David Marks's page

I'm not so sure that's true in 3.5 (and 2e had the Specialty Priests that made a great deal of differentiation possible...).

You've got Domains, Domain Powers, plus individual Feat and Skill selections; if all Clerics are just the same person in different suits, your group may well be nerfing them, going with "optimal" spells and Talent selections instead of spells and Talents reflecting the individual Deity worshipped - or the setting your using is not well-defined.
In either case, I suspect a group that has this problem now will still see it in 4e (or if they go back to 2e or 1e, or even go "sideways" to HackMaster or whatever).

You have domains, sure, but domains offer mincey little abilities and nine spells. Feats and Skills can diffrentiate your Cleric, but no more than any other class. I believe the poster was asking about whether two Clerics of a different diety will have any inherent mechanical differences (like 2E's sphere access, or the specialty priest).

I'd speculate we'll see a Shadow source, or maybe Death or Negative. No doubt thats where Necromancers will come in, as well as maybe Illusionists (more likely if its Shadow). You could also fit something like a Shadowmage from ToM or a Shadowdancer in there.

Psi has more or less been confirmed as an eventual powersource and I think you're spot on regarding a Primal (or Natural, or Feral) source, where Barbarians, Druids, and maybe Spirit Shamans will be lumped in.

Assuming Ki isn't folded up with Psi, thats where Samurai, Ninjas, and Monks will feature, and possibly the oriental casters as well.

I think swashbucklery is going to be split between Fighters and Rogues though, so I'm unsure if we'll see a Swashbuckler class anytime soon ... why would you pick them as a controller? Also, what would the Warden class be?

I'm not sure about a Dragon source, although since they say anything with "dragon" in it sells well, I suppose that remains a strong possibility. Over at ENWorld I've seen a fair bit of speculation regarding a Science or Alchemy source, focusing on Artificers or maybe a controller who uses tanglefoot bags and alchemist fire (and other assorted projectiles).

The idea is contained in the quote. Read it again. Magic items and summoned critter stats will be included in the PHB, so no cross-referencing of the DMG is needed.

Its true that for the most part, a PHB is all a player needs in 3E. But surely I'm not the only one who has had to wait for the one copy of the DMG to make its way around the table so I could figure out what some strange item does? Hell, if you play a summoning focused caster, not having your own MM is crippling (especially if your table requires your summons to be pre-statted out ahead of time, like at mine.)

Well we know that the Bullman is going to D&D XP so he might come back and say, "Our customers won't like these rules, we're sticking with 3.5 for AP3." (Hopeful!)

Thats it DMcCoy! I'm hoping for the exact opposite so that means only one thing!

Time for a hope-off! (tongue firmly in cheek here =P)

For Wizard's (and TSR, for that matter) the situation with FR is "use them or lose them." If they don't publish FR resources then the rights to it revert to Ed Greenwood, who is then free to offer it up to other companies if any of them want to take a chance on it. And while FR RPG material doesn't sell anywhere near as well as core books, it's probably still bigger than any other setting out there. I expect quite a few companies would line up to take it over, and it would make them more than any other setting. Even split from the novel lines, it would still be a significant acquisition. It's possible that more than 5% of the people currently playing D&D use FR as their setting.

Very interesting, and illuminating! I didn't realize Mr. Ed could grab ahold of his original property if WotC dropped it. Does explain why FR's been dragged along so far though ... thanks!

They seem to think otherwise, or they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to change the FR to work with the new rules.

This touches on FR's strange status of always being dragged along to new editions (and generally being blown up in the process!) I dunno why FR is singled out for this treatment, but there it is. As far changing it to fit with the new mechanics, thats true to an extent. But you could run pre or post Time of Troubles FR in 2E or 3E, and I'm sure you can in 4E as well. Likewise, I'd expect you could run post-Spellplague in 2E or 3E if you so desired. Of course they're going to change things though, thats what sells books (which is primarily what they're trying to do!)

Plus, I liked the FR not just as a setting to play, but also as a setting to read about, and one where other things beside what happens in my campaigns are going on. Now that's gone, as I don't like the new canon, and that means that the new RPG books will be useless (they'll have mainly new setting info, none of which I want to keep), and so will be the novels (they play in a world I don't like).

