Antioch's page

I would expect monks to be in 4th Edition, just not during launch. It may be in PH2, it might be in PH3. It might be on DDI, seeing as the artificer will debut there soon after the release.

My group never really used monks except in a rare few cases. It wasnt because they werent appropriate thematically, it was because they suck as a class. They arent particularly useful in any situation, but with the right conditions can be more or less passable.

Anyway, I dont think that D&D needs to adhere to a certain style (European), so I dont have a problem with monks or other traditional asian-themed classes. Eberron had samurai as an order of Cyran knights, or something along those lines, and I did a dwarf samurai who didnt have a hint of asian culture on him and used a greataxe instead of a katana.

As for psionics, its certainly more than a "fringe" group, since Wizards decided to make three books for psionics, and one of them was an overhaul of the whole system. I think that there will be more psionic support since they arent using multiple systems for each different spellcasting mechanic (psionics, incarnum, truenaming, etc): its all based on the same power system that uses the same basic math as a guideline.

As Teiran has said, another perk is the clear division of power sources, allowing a DM to say no to one power source, or even give everyone a bonus divine at-will power in a game with a heavy religious theme.

Antioch wrote:

"Is 4th Edition D&D enough?"... Yes. It is still an action-adventure role-playing game, just as it has always been.

The question wasn't whether or not it's an action-adventure RPG, but whether it's sufficient for players. For many, the answer is "no" -- despite your claim. You sort of concede this later in your post, but one might argue that the damage is done.

Antioch wrote:

The new edition just does everything 4th Edition does, but faster and funner. Many things that I didnt like in prior editions, as well as things that I didnt notice before, are being addressed.

It probably does things faster and funner, but there have been lots of convincing arguments that the system fails to offer some things previous editions gave players. Whether or not these things will impact your enjoyment (or anyone's) remains to be seen.

Respectfully, it's one thing to say "I think it's great." It's quite another to say "it's great." One sentence says "I disagree," where the other says "you're wrong."

Regards :)

Of course my statement of that its D&D enough is my opinion. Since the original poster was basically opening the floor for people to express their opinions, I thought it was pretty redundant to clarify ahead of time that it was my opinion.

I dont see how I conceded my opinion that its "D&D enough" later in my post: I still think its "D&D enough".
There might be arguments by some people that it doesnt do things good enough, or whatnot, but the feedback I've personally seen seems to be almost entirely positive. It might not play like exactly like 3rd Edition, but thats what I'm hoping for: something that is both still D&D but also more fun.

Now that I have run a good chunk of H1 I can safely say that 4E is D&D. Other than the options the players have in combat it has the same feel as 3E.

I still remember running a simple playtest game, just to check the mechanics, using kobolds and dungeon tiles. The guy playing the wizard proclaimed, "Sweet! I can keep casting spells and be useful!"
The guy playing the paladin seemed confused, since he had more to do aside from making the same old attack over and over again.

Oh, and it was SOOOOO much easier to be a GM - everything I needed was right there in the stat blocks and the players had everything they needed right on their sheets.

Not only do I like the self-contained stat blocks that let me run a combat without flipping around in books or constructing pages upon pages of notes, but it plays out like I'm running my own monstrous party.
I get more options that the routine attacks, get to control more things, and get to have more fun.

Since skill bonuses scale differently and anyone can take the Trapfinding feat, I dont see why a fighter couldnt. Of course, it doesnt have to be a fighter: a halfling wizard might know a thing or two about traps.

I like most of them, so I'll just list the ones I didnt like.
The Efreeti looks to flat, fake, and out of proportion. That whole pic needs to be redone completely. The fire looks really bad. I dont like the Gnome's hair. Finally, the Orc picture just looks too crowded, and the colors seem to clash a bit. I dont really know how else to describe it. I think overall a darker color scheme would suit it better.
The rest of the pictures range from average (Cambion, Blood Fiend, and Warforged) to good or better (both Gith pics, Tarrasque, and Dark One).

Antioch wrote:

1.) If Wizards feels the need or desire to post ads, they can place them in the proper magazine's webpage.

I think you misunderstand. 3rd party manufacturers can't advertise in Dungeon and Dragon anymore. That was likely a pretty large part of how they got customers.

And how is it a "proper magazine" if it's not in print?

Actually, I just didnt know that Wizards wasnt going to feature advertising, period. Otherwise, they could have just made an ad-space or two on the Dragon and/or Dungeon pages. That would have been pretty easy.

I used to pay for them, for the content, I got both issues...WotC's new online version is a joke...and bad for the industry. Why is it bad for the industry? Oh because a few reasons:

1. No place for companies to advertise
2. Dragon and Dungeon used to have a presence in major bookstores, a possibility for people to get interested in the game.
3. The digital format has alienated long-term players. It also alienates those without computers.

1.) If Wizards feels the need or desire to post ads, they can place them in the proper magazine's webpage.

2.) Bookstores still have the other D&D books to catch people's eyes.

3.) I'm not sure how much its going to alienate players who also use the internet, since its easily accessible. If anything, I can now point my group towards the site for articles, until the free period ends.
I'm also not quite so sure about the share of people that dont have computers, not thats its a good reason to not go digital: why should they hold back for the handful of people who dont have internet access?

I don't give a rat's backside what's in WotC's best interests. For that matter, I don't give a rat's backside what's in Paizo's best interests, either. Losing the print mags wasn't in MY best interests, and that's why I got angry.

You might have lost the physical product, but they are still available in digital format.

Besides which, the new mags suck. Hard. They're little more than 4e hype for the most part, and they can't even be downloaded in neat little self-contained units as we were promised. What little content they contain is inferior, too, and completely irrelevant to my game.

You arent paying for them, so why do you think you deserve over a half-year's worth of content for free? When the actual, real DDI rolls out next month, it will likewise be free, giving you some time to see what you could potentially be paying for.

