think about that. Most of the folks still posting on this forum after the pathfinder announcement maybe... Not really sure what your point is.. I should shut up because you claim to have majority support? What else is there to express about fluff except opinion?

Assuming you are just referring to the story changes (cosmology, appearance of monsters, names of monsters, etc), I'm sure that if the majority rule had a problem that it would have been changed. We know that a fighter exploit got its named changed (Dragon Tail Cut) due to being "too lame", or whatever.
Background material is very easy to change, names even more so, and if people didnt like that the name archon got reapplied to a different creature that they could have just called them something else.
If most of the people were clamoring for a symmetrical, unified existence, then I'm sure Wizards could have just puts some polish on the material that some players grew up on for 30 or so years and just called it good.

Antioch,

HOw is your argument not just "make it all up yourself"? And if it is, why do I even need to buy the new book? Obviously, an experienced DM knows how to change stats or make things up to use monsters in different situations. But where is there any evidence that the game is supporting new DMs in doing that or providing examples?

Since we dont have the books, I can only go off of the rave review that Nick gave us about the DMG. From the sounds of things, its got heaps of great advice for running a game.
Actually, the article on monsters explains how to pretty easily and quickly modify and level-up monsters.
Finally, many monsters have two or more stat blocks that make them ideal for differing situations (such as a monster geared for sniping the party, and another stat block that makes the same guy ideal at being a more fighter-ish type).

If the game only stats out combat for the monsters and only shows examples of using monsters in combat, don't you think that most folks not already familiar with a broader playstyle are going do end up with a combat intensive campaign?

I think that 4th Edition actually emphasizes using monsters for more than XP grinds, seeing as it now includes rules and inherent XP awards for skill challenges of various stripes. Basically, your fear sounds completely unwarranted.
However, I will point out that combat does encompass the lion's share of most D&D adventures. I would point out 150 issues of Dungeon magazine and numerous published modules as proof of this.

They can make up new background and story if they want. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them recycling names and using them for fundamentally different concepts, because that's going to lead to confusion in conversation between players of different editions (something that's not been an issue before). In 1/2/3e Eladrin and Archon mean one thing; in 4e they mean something substantially different.

So, would you have preferred them remove specific things from the game that made it seem too artificial and generate a list of words that they could never, EVER use again for fear of confusing players?
The fact is that they were going to remove all of the symmetry from the background anyway. Some of the terms and names are pretty neat, and I'm glad that they applied them after giving some things the axe.
There are things in 3rd Edition that worked a lot differently than in 2nd Edition that already give rise to stories of, "I remember back in the day when..."

I do wish that they spent more effort on being creative in their new stuff instead of going down the path of least resistance.. like using gods from existing campaign worlds, making all angels generic, and so on. Some of the stuff they are doing is great, like the Feywild and the Shadowfell (though I'm not sold on the names, especially). A lot of stuff isn't.

I dont see making angels generic as the easy way out. I think they wanted to ensure that published material would get used as often as possible. To me, thats more bang for my buck.
Frankly, I like virtually all of the stuff I've heard thus far.

And no matter how many times you tell me that I don't need to use the new material that still won't become a valid rebuttal to criticism of the new material's quality.

The quality is certainly your opinion, but its just that. From the sounds of things, most people seem to prefer the new stuff.

*sigh*. WotC lost me on 4th Edition a long time ago, and this article pretty much embodies everything that I disagreed with: needless changes to long established game lore, monsters that only serves as something to test your new and cool(tm) power on, and a general disregard for the tradition and flavour of D&D.

You might think thats its "needless", but I think that introducing new background material is a great thing. Certainly better than rehashing what we already knew three editions ago.
I dont get where you are drawing the conclusion that monsters are somehow less conducive to non-combat situations, but it seems to be a popular misconception.

The thing that saddens me the most is that the new players 4E will inevitably attract will think this is all D&D is, not realising what a full and rich metastory D&D used to have. Sure, that might be just how I feel, but with a game that becomes as personal as D&D such things need to be taken into account.

The thing that saddens me is that a few people think that the old D&D story was just sooo great and perfect, and at the same time think that all Wizards should be doing is repeating it again and again with every new edition. Of course, this is done all the while failing to realize that if you think its a great and wondrous tapestry that you can just, you know, KEEP USING IT.

Antioch wrote:

Are you saying that MOST groups DO fight angels?

No, but my sense is that WotC is stereotyping gamers and their games inaccurately.

Players certainly, in my experience, don't conform to standard roles and behaviors that WotC seems to be assuming.

My sense tells me that what they are doing is catering to the majority of D&D players, seeing as they have access to surveys, message boards, email messages, letters, and personal discussions with D&D players, and thus are a pretty good authority figure on what the mainstream likes and dislikes of D&D are.

This explains so much -- they really have no idea what people do in their games.

Are you saying that MOST groups DO fight angels?

Let me translate: "Pasting the names of iconic monsters of the D&D game on superficially-related new creatures with went hand in glove with our intent to trash the setting, ratchet up the power-gaming mechanics, so as to maximize revenue and profit."

I've been off the boards for a while, and I'm feeling angry and spiteful.

I disagree, but only because I'd rather not purchase the same books with the same story and background as the last edition. If I wanna use that stuff, I can just run 3rd Edition.