I understand the disappointment in no longer having new material which you think you'll like (which I suspect drives a lot of the 4E angst) but you'll still have lots of (insert favorite version of FR) material to run in. Aren't there whole sections of FR yet to be detailed? <- only vaguely familiar with FR ideas here.

Read that quote again: I wasn't talking about the realms. I was talking about D&D.

I have to agree with CWM here. DnD may be collective in that everyone creates pieces for it, and even shares among each other (something that I'm sure will happen in 4e) but the core settings have always been the companies. We pay to play with them, but by no means do we own them. Sure other companies made stuff using the OGL, but thats just changing the name of the company, not the reality of the situation. Paizo owns Golarion (I'm assuming Pathfinder world?) as much as Wizard's owns FR. And likewise, they're as free to blow it up, if they so desire.

Sounds like a fun character then! Without seeing the rules I'd think a Warlord could pull that off, with a similar bit of DM fiat (change the flavor of your Warlord-y abilities from military leader to musical inspiration and you would probably be close I'd think!)

I'd imagine I'm pretty quickly earning a pro-4E reputation around here, so it shouldn't be suprising that I am looking forward to the proposed changes in mechanics.

I'll be honest, though, and admit that I'm not 100% behind all of the flavor changes. My feelings are perhaps expressed closest by Timothy Mallory, so I'll let him do the explaining (again!)

I actually run homebrews mainly, so in that sense the fluff is completely irrelevant. But I do like to talk D&D with others and now that's going to be harder for no gain that I can see..

Now, I do see reason for some changes, and how some changes snowball into giant changes (eliminating alignment invalidates pretty much all of the Outer Planes, which has drastic affects on the outsiders who live there and so on and so on ...)

Other changes (I'm looking at you FR) seem to be more about updating an existing setting to conform to the new edition. Its strange, but FR seems to be the campaign always updated for the new editions. You don't really see any other campaigns going through anything like that ... I don't really expect Eberron to have any big shakeup, although I suppose that remains to be seen.

Overall, I'd say that while the fluff changes aren't 100% for the better, I don't really care, because its just fluff. This won't be the first (or the last!) that I've completely ignored the fluff for the nice juicy (should that be crunchy?) mechanics.

One last point. Unless FR is the only kind of DnD you play in, its destruction shouldn't turn you away from 4E completely. Obviously, to each their own, but the events in FR have little to do with 4E as a game. Like older editions of FR? I'm sure you'll be able to play them with 4E mechanics, with a bit of polish (and maybe a shoe horn) to fit them in.

I'm still asking how I can make my lvl 12 bard that hasn't picked up a weapon more deadly then a pint of ale in a bar brawl at level 1, and hasn't cast a single spell in his life, and in fact, detests magic.

(yes this is a real character in a real campaign that will be converting once 4e comes out)

I'd ask how he was modelled in whatever game you're bringing him from. I'm not sure how you'd make a char like that in 3E, much less 4E. The only option (in either system) that I could think of (barring house-rules) would be to simply ignore a characters combat abilities. In which case, I'd guess a Rogue is what you want (although not having the books, its just a guess!)

PS: It occurred to me after I posted but a Warlord might even be a better fit, assuming in combat he generally used Bardic Music to boost his allies. And he doesn't have spells at all! :)

David Marks wrote:

By any chance (and at a risk of diverging wildly off-topic) do you decry the changes in fluff?

The PoL assumed setting is, IMO, the way D&D should be. The game was originally a toolkit to make your own game. Greyhawk, I feel, should not be an assumed setting. I am not thrilled about the changes to the FR; I would be alot more upset about them if I played in the FR world for longer then 6 months. But I do feel for those that have played in there for a decade or two.

Well there goes that idea. :P

For this part, I agree with you regarding the direction of the fluff. I didn't mind Greyhawk in as much, but that was more my lack of any knowledge of Greyhawk than an acceptance of the campaign setting (hmm ... theres a city ... somewhere ... named Greyhawk? Yeah I've run that campaign ...)

I feel for the people who played in FR, although I don't understand those who choose to boycott 4E over the changes in the Realms (I guess it makes sense if the only DnD you're willing to play is FR ...)