Don't even try to suggest that "I can always pick out the good parts and adapt them to my campaign". If I wanted to waste my time that way I'd just glean what I needed from various messageboards. I want big, useful chunks of content that don't need to be adapted. I have a business, a family, and various other responsibilities. Who has time to pick through a magazine just on the off chance that there may be a sentence or two that I can use? Not every gamer is a single male with no real responsibilities or purpose in life.

So, what? You want loads of free content that will be perfectly suited just for you? Sounds pretty unreasonable to me. Not that I got this treatment when Paizo was handling Dragon and Dungeon. Sure, it was larger chunks of stuff, but very little of it was what I would call useful.
I think the most use I got out of either subscription was the Age of Worms adventure path: in that case roughly a third of Dungeon saw regular use, and a small portion of Dragon where the Wormfood articles actually meshed well.

"Is 4th Edition D&D enough?"

Yes. It is still an action-adventure role-playing game, just as it has always been. The new edition just does everything 4th Edition does, but faster and funner. Many things that I didnt like in prior editions, as well as things that I didnt notice before, are being addressed.
Some people will not like the changes, and thats fine. They can keep playing older editions of D&D if they feel that way. Some people might play both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition games. Likewise, thats also perfectly fine.
The fact is that purely by definition, 4th Edition is D&D. Pathfinder is like a 3rd Edition plugin, but its not "true" D&D.

Instead of ability damage, apply a penalty to things that use the score. If a crit inflicts 4 Int damage, for example, a character takes a -2 to Int skills and perhaps AC (if she uses it for AC), and also powers that rely on Int (-2 to wizard attacks and damage).

You could also have a crit inflict conditions on a character. If a character takes a LOT of obvious damage to his legs, you could say that they are Slowed until they are healed with a Heal check or a divine power. Perhaps allow them to burn several healing surges to remove it. Whatever works.

Ah, okay. I thought that an orc warrior was the "staple" mob, here (that would be the berserker, I suppose).
I guess its just them quick-statting a minion for use at a higher level. I think that if you leveled up your own drudge it would be the same thing since it IS, after all, the exact same minion.

I'm not groking these disable rolls. Do you really need to roll a minimum of 4 skill checks to disable a trap? That sounds pretty dull to me - am I missing something that makes it interesting?

I think it allows you to do that scene in the second Indiana Jones where the girl is trying to disable the trap with the spikes in the ceiling (took more than a few rounds to get here to do it). Tension-building.

Of course, traps in 3rd Edition take 2d4 rounds to knock out, so its about the same.

The [b]orc warrior statblock seems pointless to me. It is only an orc drudge with better stats. If you use the monster advancement rules presented on this excerpt over the orc drudge, you obtain a creature very similar to the orc warrior. The other orcs seem cool, but this one is just a waste of space.[/b]

I think thats the point: the minion is a warrior that will die when its first hit. They said that some monsters, like zombies, will have similar functions except some will be Minions. This way, players wont know who is a Minion and who is a 6th-level Brute.
Keeps them guessing, but allows you to field more things at once without overpowering your players.

The quality of the DDM line has suffered a lot recently. You'd think that with that being the direction they seem to be wanting to take things (ie, creating a D&D tabletop game which is really just a glorified minis game) that they'd raise, not lower, the production value. Yet another reason to write off WotC altogether. Good news for Paizo: I'll be buying more of your minis if they ever come in!

D&D is just as much a roleplaying game as any other you could mention. That being said, I thought that all prior expansions for DDM were great (I cant think of a bad DoD mini), it was basically DoD2 that made me cry.

I really like the sounds of the Warlord class. Its the second class on my list next to the Warlock.

The crunch on traps was also an interesting read. They get their own roles as well (Obstacle and Blaster were mentioned), and can likewise be Elite or Solo. Good to see that traps do more than attack you, deal damage, and go away.

I'm a stickler for mechanics, and the page on orcs was a great read. Sounds like minions now only get 1 hit point, instead of "death after one hit".

Antioch wrote:

The Earth Titan looks great, and the Dwarf Warsword looks fine. Certainly a step up from the stuff I saw in Dungeons of Dread.

I got a hook horror I like a lot out of a Dungeons of Dread package, but I don't think my eye is as discerning as some peoples when it comes to minis.

There were quite a few in DoD2 that I really liked, but about half of them ran the spectrum of passable to really bad. The Grick is WAY worse than the old grick, Troglodyte Bonecrusher is painful to look at, Gnoll Marauder has apparently discovered metallic wood, and the Orc Whatever robbed a halfling for his axe.

Still, some were really nice: Ascendant Hellsword, Emerald Orb Wizard, Howling Hag, and Vrock come to mind.

I know its only two minis so far, but I like both of them.

The Earth Titan looks great, and the Dwarf Warsword looks fine. Certainly a step up from the stuff I saw in Dungeons of Dread.

Maybe those guys who use a mace and an axe will feel different from the guy with a longsword and a shortsword?

That would be interesting indeed! :)

Thats the idea. Spears are supposed to be able to knock creatures back, hammers rely on your Con modifier for damage output, and other stuff. Basically, different weapons act and feel different without sucking, like so many do in 3rd Edition.

Over on ENWorld they're talking about a Fighter Multiclassed as Rogue dual wielding a longsword and a dagger, able to use Fighter powers in one hand and Rogue powers (and sneak attacks) in the other. What do you think of the concept?

Do Fighters get weapon tagged powers?

Cheers! :)

Yeah. Out of all the classes, fighters basically care the most about what weapons they use.

The main things I took away from the article were weapon groups and properties, though properties existed somewhat in 3rd Edition.

I figure in the case of a social challenge that there will be social roleplaying going on, so players will have an understanding of how things are going depending on how they go about trying to get what they want.
So if a player tries to use Intimidate, the NPC will probably voice an objection or distaste to let the PC know that, hey, thats not going to fly.