If all the gods are closely related and essentially on the same team, then they would likely have some similarity in their servants. But if the gods are distinct in origin, opposed to each other (or divided into some number of opposing teams), the idea that they have the same servants is extremely boring.

Angels are creations of the Astral Sea that serve whomever best fits the ideals that they encompass. It was explained in the article that many gods have need for servants that essentially do the same thing (fight, defend, lead, etc), and it makes a lot of sense, especially considering the fact that the gods didnt create angels themselves.

Bane and Bahamut ought not both have the same sort of 'angels of retribution' for punishing wrongdoers. Its uninteresting and makes them less distinctive. Arguably, an Inevitable and a Retriever both do the same thing: go deal with someone who has offended a god (or principle) of the relevant alignment. But there is substantial flavor added by them not both being functionally identical (except possibly for personality, if that comes up)

Do you think that angels that serve Bane should go about dealing retribution in a different style than the ones that serve Bahamut? Or that they should just look different?

But D&D generally botches religion anyway and 4e is striving to go further down the flavorless path. But that probably works for them, since quite likely the majority of players couldn't care less about anything actually religious and just want a name of a god to shout in battle. Worlds like Glorantha and Tekumel, where they actually put some thought into the religion as opposed to lists of gods, are few and far between. And don't have particularly interesting market shares.

Eh, Tekumel doesnt seem to be a sandbox RPG, but a game that uses a pre-established world, so it makes sense that they can cram in more background. D&D usually has group-specific settings, so its not really worthwhile to go into finer detail on those sorts of things. Thats what Dragon articles and campaign settings are for.

For a 10th-level bard, I was able to fit her known spells on a little over half of a sheet of paper, typed at 8.5. They are only single sentences that very, very briefly state what the spells do.
Something like: "Inspirational Boost: Immediate action, bardic music grants +1 bonus."
Accurate? Hell no. I just started assuming that it lasts as long as her bardic music does (it might have a duration, I dont remember, but combat doesnt generally last long anyway). Virtually all of the spells look like that, and we basically trust each other to remember the finer details (such as range) when it comes into play.
It mostly works, but I would rather have the powers themselves do what they are supposed to do AND be pretty brief.

Fluff wise, everyone has angels is pretty lame but its a lot easier for the game designers in a setting neutral situation. The reality is that unique servitors ought to be developed for each god or group of closely related gods. But you can't do that except in the context of a Campaign Setting book and its probably not considered a good use of space in such anyway.

I'm curious as to why every god (good or evil) having unwavering servitors to their cause is a lame idea?

Also, why should every god have completely unique servants?

My concern isn't some much with the change in background to angels. I like that hexter might have angels of war that serve him. I was a little disappointed with the actual game stats for the creatures. I just thought they seemed a little bland. The 19th level angel brute, doesn't have much beyond a single melee attack, a little teleport power, and a ranged electrical strike (I think that's what it was). I was hoping for some cool s@&& that it could lay down, but there doesn't seem to be that much.

I realize that they are attempting to simplify the monsters a little to make them easier to play, but I don't want too much water in my beer.

I also undestand that these monsters are supposed to be used along with other monsters and not just on their own, so I assume the idea is that keeping them simple will make it easier to run a fight with a host of angels, and that different angels will have different roles, which will allow them to do different things in a fight. I suspect that the design logic is that combining a few brute angels with some angels that have more artillery or ambush powers could make for an interesting fight that is still manageable. Thus, the simplification of the stats might be a good thing- the thought of running a battle with a host (ie 8+) of powerful 3E angels against a party is a little daunting, given all the different options at their disposal. However, if the 19th level angel brute is intended to be used as some kind of solo opponent, then I think we are in trouble, as he doesn't look like he has the bag of tricks needed to make that kind of a fight interesting.

I'm interested to see what kind of options the books offer dms who wish to beef up monsters like this to make them more suitable to run as boss villains. For instance, I understand that Orcus is in the MM, I'd like to see his stat block, and see what kind of options he still has at his disposal, because his 3E stats (particularly the CR 32 ones presented in the dungeon and dragon mags) still give him lots of options and...

Having play tested a simple 1st-level game using the kobold stats and 1st-level delve pregens, even monsters that only have a couple options are surprisingly dynamic and fun to run as a DM. Its really like having your own little mini-party, but I also like to think of it like this:

A DM is only one person. Before in 3rd Edition, it was assumed that you would have only a couple of monsters at a time, if that (and many monsters dont really have that much aside from mundane melee attacks, either).

Now that you are supposed to use many more monsters at a time (at least as many as the party, if not more), you have to understand that EACH of these guys has a handful of options to fallback on, so its really not like you are getting less things to decide each round (the options might be smaller, but the number of monsters is overall higher).

Now factor in that some monsters have reactions and immediate actions to take (goblins shifting whenever you miss them, getting smacked by a dragon's tail when you miss them, etc), and you have plenty to do and track each round.

So, if I want the party to fight a small host of angels, I'm glad that I'm not getting bogged down with pointless spells that wont really contribute at all (such as detect magic or light): for a fight, I need fightin' stats.
If I want to use them for something else, then I wont need the stats at all. Well, maybe their skills, if they happen to be relevant to what I need them for.