Again, on a widely divergent note, I think I'm more likely to play FR in 4E than I was before, although I guess that remains to be seen ...

IMO, Wizards doesn't own Dungeons and Dragons. They own the IP, but I own my game. From it I can create world never envisioned by the creators. When I play Exalted, I play the one shared, assumed setting of creation. WW owns the game. When Yoplait says that their product tastes better then Dannon, I give it a try and decide for myself. But then again, they own their take on the product; they don't own yogurt.

Wizards owns the IP to D&D; they don't OWN D&D, AFAIAC. They own their take on D&D, and they can certainly make their take on D&D better, but they can never make my imagination, my railroady DM, or my memories of my game "better."

Subtle distinction, but one that I hold true, none the less.

Ah, now I begin to see where our ideas on this matter diverge. Most of what you consider DnD lies outside of what I attribute to that title.

When I hear Wizards say they're making DnD better, I don't flash to the game worlds or characters I've made, or to adventures I've run/played in. I think of the game itself, the engine that runs all of the fantasy I enjoy. And when they tell me the engine now runs better, with 50% less harmful emissions!, well it makes me excited! :) I mean, I like the engine I have now, but it does clunk around every now and then. (Sorry if the anology there is clunkier than the metaphorical engine!)

By any chance (and at a risk of diverging wildly off-topic) do you decry the changes in fluff? I find myself curious if there is a relationship between an attachment to the generic fluff supplied and a more all inclusive view of the DnD implied in the marketing.

... But saying he game is "better," IMO, sounds like they regard their opinion above all others. Whether or not it is true, it sounds arrogant. By publickly recognizing that some will not like the changes they made and inviting those that are not thrilled about the game to give it a try before making a final judgement sounds like the humble stewards of the game that Wizards says that they are.

I'm afraid this just leaves me scratching my head in confusion. If that's how you feel, that's fine but I just don't get it. All marketing is like this. Not just for DnD, not just for RPGs, for everything!

Products always claim to be faster, cheaper, and (most importantly) better than any competitors (including predessors). It just doesn't come across as arrogant at all to me.

As for the Traveller example, thats slightly different, since past edition switches had caused such a ruckus (even though I've never played, the furor was loud enough for me to hear it in my little it of Traveller free space!) I definitely read that more as "please at least try our new version before burning our house down!"

Maybe WoTC should try that approach when they eventually shift to 5E ...

puggins wrote:

You're making the assumption that fragmentation will occur. Previous history disagrees with you.

I'll start by saying that maybe the tri-state area I live in is just unique.

But if it isn't, then you haven't really paid attention to the previous edition changes.

From my "armpit of the US," I can say that the number of hold-outs roughly doubles each edition change. And that means roughly 16x the number of people who didn't switch from 1st Edition won't switch to 4th. And that value doesn't include the previous holdouts.

Now, I haven't a clue how many new players each edition gains... Or loses throughout it's career, so your 10% mark may still hold true.

To compare, Dis, where I like each edition has been followed by the death of pretty much every other game. Never any books for older editions, never any cards on the local recruiting boards looking for anything but 3.5.

I don't really infer anything from that (nor from your example), but in general I do agree with Pugs point. I doubt there will be any real sort of "fragmentation". If 4E sucks, it'll bomb. Otherwise, the vast majority will switch over. The % that come online to b@@!+ and whine (or praise and worship!) is very small compared to the numbers out there who just buy a book every now and then and game with their friends (at least, IMO!)

Well, in the action movie, the protagonist wouldn't get hit full force with the axe. He might get grazed by it, or jabbed with the handle, but he won't take an axe swing to the head or chest. He'll probably take the axe away from the bad guy and hit him full force with it, thus killing him and ending the fight. In the movies, they don't survive injuries that they couldn't possibly survive without some reasonable explanation, even if that explanation is only inferred. If they get shot, it's not in a vital area or the bullet hits something like a badge or bullet-proof vest that absorbs most of the impact. If they fall from a high building, they catch themself on the edge of cliff, or they land on an awning. The list goes on and on. I guess that really is how combat and hit points work in D&D, but I'ver never really pictured it that way.