The thing is, even though people ran different campaigns, D&D had is own "canon lore". Things central to D&D and all the other settings that were always there, are currently there, and should always be there.
Reasons?
To maintain consistency, ease of transition, and respect for the history, lore, and canon D&D has set for 30+ years.
So, it had an implied setting because it had an implied setting?
Sure, everyone runs a different game. But whether you did or not, ask any veteran gamer about the difference between an erinyes and a succubi and you'll get the same answer, or ask how long do elves live, or if dwarves can see in the dark. Ask about alignment or what eladrins are, or yugoloths, you will get the same response. Ask about the rise of the multiverse or who the Wind Dukes were or the main lawful critters of Mechanus and so on.

Actually, not every veteran gamer DOES know odd facts like those because not every veteran gamer gets into those things or bothers to commit them to memory. They buy the books, play their own games, and don’t give a crap about the “official” stuff like the rise of the Wind Dukes. See, I’ve been playing D&D for over a decade now and I thought Paizo made up the Wind Dukes. I recognized Miska in the Age of Worms story stuff, and the rod of seven parts, but I figured that Wind Dukes were their own bit.
As for Mechanus? Gee, I thought it was the modrons, but since 3rd Edition it’s been the formians (or whatever the heck those bug things are called).

My point is, these were the same and NO ONE had any problems with it. WotC may have had a right to alter these as they see fit, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do nor does it say they have any respect for their customers.

Some people did have problems with some of those things, and some of those same people likely kept their mouths shut because they weren’t forced to use that stuff, just as you aren’t forced to use the stuff laid out in 4th Edition's implied setting. Not everyone liked everything about 3rd Edition's implied story, and them inventing a new one (not changing the old one) is not about respect at all.

Take Todd Stewart for example. He's a D&D Canon master when it comes to the multiverse and the planes and the other material worlds, especially yugoloths...4E just crapped on his devotion hardcore. I dunno how he feels about yugoloth history getting axed and them now being devilish-demons, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't at least a little peeved.

I don’t know who Todd Steward is, and I frankly don’t care. The fact is that he (apparently) is a master of a version of core D&D cosmology. Not Eberron, not Forgotten Realms, not Dark Sun, and certainly not the original campaign settings of thousands of other DMs out there. He knows a lot about the 3rd Edition stuff, and that’s good for him, but that’s not a reason to just have a static implied setting between editions.

I myself got really into the Planescape campaign setting and studied it quite a bit, but I didnt rant and rave when 3rd Edition came out. Back then, I didnt have official rulings on portals, planes, all the races (like genasi or bariaur), green steel, and other things like that.
I didnt have prestige classes or mechanics for all the factions (Planewalker's Handbook did mention some basic perks for belonging to a faction). Those were all mechanics issues, which are much harder to deal with. Its very easy for me to make a basic, Greyhawk world with the same routine cosmology, I dont need Wizards to tell me that "thats how it is".

Take me, with the Forgotten Realms...the Realms got hosed hardcore as well, totally disrespecting and losing any faith I had in WotC.

Well, it’s one of countless reasons that you don’t respect them. Given your track record I’m surprised it took them this long to lose you.
I played Forgotten Realms in 3rd Edition when it came out. Or, at least I tried to. I could still run it in the same time period, I just have to tell my players ahead of time that I'm doing it then. Again, not hard.

There was a connection in D&D, no matter what edition of the game you played. A succubus was a succubus and an erinyes and erinyes. Most people quirk confusingly when I tell them,"WotC is saying succubi and erinyes were always the same creature."

Not here.

Do you want to know the biggest question I hear from most people trying to get into a 3E game?
"Do they still have this?"
"Does this still exist in the game?"
"What about this? Please tell me they left that alone?"
And so on. Many people I have talked to, mostly on DDO, have said Screw 3E" just because it didn't have or screwed with the one thing that should've been left alone.

The question I get asked is either what the game is about, how its played, or what the general play-style of my group is. Once I get someone interested, assuming they’ve played before, its more mechanics questions. They don’t seem to be so picky about whether something still exists or not.

4E didn't leave ANYTHING alone.
With the destruction of so many sacred cows and D&D canon, you will NEVER get pre-4E and post-4E gamers to agree on anything. You've successfully created a vast rift in the D&D game as a whole, and you're hoping in the long run you'll gain as much new support as you lost the old...
It left a lot of basic concepts alone, though since it’s a new edition some mechanics were lost/upgraded. Elves are still agile, and now they are better with bows than they ever were. Dwarves are still tough, capable warriors. Halflings make dexterous rogues. Sounds like many things were left as-is.
From the many, many positive reviews, it sounds like they aren’t losing as much support as you think.

Risky and stupid move on WotC's part. If it works (I believe it truly won't) then they will be as rich as Enron...and will probably eventually go down like them too after a few months and Blizzard pops out a new WoW expansion.

I fail to see how Blizzard releasing a new game or expansion is going to affect D&D anymore than it might now. I mean, I like playing games from time to time that are not D&D, but I still play it on a routine basis.

To the OP - I agree completely.

To the pro4dventure guy: Ah... the intelligent design and feel of 3.5 is something most gamers wish to keep. So far I am impressed that the integrity of the PRPG system remains the same, 100% compatible with my collection of sourcebooks, and addresses grapple, overrun, etc via the CMB factor, and provides healing surge via postitive energy. The classes intrigue my players, yet remain honest to 30+ years of tradition and the game's history. (Sharp remark: Let's see your shallow 4e do that.) Jason Bulmahn and CO. have done a marvelous job so far. PRPG is dungeons and dragons.
(wotc will never see another dime from me.)