As for the sample angel of vengeance? He's an elite guy. However, I'm not so sure how encounter building works in paragon tier because apparently a balanced encounter at level 19 includes two elites and five 21st-level minions. I had enough fun with a whopping five kobolds in a 1st-level battle, so I'm eager to see how fun it is later in the game.

Um, WotC, not everything in D&D was meant to kill and loot. Did you forget it's a ROLE PLAYING GAME already!?
And, yes, with good story the heroes can, and should at some point, end up fighting the good guys. Are you insulting our creativity here?

Which just tells me that you either do not know what role-playing actually means, or you only consider that part of the game when you talk to be role-playing.

As it should always be. That was the D&D mythology, which you should've left alone. Instead, you tore it apart and made it so unlike D&D, you have some nerve still calling it D&D.

If you liked the old D&D mythology, you are well within your rights to continue using that. Whining that they changed some story doesnt carry any weight since you can easily keep doing what you were doing and just ignore it.
Get over it, its D&D.

These guys are fresh, new blooded, suits. They know NOTHING about D&D's long history. The evil deities were served by demons and devils, their own creations, or whatever. Who says demons and devils can't be servants of the deities? Tiamat did it with the abishai. Evil creatures lived in Pandemonium but had nothing to do with Erythnul? Then the simple solution would've been to give Erythnul his own servants! Not destroy the concept of angels/celestials in D&D for your own greed!

You probably would have complained that they gave evil gods their own servants, or something. You dont seem particularly conducive to change. I find it strange that you accuse them of allegedly "destroying" the game over greed: they could have just as easily kept rehashing old concepts and material if they just wanted money out of the relationship.

You mean to maximize profit and to maximize hack&slash gaming.

No, they meant what they said. I know you want to think that they are somehow removing all elements from the game aside from combat (even though its a majority shareholder when it comes to game time) and accuse them of being greedy, or appealing to moronic children, or whatever reason pops in your head at the time, but the fact is that you can still talk to other characters, and I dunno, weave baskets.

Maybe in your campaign, not the rest of ours.
WotC, the more excerpts I read, the more I wonder if you have any sense of dignity left with the D&D brand name. I prefer WotC&Dragons or maybe Wizards&Dragons. Because this is NOT Dungeons&Dragons as we all know it to be.

Actually, I like this idea. I'm sure a LOT of other people do as well, Razz. It would have been more accurate to say, "Not in MY campaign, and perhaps not in other peoples' campaigns, either." It sounds like that you are trying to be a kind of universal voice for "the people". Not everyone agrees with you, even here.
Not that I expected any action from Wizards of the Coast, aside from declaring the whole thing a hoax and reprinting old books, to satisfy you.
I'm sorry to say that many of us, even those who dont play World of WarCraft and can do basic addition, are looking forward to the new edition.

Now to make my own post instead of a response...

I really like the new direction that angels have gone. Though I'm not especially happy with the minis thus far, I DO like that they are of varied enough power to make them much more usable in a campaign, and that since they can serve any cause that I can more readily use them, period.

This means that I can still have an angel harass the players due to misinformation if I so choose, but I can just as easily use the same stat block to represent a servant of an evil deity. Its more flexible, which makes it more useful, which means less wasted space.

I'm sure that a LOT of groups have used celestial creatures from time to time, but I think that many groups use them rarely, if ever due to their alignment and power level. Does this mean that you HAVE to use angels as part of encounters?
Not at all. You can still have devils serving evil gods if you want, and I doubt anything is going to suffer for it.

Last time I took on an angel would be a Living Greyhawk module, last year. Last time my Age of Worms party took on an angel would be last year, due to events in one of the adventures.

"Never" is pretty short these days?

I don't know if I can meld the "devils as fallen angels" idea with "angels are of all alignments" idea. Also, the devil articles note that devils already serve the evil gods, so I'm not sold on the idea that evil angels were needed to "fill in the gaps" of divine servants for the darker powers. Seems like the fluff contradicts a bit there. If devils are just fallen GOOD angels, why are they so different from non-fallen evil angels?

Said to say, I think this grew out of a desire to have everything in the MM be "fightable".

I'd like to add a positive closing thought, but the angels are a decided no-vote for me. I want my devas back :)

Edit: Ok, I like the idea of rank-and-file angels that aren't just tied to certain group of planar missions (like movanic devas and the prime material, for example).

I've never actually had any DM throw an angel at us, and likewise have never included one to fight.

Partly its because many celestial creatures are pretty powerful things to fight, and partly because I wanted to avoid the cliche of a fallen angel, and partly because I wanted to avoid the cliche of a misinformed angel.
As far as I'd read, devils do their own thing with Asmodeus and might occasionally help out evil gods as part of a bargain, but mostly evil gods will just utilize their own angels.

Alright, so this is basically a semantics deal? Evil servitors that aren't demons or devils are a fine addition to the game, but I don't know that there is anything especially noteworthy in calling them "angels". At least, not unless its going to result in all the gods having fundamentally similar servants, which seems unlikely to be a good idea.

Anyway, I can't say that I buy the core concept that "if the players don't fight it, its a waste of space" which seems to behind this name game.

According to the article, this basically means that all gods WILL have the same servants that just serve different ideals. An angel of valor for one god is the same as an angel of valor for another god. This allows them to publish stats for monsters that are more likely to get used.

I like this idea because it means I can more readily use angels in encounters of various types, even combat ones.