And that is most likely the source of your problem. Not that I'm trying to single you out or anything. Hell, in games I play in, I describe characters getting hit, pieces being ripped off and thrown against the wall, all types of stuff. But really, none of that description fits what the game mechanics are really representing.

In another thread on this same issue (I second whoever mentioned that the same complaints and dissents seem to come up every edition switch) someone suggested people who dislike the abstract HP system DnD uses come up with a description for what is happening before the final outcome is known, while those more able to accept it wait to see what happens. Character hit but doesn't drop? He was grazed, or dodged just in time (but it was a close one!) Character dropped but not outright dead? On the ground, sword/arrow in him or maybe just a little smokey.

Someone heals him in time (be it Cleric or Warlord)? Wasn't as bad as it looked at first, as he gets up and dusts himself off/damps out his still smoking hair.

I'll have to rein in my more gorey battle descriptions to make the Warlord make sense, but thats a cost I'm willing to incur for 4E. I expect it to be pretty good! (Sorry if that hurts my credibility any!):)

I'd say you're certainly on the right track, although I can't give you the authoratative answer you seek.

In another thread here (damned if I can remember the one) a poster asked Rodney if he could make an archery focused Fighter. Rodney said that sounded like a Ranger to him. The poster insisted on pressing the question of could he make a Fighter but I think he was missing the point. The name of the class is meaningless, its what the character does that matters. A character who focuses on ranged bow attacks is best modeled as a Ranger, even if that name is never applied to him in game.

What game worlds were discontinued? Not being contrary here, just was unaware of any.

I'd add a question but as pretty much anything I'd ask would be about some aspect of the rules, I know it wouldn't get answered anyway.

Cool idea for a thread, hopefully it gets some interesting results!

I think you're missing the fact, troll, that at -1/2 your total HP, you're dead. No stabilization roll, no healing magic (that we know of) to save ya. A big ass crit or some kind of damage over time affect could easily drop you low enough, and thats not even addressing whether CdG remains in game.

In some ways, I think 4E will actually be deadlier than in 3E, at least once a person is dropped. In 3rd you'd know how long you had to reach them before they were offed (assuming they didn't keep taking damage). In 4th they always have at least 3 rounds, but sometimes thats it ... (anyone with better static-fu than me want to crunch the numbers on % dead on round 3?)

My current campaign (being the SC AP) hews pretty closely to the vague, European fantasy that some tend to associate with DnD. But I've surely played in other campaigns, like Dark Sun or Ravenloft, that were pretty non-standard. They all still felt like DnD to me.

You know, people keep listing the "sins" of 3E (and I have to agree with several of them) but leave out what, for me, may be the biggest - the game ASSUMES a certain level of magic, etc. is in the possession of the PCs at any given time, or the whole ECL/CL/CR system falls flat.

Sadly, from the few leaks they've released, it looks like 4E retains this flaw, so I guess mentioning it isn't relevant but still - that is probably the biggest thing I'd be looking to change if I were creating a new edition.
Maybe allow items to adjust the party's effective level, rather than assuming they're there already...

I agree with you there, at least re: one of 3E's flaws. From what I had read, however, it looked like this problem was being addressed pretty well.

I can't find any quotes at the moment, but my memory says that items which provide straight bonuses (boni?) were being limited to three items, with explicit guidelines on the "expected" potency a character is expected to have per level. Just give the same bonuses out for free and it would seem you can run a pretty effective non-magical game.

I don't think DR has ever been mentioned, so if it's still around, maybe you'd have to something about that but still ...

Since its an opinion I pretty much never see on here, let me say that I stopped subscribing to Pathfinder the day 4E was announced. My group will no doubt switch over once its released, and to be honest, we already have tons of 3.5 stuff to play anyway, a large amount of which seems unlikely to ever get played now.

Once Paizo switches back over to 4E, however, I'll be happy to give them my money again! :)

Hey guys, I've always appreciated your work, but my group has barely started in on AoW, much less ST. I'll pick up the rest of the first Pathfinder AP individually, but seeing as 4E is coming out, I really don't see a need for even more 3.5 APs. When/if you guys switch over though, you can expect me back. So, could someone please cancel my Pathfinder subscription? That is, let me keep getting the ones I have coming (I think up to #4) but don't renew me after that? Thanks! :)