3.5 Never Dies. PRPG Forever.

But, PRPG isnt compatible with all your 3E books, unless you have some that are different from mine. If I want to play a warblade, I have to make changes to the class to help compensate for the fact that Paizo ramped up the power level on all the other classes. Also, if I want to play a race from Expanded Psionics Handbook, I need to add another +2 to an ability score, or otherwise ramp up the power on them somehow as well. Also, some spells got juggled around. I'll have to tinker with some of those...

Otherwise, 4th Edition has addressed the same things, just in a smoother, more intuitive manner. Its not trying to be an edition patch. I'm not going to get into the "history and tradition", because thats not something mechanics-relevant: I can DO the old story if I feel like it.

4th Edition is the new D&D, its on the cover and everything. :-)

Antioch wrote:

I like this mechanic for several reasons. The first is that it allows for more creative and dynamic ways to resolve a situation instead of just pushing the bard forward and having her take 10 (or even 1).

Actually, thats kind of the second reason as well: more than one person can actively participate in their own way.
Also, uses of some skills appear to open up other skills, which can lead to easy successes (the use of History in the example is an Easy DC, for example), so this could be an additional reward for creative or logical thinking (in a negotiation, Diplomacy makes perfect sense).
Finally, some skills just explicitly dont work in some cases.

Of course in that example all you really need to do is push the character who took Bluff or Diplomacy or Insight as a trained skill forward and let them make a five or six rolls instead of one.

Yeah, someone could throw in a History skill check, but they do not have to. Just let the party Face take 10 and walk through the encounter.

Assuming you are allowed to take 10 for skill challenges. Otherwise in some cases its no worse than 3rd Edition skill mechanics.

However, by default it would seem that there is more than one skill that can be used to overcome many situations now, where in 3rd Edition generally there was just one.

I'm still not seeing anything in Pathfinder than can't be accomplished in 4E.

Cheers! :P

Edit: Of course you COULD do anything in 4E with 3.5, with enough kit bashing. And likewise in the other direction, and again with enough kit bashing. But out the box, both systems have different offerings, and different specialties. In my opinion, 4E is better then 3E (or at least, the previews so far make it seem so.) In yours, I would surmise it goes the other way. This is the beauty of variety. :)

I would expand that statement to also say smoother, faster, and more balanced.

Bleach wrote:

For example, using the same skill challenge example versus the local mayor vs the duke vs the king vs the demigod should all be possible in 4E due to the inherent nature of skills automatically scaling.

My biggest beef with any such mechanisms is that, again, role-playing is pushed aside for rolling the dice (i.e., "let me convince the king to give the kingdom to use instead of doing another quest. My PC has just leveled up and now has a Diplomacy +15".)

Diplomacy doesnt convince people to basically do whatever you want, it improves their attitude towards you, which might persuade them to do more for you than they otherwise would. Even at Friendly, a king isnt just going to hand over, well, anything to you.

He's willing to go to great lengths to aid you on your quest (free healing, mounts, perhaps some gear or a bigger reward), but he's not going to say, "You make a good point, instead of rescuing us from Certain Doom, here's the crown."

Of course, even allowing a character to roll a die to overcome a social challenge isnt bad role-playing, since role-playing isnt inherent to social interaction with make believe characters. Having a social mechanic is great because it allows players who arent silver-tongued-smooth-talkers to still play a character who is. Playing what you arent is more inherent to role-play, anyhow.
I prefer to run a game as a roll-then-role style: the player gives me the gist of what they want to do, or hope to achieve, then we roll and play it out based on the result.
I used to allow a player to pitch me some dialogue and then give them a bonus based on that to the check, but the problem is that I dont give a bonus for a well-described attack roll, saving throw, or other skill check. Its not fair. This way, it goes down like EVERY other roll that I do. If a fighter tries to attack and misses, I describe the miss. If a character tries to dive out of the way and fails a Reflex save, I describe the failure. This allows for the same kind of social interaction without unfairly favoring players who are great at talking, while rewarding a character who is supposed to be good at that.

I prefer to think of that in all honesty, at a given level there is likely only so much that a player can squeeze out of their character. For example, a level 1 character will likely, at best, have a +12 to a certain skill. +5 for a Trained skill, +5 from an ability score that was boosted to 20 by an ability modifier, and perhaps a +2 racial bonus. Thats the absolute best that I expect a character to have.
More likely, we are looking in the range of +8 (+5 for Trained, +3 from ability score).

Now, characters no longer spend ranks. All skills progress at +1/2 levels, so you could scale up skill challenges using that as a basis when determining the DCs. Now, there may be ways to get more out. From the article, characters can assist other characters in doing this, so it seems that you can eke more out in the right situations.

Now, some characters might end up with bonuses so high that they could easily hit the Hard DCs. I dont think that will be a huge deal, and think of it as a reward for a player having a character thats extremely good at something.

Anyway, the DMG apparently has tons of great advice. Its not hard to imagine that it will have advice on tweaking skill challenges that may be too hard or easy by default.

Interesting tool for DMs. Not certain how easy it would be for a novice DM to accurately assess their party's abilities, when trying to create their own 'skill challenges'. No explanation here of what is meant in this context by 'primary skills' with regard to the challenge; presumably explained somewhere in the actual rulebooks, but omitted from this article.

Maybe there are tables to back this up. Would not regard this mechanic as making things easier for a novice DM to run (fairly) if there are not.

Since skill challenges have levels, and the math in 4th Edition is much, much better, I think it would be extremely easy for a DM of any skill to basically say, "I need a level 5 skill challenge for my 5th-level characters," and plop one down.

Thats something that I'm really liking about 4th Edition, and is causing some of my players to be more inclined to DM: they can just take the party level and quickly build challenges at a glance. 1st-level party? Toss in one 1st-level monster per character. Much easier than the EL formula that we have now.

I like this mechanic for several reasons. The first is that it allows for more creative and dynamic ways to resolve a situation instead of just pushing the bard forward and having her take 10 (or even 1).
Actually, thats kind of the second reason as well: more than one person can actively participate in their own way.
Also, uses of some skills appear to open up other skills, which can lead to easy successes (the use of History in the example is an Easy DC, for example), so this could be an additional reward for creative or logical thinking (in a negotiation, Diplomacy makes perfect sense).
Finally, some skills just explicitly dont work in some cases.