I recall a time not too long ago that people were asking Paizo for spell cards. And remember Paizo offers item cards.

Antioch, I appreciate your tone in defending 4e. You have much more patience than I do.

Its...adequate, I suppose, warm up for my college writing class. :-)

I take no issues with people who dont like 4th Edition. If it doesnt appeal to you, great. My problem is when people claim that they hate it for invented reasons.
An example is people who STILL complain that gnomes arent in the game, despite us knowing that they were in a looong time ago.
Other examples are unkillable PCs, requiring DDI to play, and that your prior D&D campaigns will explode.

Antioch wrote:

Many people use cards of some sort to track spells, spell-like abilities, familiar stats, summon stats, and monster stats. The use of note cards is not new at all or native to just the D&D RPG.
DDM is a simplified combat-only version of D&D. D&D doesnt use DDM rules, DDM uses D&D rules.

Well, I loathe 4e, but would someone explain to me what it is about cards ?

I have fallen a bit behind on reading about this stuff.

Basically if you have trouble remembering what some of the abilities do, you can jot them down on note cards. They are actually including cards formatted to the layout of the powers with the Character Sheets, so you can arrange them all "official" like.

Now, not all of the powers appear to be so complicated as to require complete cards. For example, Tide of Iron is just "make an attack, push a creature back, move into space if you want". Easy to remember, but I dont expect everyone to be able to remember all of their stuff, especially at higher levels.
Razz is using this as one of many things to justify to himself why he hates 4th Edition so, despite the fact that many people use cards already to remind them of class features, spells, sometimes feats, and statistical data (summons, companions, familiars, mounts, etc).

You're right. It's not JUST like WoW at all.

It's a mixture of WoW, CCG, Miniatures skirmish, and video gaming all on a tabletop RPG. I mean, heck, after that last few excerpt articles, we can now call 4E a "card game" what with a ton of power cards around the character sheet, an "enhanced miniatures" game due to it being played exactly like DDM except with a bit more complexity and control, and like MMORPGs, well, because WotC admitted as much and want that demographic to hopefully bring them tons of cash.

Many people use cards of some sort to track spells, spell-like abilities, familiar stats, summon stats, and monster stats. The use of note cards is not new at all or native to just the D&D RPG.
DDM is a simplified combat-only version of D&D. D&D doesnt use DDM rules, DDM uses D&D rules.
Finally, D&D is only really WoW-ish in the sense that they are both fantasy RPGs.

Oh, lets not forget the DDI subscription for "extra material"...obviously material you will NEED if you want more material (which, of course, anyone would want).

Incorrect. You will not need a DDI account to play D&D. This has been clarified since they started talking about DDI.

All of which, to me and many others, is NOT D&D. At this point, I will call out those who still believe this is a tabletop game and still D&D as those in true denial. Admit it's not D&D, it's WotC's own game, and move on. Gygax D&D is dead.

Hope I cleared your confusion.

I disagree. You can call me out all you want, but I think that YOU are the one who is in denial that D&D is changing. Whether or not you personally like it is irrelevant to the fact that its still D&D.

I think most people who have spent a little time on the 4E boards here have figured out that Razz has been overtaken with his rage (I imagine it kinda like 28 Days Later, with him running through the streets slaughtering those who refuse to play 3E with him).

I'm not sure if anyone takes him too seriously anymore (but I guess I could be wrong)

Cheers! :)

Edit: No offense meant to Razz of course. In person I'm sure we'd get along fine. His online persona can be a bit unhinged at times however. :)

I try not to, but its fun disassembling what might constitute as an argument and refuting what he considers claims.

Generally I tend to ignore him because I cant remember him ever having anything valid to contribute to the whole 4th Edition thing.

Uhh, he meant 'core' in the sense of SRD only, not "everything that WotC has published itself". So all those splatbooks and other piles of garbage aren't an issue, since you don't have to use them.

I just wonder what's keeping the paragon paths from going down the same road. Prestige classes started out pretty interesting. They ended up a nightmare.

Anyway, I do hope they have an option for rangers who don't want to turn into some sort of super agent or whatever. I hope that there is a paragon path for 'more of the same'.

Its also going to be interesting to see how 'fluff determining' these paragon paths are. One of the ranger paths is a "stormwarden of the feywild". Which means the DM has to use the Feywild and probably have some sort of organization called Stormwardens unless they want to rewrite or disallow one of the ranger's three or four options.

Paragon paths seem extremely easy to design: make a perk for using an Action Point, make a power for 11th-level, and make a power for 16th-level. Thats about it. Prestige classes are much, MUCH more complicated to design, and thus more prone to abuse.

As for the Stormwarden, since nothing about the paragon path seems to require the existence of the Stormwarden organization (or even an organization at all), you could just as easily have the character NOT belong to any organization and just take it if they want to be better at using two weapons.
Thats an easy enough to fix to the perceived problem of "story enforcement".

I think the fact that every path has the same entry point (11th) and the same exit point (20th) and seems to gain abilities at the same rate, will make them pretty easy to balance. Plus you won't (from what we know) be able to mix two or more paths together, making balance even easier to maintain (you don't have to make it balanced while used with everything else, just itself).

I think each class will have about 4 paths in the first set of books ... and I'd assume one of them is going to be "generic Class path". That is, "generic Fighter path", "generic Wizard path", etc, for those who don't really have a specialization they want to take. But what do I know?