My thoughts were just to help categorize online information, as its always been. Player information is in Dragon, DM information is in Dungeon. Easy.

The last stuff I saw said that the druid's role was "hybrid", but no hints on what that role might be. It would focus more on wildshaping and weather-based magic. One of the designers said that if you liked the changes wrought with Players Handbook 2, you would also like the new druid.

So I just multiclassed into Fighter with my Wizard a few weeks ago. One of the things I think gets lost when you look at the multiclass rules in isolation is how it interacts with the new power system. When you start trading out powers you are trading out the way you behave on a round-by-round basis in combat. So, for example, my Wizard traded our ray of enfeeblement to get a nice, reactive fighter power that causes the target to grant combat advantage to my allies. I throw that in there between magic missiles and I end up with a couple of rounds per encounter where I feel like I've got some really nice sword training.

I guess the way I look at it is that I dont need to have 10 or so wizard spells at 2nd-level, along with some mostly okay melee output. Not that I can actually cast all those spells in a day, or that they will remain useful at higher level, or that I would even BE casting them all the time, anyway.
I've always had a basic idea of a wizard that uses a greatsword in melee combat, and I think that 4th Edition will actually allow me to effectively build a character that can do that. :-)

Couple that with the way powers scale up with you as you go along and a "dip" doesn't really mean the same thing it does in 3.5. In 3.5 a dip into a class like wizard or cleric quickly means that those spells you learned are rapidly reduced in usefulness in combat (creative players never reach 0 usefulness with them, but I think we can all agree that 1st-level spells are doing little except utility at high levels). However, if I dip into a class in 4E, those powers don't lose their usefulness like they would in 3.5, and that dip remains a solid percentage of my actions during every single encounter.

Most classes that have a "spellcasting" theme suffer from that. Some, like martial adepts dont get gimped as badly, but the mechanics necessitate some kind of full spellcasting progression in order to remain globally useful.
Lets face it, a lot of the time you just need good damage, duration, or a high save DC.

It's true that you can't really do the "half and half" character in 4E, though you can get darn close by taking all the multiclass feats and multiclassing instead of taking a paragon path. You'll probably identify yourself as "A fighter that casts some spells" or "a warlock that provides some healing" but, from my experience (and fully acknowledging that YMMV), the fact that you are consistently (and effectively!) using powers from your second class on an encounter by encounter basis makes your multiclass character feel as much, or as little, like your second class as you want.

I dont really care if I can do a half-and-half character, since I technically couldnt do that in 3rd Edition, either. If I play a fighter 5/wizard 5, the character just plain sucks unless I predict combat ahead of time, pile on tons of buffs, and then wade into combat only to take a nap later for the next encounter so that I can do it all again, just to be slightly better (maybe) than the full-time fighter. When it comes to the wizard, you just cant come close to what she can do.
Its this idea that perpetuates the "clerics are better fighters than fighter" myth. I was able to assist a fighter/wizard in an old campaign to get an AC of like, 27 without armor and some hefty damage to boot, but it didnt last long and he could only do that trick once per day. Otherwise, he was an utterly pathetic glass fighter with a few minor magic tricks.
Some half-and-half combinations might work, or work in small areas: a fighter/rogue might be great in melee combat in theory, but cant keep pace with the Search/Disable Device DCs, probably wont have as good an AC or Reflex save, and has way less hit points.

As has been said, cards arent anything new. Lots of people use notecards for lots of things. The way I look at this is that, hey, if I need to use them then I got 'em. If not, then its not much worse than having a character sheet with a section for a companion/familiar/special mount that I might not use anyway.

Antioch wrote:

I read a report about a potential monk character on the staff blogs at Gleemax. I guess the guy was able to redirect an attack from one bad guy into another.

If thats an indication, I could feasibly see the monk leaking every so slightly into the controller role as he backflips into combat and starts wreaking havoc by knocking people over, having them hit eachother, and pretty much any Jacky Chan stunt you can imagine.

Since 3rd edition came out, the Monk class has been always been adisapointment to me, and you have hit upon the reason. I cannot play Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, or any of the classic martial arts masters. Thats what the monk is based upon, and it's always bothered me you can't do that.

By giving the monk powers which stagger or stun opponents, and area of effect shout powers they woudl really make them different from the fighter and rogue. If the new monk grants powers which mimic the kind of things you see in kung fu movies, then they will be great. If not, then the monk will remain a disapointment.

Antioch wrote:

(bad guy went to attack, character stomped a floorboard up into their groin before they did it).

Very cinematic, to me.

Forget ninjas, I want to be able to do that!

My problems with the monk stem from her craptastic attack rolls, damage, hit points, AC, and abilities.

Basically, she gets an average attack bonus, and if you wanna do multiple attacks, that extra hit doesnt help. Sure, you can flank a target, or something, but that extra +2 to hit is something I would prefer to keep instead of exchange, since I'm already a few points behind the fighter with a better Strength and Weapon Focus.
Which leads me to another problem, and thats the fact that as a monk, you are tempted to spread your ability scores out in many directions: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and to a lesser degree Wisdom are all great. While you may not try to ramp them ALL up at the start, you might be tempted to instead spread your gold or other party resources thin trying to bolster them all (+2 Wis item, or having the wizard slap on owl's wisdom for an extra +2 AC).
Monk's have horrendous AC scores. Basically, at 1st-level I would expect a monk to have an AC of like, 13-14 (assuming a combination of Dexterity and Wisdom granting a total of +3 to +4 in total). You want to have a good Strength, lest you blow a feat on Weapon Finesse, but that doesnt help your okay damage early on (1d6). Of course, that Constitution would be nice to help out your paltry 8 hit points...you basically end up with many ability scores each playing tug of war on your points.

The monk appears to just be a faster but frailer fighter. You dont have to buy weapons, but they can help (amulet of mighty fists). You need to spend more money than normal on AC boosters (bracers of armor +2 cost more than masterwork fullplate, if memory serves, for about 1/4th the AC). You can move faster, as long as the fighter doesnt buy boots of speed or springing and striding.

I think it follows the design philosophy of trying to make it sorta good at several things (scouting, mobility, attacking) to the point where the class sucks like the bard does. 4th Edition seems to mitigate this by making characters very good at what they are supposed to do, while making every character at least feasible at more mundane things (like scouting).

I'm afraid I agree with you, even if I've placed them in the controller slot for Ki. I've done so because i think that the difference between a striker and a controller will be subtle, and in some cases very difficult to notice.

I know that wizards get displacement as an immediate action thing, so controllers might have powers that let them not only do crowd control, but reactive attacks, mobility, and defense for the rest of the party.

I peg the Monk as a controller because you can make a case that Monks would be a very good canidate for the first melee based controler. They could be capable of disabling their opponents with cunning pressure point attacks, various holds, blocks, trips, ki shouts, and throws.

I suppose it depends on what Wizards thinks controllers are supposed to be able to do, but that is a lot like what I thought that a controller could potentially do as well. Like, the character himself is the center point for a "Burst X; disarm X opponents" type of power. :-D

They would indeed tumble about the field doing damage, jumping around like a crazy person just like they always have, but they could have very thematic powers that gave them the ability to debilitate their foes during the fight. Misdirecting blows aimed at them to their opponents would be a good example.

Since I forsee more classes becoming hybrid engines, the reality might be the best of both worlds: striker/controller!

And since the power source is Ki, being able to do a handful of Ki shout based attacks and doing round house kicks and such are all good monk power ideas. It would give them limited area of effect attacks, which seem to be controler style powers.

This rolls in with what you said above, and I think its a pretty cool idea. A related power is the ranger paragon path power that lets you do a whirlwind attack and knock everyone back. It may be the case that simply being able to land an AoE attack is going to be sufficient to peg them there, but its a start, and an interesting take on the concept.

Its ideally the stuff that I imagined a monk SHOULD be doing, and allows them to be faster and more unique from a fighter, as in 3rd Edition a monk basically does what most characters do: run up into melee and hit something to death.
If they can quickly and easily roll in other things (target is staggered, target is slowed, target becomes prone, etc), I'll be a LOT happier with it.

Of course, I trust Wizards to do their homework, listen to the fanbase, and deliver excellent paid content.

I read a report about a potential monk character on the staff blogs at Gleemax. I guess the guy was able to redirect an attack from one bad guy into another.
If thats an indication, I could feasibly see the monk leaking every so slightly into the controller role as he backflips into combat and starts wreaking havoc by knocking people over, having them hit eachother, and pretty much any Jacky Chan stunt you can imagine.

This is the kind of stuff that calls for that "deals X damage on a miss", as the DM can just keep jotting numbers down instead of calling for it, and even try to describe various ways in which this happened (bad guy went to attack, character stomped a floorboard up into their groin before they did it).
Very cinematic, to me.

Hmm...not a bad idea. :-D

Edit 2: I just realized something! Each new base class will come with a feat (or feats) describing what multiclassing into the class offers. So even new classes will be (hopefully) balanced for old classes to take as a multiclass. Man, that's neat-o! Stupid May, having so many days!

Months are so stupid. Whoever made calendars is a jerk because he thought that we were all too dumb to just track time only in seconds, so divided up measurements of time in various increments just to "simplify" for the other morons out there. Ugh.

I dont think we'll see "offical" classes filling up every slot. I recall a Wizards designer stating something to that effect.

I could see a Favored Soul as just another divine leader, but who does things in a different style, or perhaps bleeds into another roll somewhat (like defender, or striker). Its been said that the druid is a kind of hybrid class, so I wouldnt be surprised.

My expectations of the bard is an arcane leader, with perhaps a bit of controller thrown in (since the harpy and howling hag both use sonic controlling effects).

Swordmage I see as an arcane defender, as they utilize magic to enhance their weapons and armor.

I think that the barbarian, druid, and sorcerer will fall into the primal power source that has been mentioned. Not sure if the barbarian is going to be a defender, striker, or combination (it certainly seems mobile enough to be a striker). The sorcerer will probably fit well into the controller role.

As for the psychic source, I think that the psion might make an interesting leader type, or at least have the potential to leak into that role a bit, but controller sounds right to me. I also think that the wilder will be a controller as well, as it sounds flashy enough. I think that at this point we'll be having more than a few hybrid classes.
Psychic warrior sounds best for a defender, and soul-knife definitely sounds like a striker (as does a lurk).

The necromancer has always struck me as a toss-up between a striker, a controller, and/or a leader. I could see a necromancer using leader-inspired powers to bolster undead, use powerful death rays, or just waves upon waves of necromantic energy to wither away bad guys. I think a striker/controller is where its going to end up.
I like the idea of a blackguard as a leader, but since the paladin is a defender, I think that it will likewise end up there. Since a blackguard gets sneak attack, perhaps it will be a defender/striker?
The hexblade curses make me think striker, or perhaps a striker/controller hybrid?

Ninjas and monks seem similar in the same way that a two-bladed ranger and rogue are, so I think they will be both strikers. Samurai would fit great as a defender, and I likewise agree with the shugenja.

Like I said, I dont expect to see every slot on every power source filled up. I know people have been trying to cobble a martial controller that could use grenades, or something to the effect to emulate a non-magical AoE attacker. I fully expect to see fan-made classes to fill in the gaps, however.
Anyway, I also expect to see a lot of NEW classes, as well. Swordmage is the main example, here, and its possible that even classes like the illusionist might get a lot more oomph than what we are used to seeing. The halfling enchanter from Deserts of Desolation, for example, has an at will psychic-damage attack.
Finally, where they dont make a new class, it might become a paragon path instead. Perhaps the necromancer will end up as a paragon path for the wizard?