Teiren,

Thanks for the info but I really really (did I say really?) can't stand podcasts. Maybe one day my irrational feelings towards podcasts will wane and I'll try giving it a listen though.

Cheers! :)

Four is what I meant. I think I was thinking roles and not classes when I did the math. :-P

Prestige classes offered more combinations and more depth. They offered more options and more uniqueness. With this paragon deal, it's total crap. You're shoe-horned into only taking the path of your class (no Fighter/Assassins? What's the deal!?) and you only get a few abilities. You also cannot take different powers from different paragon paths (such as, say, I was a Ranger who wanted some from Kensei and some from Stormwarden).

You are complaining that paragon paths "shoehorn" you into taking one of many diverse options that do nothing to inhibit your existing character, but merely dole out some extra freebies. It would be like if every 11th-level character got a Bonus Feat, just 'cause.
The reality is that there are like, 30 paragon paths in the PH at launch, meaning that I would anticipate every class getting at least seven paths, with a few classes getting eight. Of course, if you dont want to take a paragon path, you can just snap up some powers from an entirely different class to round yourself out. NONE of those seem particularly restrictive at ALL.
To try and prove your point, you "merely" pointed out a very, very unlikely class combination as some kind of proof that the paths are "restrictive". You then tried to emphasize it with another pretty strange example (ranger/kensei).
I refuted this claim by saying that you could just multiclass into another class in order to take a paragon path if you really, REALLY felt like you wanted to do that. Of course, another poster pointed out that, hey, you can take a feat in order to take a paragon path that would normally be blocked to you.

In all actuality, it seems like a pretty petty complaint. "I want to play a fighter/assassin!" Do you absolutely HAVE to have the word assassin in your list of classes/prestige classes in order to feel legit?
The assassin class isnt that great in 3rd Edition: I'm happier just going rogue and making logical skill and feat choices to best emulate the whole thing, and it sounds like it'll be even easier and more effective to do so in 4th Edition than before since I wont be wasting levels on a class that gives me heaps of proficiencies that I wont use at the cost of being able to reliably max out my Hide/Move Silently skills, not to mention my Sneak Attack thats worth more than the ability to wear full plate and use a tower shield.

Razz wrote:

These suck. I miss prestige classes even more now.

Prestige classes offered more combinations and more depth. They offered more options and more uniqueness. With this paragon deal, it's total crap. You're shoe-horned into only taking the path of your class (no Fighter/Assassins? What's the deal!?) and you only get a few abilities. You also cannot take different powers from different paragon paths (such as, say, I was a Ranger who wanted some from Kensei and some from Stormwarden).

They talk about more options, but 4E is really turning out to be more restrictive, almost as much as 2E was.

Prestige classes will always be the best "kit" system, I believe.

From Enworld:

WotC's Michele Carter on paragon paths:

1) There are over 30 paragon paths in the PH.

2) My paladin took a multiclass cleric feat so she could qualify for a cleric paragon path.

---------------------
So it would seem that Fighter/Assassins are fine, as long as you meet the pre-req's. Which is the same as things were for prestige classes.

Which also alleviates the problem in a much more simplistic fashion.

Antioch wrote:

....Its easier to add things where nothing is officially mapped than it is to go around and erase towns and cities off the map, and then explain to your players that, "By the by, none of this stuff actually exists."
If I wanna do a play-by-post, or introduce players to my FR campaigns, hopefully the character they bring to the table isnt from an area that I wiped off the map to make room for my campaign. That, and I also have to spend time telling the players what is and isnt accurate from the books.
Another big issue is the staggering amount of history and population.
This is why I like Eberron: its more of a sandbox setting. Some basic things are stated, but largely the game is really open...

Antioch: (edited for tense)

Before I get drawn into a point by point debate, may I inquire have you ever actually run a Forgotten Realms game, and if so how long did it last before you abandoned it as being 'unusable'? I get the impression that many of those who are excited by Wizards of the Coasts 4E 'take' on the Forgotten Realms have never actually attempted to run a game there, precisely because it has not previously fit their style of game. I would be interested in discovering how far my impression is correct.

I used to run in, and play in, FR back when it was released. We had a really big FR buff in the group, the guy who reads all the novels and buys all the FR supplements (whether or not he will use them, of course).

I was able to run three short-lived campaigns, and attempted to plan more with a lot of difficulty due to overcrowding. I'm looking foward to it because it appears to address my own personal problem of too much baggage.

So, I DID use it and AM looking forward to FR4E.

Antioch wrote:

I got into Forgotten Realms early on in 3rd Edition, but the settings...completeness (?) made it difficult to plan/run adventures. Everything seemed mapped out, and too many NPCs were epic level.

The way the realms is "shaping" up, as it were, appeals to me as it sounds more open now.

This I never understood. Even the damned WotC staff said this.

What beholdens you people to HAVE to pour through all of that? What beholdens you to have to use those NPCs or to even say they exist in your game at all? It's your FR game, run it as you please.

But there are those of us that do enjoy that level of depth and detail, and it's not fair that just because some people don't like the depth and largeness of the Realms have to be catered to an ruining it for the rest of us.

Omit what you don't want or need. Simple. It's not so simple the other way around. For me, I spend too much time developing adventures and really hate to have to fill in a lot of blanks for a pre-published setting. The Realms (current Realms, anyway) has developed that world for me to great detail already, so I don't need to worry about that part. I can actually just worry about adventure-making rather than world-building.

I dont know, if a LOT of people are saying this, maybe there is a grain of truth?

Its easier to add things where nothing is officially mapped than it is to go around and erase towns and cities off the map, and then explain to your players that, "By the by, none of this stuff actually exists."
If I wanna do a play-by-post, or introduce players to my FR campaigns, hopefully the character they bring to the table isnt from an area that I wiped off the map to make room for my campaign. That, and I also have to spend time telling the players what is and isnt accurate from the books.
Another big issue is the staggering amount of history and population.
This is why I like Eberron: its more of a sandbox setting. Some basic things are stated, but largely the game is really open ended. Even things like NPCs and events are up to the DM to define (which is why they dont explain what caused the Mournland).

These suck. I miss prestige classes even more now.

Prestige classes offered more combinations and more depth. They offered more options and more uniqueness. With this paragon deal, it's total crap. You're shoe-horned into only taking the path of your class (no Fighter/Assassins? What's the deal!?) and you only get a few abilities. You also cannot take different powers from different paragon paths (such as, say, I was a Ranger who wanted some from Kensei and some from Stormwarden).

They talk about more options, but 4E is really turning out to be more restrictive, almost as much as 2E was.

Prestige classes will always be the best "kit" system, I believe.

Prestige classes were all well and good when 3E came out because they were useful in refining a character concept. Then, they gradually became the class you really gunned for because your normal class just sucked (fighter, sorcerer, and wizard come to mind).

I find it odd that you are griping about two very, VERY unlikely class combinations to make some kind of point. Fighter/assassin? Yeah, thats commonplace.
Well, I guess you could just, you know...take a level in rogue and then go into Shadow Assassin. Kind of like what most people would likely do in order to meet the prerequisites before 10th-level.

Basically, if I want to play a fighter, wizard, or ranger, they are actually mechanically viable choices: I dont want nor need to prestige out into a more powerful class later.

I'm very pleased with these. Less competition between going end game with your basic class and a prestige class. If you are a wizard, its okay to stick it out and just apply a few side benefits to your basic package.

I love how they assume every party *has* to have a cleric. And since when does a party have to have certain roles filled by certain people?" Why can't the bard be the leader? Or the wizard? Of all the silly 4E stuff, the concept of roles alternatly amuses me and irritates me the most.

As a player, the party I am currently playing in has none (ok, we do have a druid, but he too chaotic to heal), and the campaign I am GM'ing, the cleric is rather martial and only heals the survivors. In other words, their are a few more healing potions given out, and wands of CLW are worth alot.

Of course potions and wands cost a LOT (especially potions, which are single-use and usable by anyone), meaning that the party falls behind in treasure unless you add more.
While this can fix things, it doesnt change the fact that someone needs to dump points into Use Magic Device (which sucks for people who dont get it as a class-skill) and hope that it works.
Basically, a cleric that costs a crapton of money.

I suppose I shouldn't be amused anymore at how WOTC bigwigs still assume that the way they play the game is the only way to play the game, but I still am......

It amuses me how many people assume that Wizards plays the game in a very alien, unique fashion that apparently "no one" else follows, even slightly (forcing us all to completely restructure the way we play into something vastly different).
I'm sure that based on message board threads, surveys, and actual playing that they discovered a very unusual trend: MOST people use a cleric or other class that has cure X wounds on its spell list.
Not all of us like to have our warblade down a potion to restore a whopping 28 points of damage, just to have it hewn away by the next attack from the monster.

Yes, but there is a difference. They assume that a wizard, for example, is/has to be a striker - and that is the only "role" a wizard can fill.

That's complete and utter Bravo Sierra.

One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.

Hardly a striker. Or even a controller, for that matter.

The problem is that they assume certain classes will perform certain roles. Yes, you are right that the roles have always been there. The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.

Maybe that's why bards and druids are gone. They are too good at going "cross-role," so to speak - and bust this silly role stuff wide open.

You need to understand that in 4th Edition that classes are being refined towards fulfilling a certain role. Your friend who changes into a troll? Well polymorph (or even trollform) might not be available to the average wizard anymore.

The fighter is no longer a feasible class to make the ultimate in ranged firepower: in 3rd Edition you could make a fighter that was vastly superior in archery to even an archery-themed ranger with the sheer number of feats. Not so anymore. If you want a ranged character, pick the ranger class (or multiclass, or take Ranger Training).
Now, this is good because you dont have to really stretch some classes to fulfill a concept that you wanted to do (such as running around with a sucktacular AC because you wanted to play an armor-lite fighter, or some such).
This is ALSO good because now classes like bards will have some form of focus and be actually useful in combat encounters now. As it stands they are mainly relegated to the back of the bus, cheering the rest of the party on.

It was said by Dave Noonan that the druid will fill a more "hybrid" role.

And in case you cant see the blog post, here is the important part:

So what’s the druid look like right now? Some tidbits:

• Call his role “hybrid.” But don’t assume that he can cover all roles. Just a couple of ‘em.
• If you like what the 3.5 Player’s Handbook II did to the 3.5 druid, then you’ll probably like this guy, too.
• He doesn’t do much with the classical Greek elements (air/fire/earth/wat er), but he’s got a lot of weather-related magic. Again, that’s the direction we were taking the class in latter-day 3.5 products.
• Not a lot of animal summoning. Plenty of wild shape.