I think that monks will be another flavor of striker, since Martial has two strikers as well I'd expect to see two classes that fall into the same role/source combo. Monk just seems more like a striker, tumbling into melee and beating people up.

Sebastian wrote:

Antoine7 wrote:

I trying to be as obnoxious to them as I possibly can...maybe they won't come back?

What a wonderful world that would be...

Antoine7 wrote:

Since they are on the verge of making me not come back to the Paizo boards or visiting the site ever again.

Where are you thinking of heading? I like a lot of the community here, but since Paizo announced their intent not to follow 4e, I've been considering exploring new forums. I'm sick of dealing with unreasoned 4e hate, but I'm also not interested in the unreasoned 4e fanaticism you get at the WotC boards.

No clue...probably nowhere.

I wasn't reading any messageboards before and I was doing fine...guess I will manage without it.

I actually thought it was an alias of Razz's, but its Cory Stafford's, whoever that is.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous calling something an "assassain" that only does a piddly 1d6 extra sneak attack damage and only against a bloodied target at that. Also, what's the deal with so many things doing dex damage to adjacent opponents without any real explanation. I guess it doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it lets them fill their "role". How lame can you get? These paragon paths are ridiculous. They lack real depth and the abilities they give are so minor, they could be duplicated with a few feats. They can't even begin to compete with the depth, utility, and flexibility of prestige classes.

I'm assuming that you are referring to the Shadow Assassin paragon path. Paragon paths are not intended to completely replace your class, as a prestige class is, they are designed to attach MORE abilities onto your existing character build.

Sneak attack damage in general has been reduced, partly because almost everything can be affected by it, but partly because class powers allow you to roll out more damage than what you're used to seeing.
The Dexterity damage is from the riposte attack. It represents the assassin hitting them back after they miss. Since rogues and other agile characters add their Dex modifier to damage now, it makes sense to just say "Dex mod = damage".
I disagree with your stance on paragon paths and prestige classes. I think you are wrong because you are trying to compare two different things. I would say that paragon paths are better because they add instead of exchanging.

Lol. Try to get involved with a playtest. ENWorld has gathered enough material to put together a preview player's handbook, and has actually put together a handful of fairly decent preview modules to run playtests with. It gives you a much better feel of the game, and at least for me, helped put a lot of things I didn't like the concept of into a better light.

Cheers! :)

I ran one playtest after D&D XP, when we had the character sheets and kobold stats. It wasnt the actual Scalegloom Hall adventure, but was an arrangement of dungeon tiles and small clusters of kobolds.

This simple session illustrated how much faster and smoother the game runs, even though we'd just gotten into the rules. It was a lot of fun, even for me as a DM, since I got to run amok with my own party of monsters and do creative and fun things with them besides get surrounded and killed.

There is an interview on Enworld that also helps explain some stuff about hit points and saving throws. In particular, the bit on saving throws helped clarify some things for myself: the saving throw mechanic isnt like saving throws at all, but more of a duration-resolution.
The Defenses are like your saves, while the saving throw tells you when it ends, instead of having the DM randmoly rolling a die to determine how long an effect lasts, or otherwise keeping you out of the game for the entire combat (as can happen with paralysis and other things).

The board ate my post so I'll try again.

The guy who runs the comic book store at the mall said that all the people who played first through 3.5 said they hated what they know about 4.0. He said only people who never played D&D are ordering the core books.
Note that this is one store in the Delaware Valley.
It does not take into account internet orders.
One member of the gaming group I play with is going to order it just to find out if there is anything he can use. Possibly to find fault with it.
Is 4.0 more popular in some other parts of the country?
4.0 tend to tell customers what they can and cannot do, as far as items, alignment, classes, races, ect.
It moves away from party cooperation, with everyone able to use rogue skills and healing.
Is this more popular in other parts of the country?

I disagree with 4th Edition telling you what you can/cannot do. If anything, many people looked at alignments in terms of defining their characters actions (you cant do that because you are Good, you cant do that because you are Evil, etc).

Nothing that I've seen appears to be restricting at all to races or classes. If anything, while classes seem to be much more clearly defined, flexibility is still there in terms of multiclassing. Not that classes really lost a whole lot, but those that didnt have much to begin with should have a clear place (bard and monk, for example).

I also disagree on lack of party cooperation. Maybe you are referring to the fact that in 3rd Edition, often only one character is effective at the use of a skill (Knowledge, Spellcraft, or Disable Device), meaning that some challenges hinge on the success/failure of that one character's roll. I wouldnt call that cooperation, however.
I think that 4th Edition makes the party far more cooperative than before, since various class powers can affect other characters (paladin's healing attack, cleric's shield of faith, probably most warlord powers).
Even some racial features do this (the elf's group bonus to Perception, half-elf's racial feat that grants a group bonus to Insight and Initiative)).

Finally, skill challenges allow everyone to contribute to a problem, instead of having everyone hang back and watching one guy do it all (or fail).

Two things come to mind when I think of 3rd Edition racial feats. The first is that a lot of racial feats seemed very, very useless. The second is that you didnt get a lot of feats (whopping 7-8), and since there were often a plethora of extremely useful ones already in the game, you were hardpressed to even consider taking them.
A DM wanted to run an "evil" campaign, so I went browsing through the Book of Vile Darkness to see if any feats were tempting. I found many that I thought would be interesting to have, but none that were really on par with the feats that I also wanted.
One gives you a bonus to Intimidate checks. Another gave you a crappy 1d4 natural weapon attack. Not worth it.