And what’s in my druid file? The class description, of course, and all the powers (eighty of ‘em at this point, give or take). Plus there are some druid (and druid-friendly) feats, four paragon paths, an epic destiny (available to those who aren’t druids, too), and some rituals. Oh, and some druid-friendly magic items.

Mormegil wrote:

And supposedly for some reason 4th Edition, which you have not played yet, does not stimulate thinking.

For me 4th Edition is an improvement. The improvement comes from being more easily playable and with a clear philosophy behind the mechanics. Even I who hated cleric I'm tempted to try him out. And having players in my group that never tried a spellcasting class because they didn't want to bother themselves with the complexities of spellcasting, I'm happy that now can have the freedom of picking a spellcasting class since the differences with fighters, etc is minimized and therefore more easily and in less time understood. As 3 Edition was a huge improvement over 2nd, 4th is also an improvement (though not as big). I agree with the fact that maybe is too early for a new edition but as long as it is an improvement and clearly very different than 3rd I do not care. Others do and it's ok with me.

Now, I don't write all these things to try to convert anyone to the 4th Edition but I'm tired of all the talking about the 'feel' of 4th.

(Before anyone torch me about my post I'll just mention that I am from Greece and I have no ties with WotC)

Um, no, not really. Remember who they're catering mainly to with 4E--- MMORPG players that want instant-gratification and less reading. Even WotC stated they want D&D 4E to be a game you can pick up and play right away. How do you accomplish that? By making it easy and playable enough for a 7-year old to grasp.

I've read every 4E tidbit you can think of, and it's definitely not mentally stimulating at all. Unless you happen to be a power gamer, in which you can excercise your mind all you like by min-maxing the hell out your characters.

Yay hack&slash! It's just like a video game, but on paper! Yipee! (sarcasm)

I dont play MMOs at all, and 4E sounds like it will be much more fun than 3E is, even with the limited playtesting I've done. Whats the problem with making a game that you can "play right away"?

Do the complexity of the rules somehow dictate how immersive the game can be?

I dont really care that monsters dont get feats. If I want to give them feat-specific abilities, I will.
I dont need to juggle feat slots around to give them something that I wanted them to have in the first place, and I dont have to pick random feats to fill out empty slots.

All I keep hearing from Razz is, "it sucks because I dont like it." I also happen to like a lot of the new story stuff as well. It seems much more dynamic and interesting than the old material (which I didnt really use except in 2nd Edition when I ran Planescape a lot).

The good thing is that if you dont like the story material presented in the implied setting, you can easily change it, even back to how it is in 3rd Edition.
However, I dont think that simple fact is going to satisfy people who hate 4th Edition anyway.

Krauser_Levyl wrote:

Keith Baker mentioned on his blog that there will be rules to create noncombatant NPCs on 4th edition, and they will be far more flexible than on 3.5, because you won't need to make a 10th-level expert with 10d6 hit points if you need just someone with a +15 Diplomacy check.

There are ways around this in 3rd Edition, I get the feeling the 4th Edition solution could be a little too free-form. Sort of like Sean K. Reynold's argument that monsters should never do things the players can't. Then you get the player saying "why can't my 1st level Barbarian have +15 to diplomacy too?"

Krauser_Levyl wrote:

And besides... honestly, I can't see how is a "problem" that every monster from the Monster Manual is capable of providing a balanced and challenging combat (I still don't believe 4th edition can do that, but if it could, it would be a bless, not a problem). Wasn't the goal of the CR system exactly that - to help the DM to find adequate challenges for his group?

And I think the CR system works. It helps find an encounter, but you need to look beyond the number. But it seems to be a difference in playing preferences here. My experience has always been enhanced by foes that perform very differently (and PCs for that matter). 4th Edition seems too...homogenous.

Krauser_Levyl wrote:

I admit that there would be a problem if the monster loses non-combat abilities that are needed for him to be role-played properly. I just don't think that the Succubus' teleport is one of these abilities. In fact, I think the 4th-edition succubus fits its noncombat rule much better than before.

Again, I think this is a point of preference. My view of the Succubus is as a behind-the-scenes manipulator. Teleport at will for them (or any other manipulative devil) works because it forces the characters to expend resources tracking them down and tracking them. But consider the following: the Succubus is summoned from the lower planes to a wizards lab, escapes, and has to WALK to the...

The important thing to consider is that a player really wont be asking, "How does John Talkerton have a +15 to Diplomacy? He's only 1st-level!", since the player shouldnt know what level the NPC is. The difference is that I could stat out an official block for a NPC in order to get him +15 to Diplomacy, but if all I need for a given situation (or encounter) is for the NPC to have +15 to the check, I can just state that. I could do it on a technical basis, or I can just say he does (since thats where I was going with it anyway).

I personally dont mind losing teleport abilities for like, every devil out there. It just means that I dont have to think of some way to remove that ability later (antimagic zones and the like). If she has to walk or fly to another town, thats fine. Her traveling is something is going to happen behind the scenes anyway, so its not like anyone is going to see her.