The new racial feats have two benefits. One is that they are being integrated from the start. I would totally take a feat that gives everyone else a skill and Init bonus, even only +1, because it applies to everyone else. In fact, most of those racial feats sounds really cool to have, which is a far cry from what we have now.
The second is that you get more feats, so you dont have to be as stingy with them as you did before.

Dragonborn get a breath weapon encounter power right from the get-go, but I can definitely see people picking up one or more racial feats to expand upon its utility.

As for darkvision, it was removed because in 3rd Edition almost EVERYTHING had it by virtue of type. Monstrous Humanoids, Outsiders, Dragons, etc. This created problems because all of two races got it (dwarf and half-orc) and some had low-light vision.
This meant that a DM had to explain what a room looked like for the guy with normal vision, then a bit more in color for the guy with low-light vision, and finally figure out how far the last guy could see with darkvision and redescribe it again sans paintings, writings, and color (since darkvision cant pick out those details).

Some things still get it seemingly by type, such as undead, but then those arent PC races. Also, its much scarier if you get separated or lose your light source and something is skulking about you in the dark, instead of an aboleth charging you with a torch.

Um, didn't kobolds and 1st level PCs have 20 some hit points? So this epic creature can't kill a 1st level monster/PC with 1 swing?

I think the idea is that you wont see all the high-damaging effects that you saw in 3rd Edition, since you can do more damage more often than you "used-to-could".

2d6+9 is only about 16 damage per hit, but these guys can go at it for awhile, and there are going to be more of them (at least four), meaning that its possible for them to surround one character and start dishing out roughly 23 damage a pop, for a grand total of 92 damage per round if they are mauling one poor character to death.

I wouldnt really compare its damage output as a basis for its power level. Its AC is 42, meaning that things are only going to hit it on a natural 20. Its Initiative is +21, meaning that its going to go first, allowing it to zip it, take opportunity attacks that will fail, and then start surrounding characters. Combat will probably be over in a few rounds at that point.

Not doling out tons of hit point damage with a single attack has the benefit of allowing players to realize that you've made a monster too tough for them.

Damn, I really wish 4E material could work backwards.

Oh, but it can! You basically translate this creature into whatever CR you think works best, and then use the 3rd Edition monster creation system to match it up as best as possible to...whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish. Assuming you want it to be a viable CR 25 monster, just poke about enough epic level monsters until you find something that works mostly well enough.
There are, however, some roadblocks that you need to plow through. First of all, the creature is an aberrant, which could basically become an Aberration. Since Aberrations have crappy attack scores, you'll need to ramp up its HD to compensate for a crummy attack bonus. Of course, you can crank up its Strength until you get the attack bonus you are aiming for, but be careful to balance it out so that its hit points, damage, and saving throws dont get too high.
You could also make it a Monstrous Humanoid and no one would be the wiser. Since this is a melee-oriented monster, that might be for the best.

All thats left is to take the Flyby Attack feat and then just arbitrarily assign it sneak attack damage and you are done.

I wish I could take this and make it a 3.5E creature, but the only thing I'd be able to get out of it is its type, HD, and a couple abilities and its scores, a little skills too. 3.5E monsters had more abilities and more descriptive ones, at that...so much for converting backwards.

I'm not going to do the reverse engineering for you, as I'm going to be done with 3E in a month anyway and my players wont hit epic at that time, but with the basic guidelines given above, and the vague guidelines in the 3E Monster Manual, it could be done.

Useless otherwise.

Not for all of us who are playing 4th Edition.

Great monsters. Their abilities and style really evoke a swarm of deadly insects, and the crownwing synergizes really well with them.

Most of that seems reasonable enough. I'm not fond of the racial feats that modify the rest of the party. This game already seems to have a lot of niggling situational modifiers applying all over the place given how many class powers seem to grant buffs and debuffs on top of doing damage.

I'd really rather that the elf racial feats/features actually focused on the elf instead of those near them.

I prefer "always-on" situational modifiers because they get used much more often, and players are more likely to remember them.

The half-elf doesnt have to remember to remind a player, because its turned on all the time, and eventually players will likely get used to just noting that since the half-elf is close enough to add it themselves.
Take bardic music, for example. New players to my group will often forget to add the +3 to attack and damage rolls. Since the old players pretty much subconsciously do this, even the bard forgets to tell people from time to time: often its the CLERIC who is saying, "Dont forget to add this-and-that!"
Also, many of the modifiers seem to last for one turn only. Simple enough to tell a player, "You get +2 to your AC for now." Normally, some buffs last for a matter of minutes, which is maybe enough to occasionally get through one encounter, rummage around for loot, and get to the next encounter. Sometimes.

You obviously don't spend very much time on Canonfire. The edition specific forums are little used and are specifically for game mechanics issues. The function of the site is in the articles and the general discussion. The bulk of the content there is not edition specific because there has never been a need for it to be.

I'd never heard of Cannonfire until you brought it up.
Also, if people NEED to post an ecology of the eladrin article in the 4th Edition section to avoid confusion, then, oh well? It sounds like you are making a way bigger deal out of this than its actually going to be.
The solution sounds so simple: specify ahead of time.

Planewalker isn't edition specific either. It doesn't deal with game mechanics. It deals with "fluff". You could get good information there regardless of what edition you played, because that material was still valid.

A casual perusal of the site would indicate otherwise: downloads for 3rd Edition material is plastered everywhere. In fact, a download for a 3rd Edition module is the first thing that greets you when you go there.
I'm not going to check every page of the entire site, but I was able to find quite a bit of mechanic stuff just be clicking around for a bit. Not that I'm surprised, its what the site is largely about.

Anyway, there isn't much point in talking to you since you insist on denigrating the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you and your supposed majority.

I'm sorry that I'm just not buying into the supposed severity of your proposed problem. You think that its going to cause a lot of confusion because people may have to define which edition they are talking about, and I think that since that sort of thing happens now, that its not that really anything new.