Antioch wrote:

But, how can you kill a man with no life?

Suddenly, I'm thinking about a great unkillable villain. Do as much damage as you want but ... he ... just ... keeps ... coming! (He has no HPs to lose!) :P

Cheers! :)

It was a quote from the South Park episode "Make Love Not WarCraft". Thinking of a villain with no hit points made me think of it.

Jal Dorak wrote:

What about Baron Sillypants, a noble lord with no hit points or combat ability but a huge Charisma and army of followers. Well, in 4th Edition, he doesn't exist, because fighting him isn't "fun".

I would question exactly how his Baron-ship can exist in 3E, either, if his existence is based off of having HP or combat ability, which you say he does not. How does he get all those followers anyway? Diplomacy? A 1st level character is capped at a +4 so you'll have to level him up a bit before he has enough ...

Essentially, I think this example is a pretty blatant straw man. If you have an NPC who the PCs are not supposed to fight, not having combat stats for him is certainly not a flaw of the system. I'm not even sure if you could consider it a flaw at all.

(Also, fighting a guy with no HP or combat ability isn't very fun, at least IMO. I like a challenge! :P)

Cheers! :)

But, how can you kill a man with no life?

Antioch wrote:

Its called a DC 16 Knowledge (the planes) check. However, the fighter isnt necessarily the guy making the check: someone else in the party is well within their rights to recall this info and spout it off to the fighter (or whatever melee-oriented lunk is out there).[/QUOTE/

Granted, and I would fully allow the fighter to make a second will save when the Succubus does something personal.

Antioch wrote:

Charm doesnt allow you to control an affected character, it merely sets your status to "Friendly". This does not mean that you can force one party member to go beat up another party member, as friendly characters dont do that sort of thing (they have to be Helpful, which is a step above Friendly).

Unless the PCs know they are in combat, I am fairly confident in re-asserting that a charmed character would have no justification, outside pre-established roleplaying, for refusing to embrace a Succubus (especially one in disguise).

Besides, the designers meant for the Succubus to be a behind-the-scenes villain, one who causes endless trouble for the PCs until they track her down, at which point, if prepared, combat is pretty satisfyingly easy.

The direction in 4th Edition seems to be: "Every monster needs to do something in combat, but nobody cares about non-combat abilities so let's axe them." Case in point, teleport. Endlessly useful for a DM to create a persistent villain. But does make unprepared players annoyed in combat.

What about Baron Sillypants, a noble lord with no hit points or combat ability but a huge Charisma and army of followers. Well, in 4th Edition, he doesn't exist, because fighting him isn't "fun".

In 3rd Edition, if a character identifies a succubus, then even a charmed one isnt going to lock lips because its an "obviously harmful action". Its an extremely low Knowledge DC to figure it out. If she's in disguise at the time, then its easier because the PC doesnt know.

As for the 4E design philosophy, of course monsters need interesting things to do during combat, thats the point of the stat blocks in the first place. Of course, she still has non-combat abilities (her skills, change shape, and charming kiss).
As for the Baron, sure he exists in 4th Edition. He just doesnt need a combat-oriented stat block because you arent intended to fight him. Do you need to have a full array of stats for a guy that I suppose you are just going to talk to? I think many DMs already use some kind of shorthand when it comes to that sort of thing.

Snaketongue assassins ?

Crushgrip constrictors?
Legion Devil Legionnaires?

I'm waiting for MMII, where the 'Charm Devil Charmer' will finally replace the Succubus. Also, I would like to see the source code for WotC's Random Pleonasm Generator.
(:-P)

The only one that in particular bothers me is the last one, and only because it seems redundant. Otherwise, I dont mind the naming conventions.

I think its weird that two "villain" devils now have none of the abilities that would make them scary villains.

What do you mean? Teleport? A 30% success ratio to summon a vrock?

Antioch wrote:

The charm monster save is pretty steep (DC 22), but charmed creatures will not do harmful things (such as make out with succubi).

[sarc] True, since fighters often check their copy of the monster manual before they make out [/sarc]

Seriously, Charm, bluff or suggest "your friends are attacking me, save me from the cleric before he damns us both!" both effective on the guy with the bad will save. Then suggest to the rogue "Knock the wizard out before he fireballs everyone!"

Its called a DC 16 Knowledge (the planes) check. Any character maxing out the skill can be counted on to have (depending on the level at which they fight said succubus) around +10 or more (assuming max ranks and a half-way decent Int bonus) at a minimum. Now, if they are fighting her at an appropriate level, then +12 or more is more realistic (so, a 4 or better).

Even if someone snags the skill cross-class, I would presume about a +5 or better, meaning that they got about a 50-50 chance. However, the fighter isnt necessarily the guy making the check: someone else in the party is well within their rights to recall this info and spout it off to the fighter (or whatever melee-oriented lunk is out there).
Charm doesnt allow you to control an affected character, it merely sets your status to "Friendly". This does not mean that you can force one party member to go beat up another party member, as friendly characters dont do that sort of thing (they have to be Helpful, which is a step above Friendly). But then, charm person isnt a combat spell. Its designed to take the lion's share of the work out of a social encounter.
However, she might be able to convince the charmed person to hold off the rest of the party so she can get away, or to try and stop a party member from hurting her. Also, once the crap hits the fan, her subsequent charm effects are -5 on the save.