Shroomy's page

Set, based on my reading of the 4e preview material, I think you are dead-on in terms of how spellcasters outshine other classes. It is not strictly damage output per se, because a high-level fighter can dish out lots of damage, but the fact that eventually spells can perform other class roles (especially skill-based ones) better than the designated class.

Just a point of clarification, from everything I've read regarding the 4e multi-class system (and I have to admit there is not much information), the point is not that you will be equally effective in both classes as a single-classed character of the same character level (you won't), but that you won't be appreciably worse-off for making a weird choice. It reminds me of a couple of old Class Acts articles where the author told what you should and should not multi-class with because some of the classes would not synergize properly. Apparently, this issue is gone, though I'm not sure how they achieved the results.

Regarding the CR system, while it is an improvement of previous editions, often confused and complained about stuff like associated/disassociated class levels and NPC level=CR are part and parcel of the core system...just food for thought when people say that the CR system does not have any problems as RAW.

Most likely.

I don't see how this is different from when new content first appeared in Dragon and was later re-published in book form.

We've seen the Tome of Horror series, The Advanced Bestiary, and The Book of Fiends (well for a monster with class levels) used so far, but what about other books. I know that you said that The Book of Erotic Fantasy was out (badly designed monsters anyways, a CR 12 monster able to summon a CR 20 monster, WTF), but what other OGL sourcebooks are being used?

I'm not sure that any of the current GM modules really call out for a sequel, maybe "Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale." But that doesn't mean that I don't want to see additional modules set in areas where previous modules are set (more Osirion please).

That's not really integral, those are supplemental. IMO, for something to be integral to the game, the game cannot be played without it. I don't see how that can be true for the DI.

That doesn't really apply to 4e though.

*said curious and not snarky* You don't see that as potentially being changed in the future, making the DI integral to playing the game?

How so? WoTC would have to stop producing hard cover books, reclaim all the ones already sold, and somehow prevent people from congregating together to play the game.

What they actually said is that there was no plan for a 4e that required the usage of miniatures.

The way most PCs act when they get in a group... I'd have to nominate Greed as the big PC sin over anything else.

PC: SO, how much can we get for the orc's suit of leather armor, even though it's torn?

GM: Dude, you're 10th level.

PC: So? How much?

Very true, is that why

You know, the PCs are more likely to embody the sin of "pride" than anything else in Rise in the Runelords, so I hope that is taken into account.

Hmm. So another stomping on history (the H-Series were originally four high-level Battlesystem/2e hybrid modules, the first set on Greyhawk, the other three inexplicably moved suddenly to the Forgotten Realms)...

Ummm, no. H stands for "Heroic." Apparently, D&D adventures will be assigned designators based on their tier ("P" for Paragon" and "E" for epic).

I haven't had a chance to read the latest adventure, though I did download it. It looks good, but there's a bad product placement taste in my mouth since they put out an aboleth adventure while also pushing the Elder Evils hardcover.

"The Last Breaths of Ashenport" has nothing to do with Elder Evils and it is hardly an aboleth adventure. Also, you must have had this bad taste in your mouth for such adventures as "The Porphyry House Horror" (Book of Vile Darkness), "The Raiders of Black Ice" (Frostburn), "The Styes" (Lords of Madness), "Seekers of the Silver Forge" (Stormwrack), and "The Obsidian Eye" (Sandstorm), all of which appeared in Dungeon at roughly the same time as the sourcebooks they drew material from.

Dungeon and especially Dragon were and remain primarily a form of advertising for the D&D product line.

BTW, there is only the one article in the DI that does not provide at least a brief explanation of the non-core material.

Um, that's not Iggwilv. That's Drelnza, her daughter.

The last I heard it was around $10/month, which included a subscription to both magazines and access to the e-tools.

Shroomy wrote:

I wouldn't say it was willful deception. There was a lot of misquoting that got blown out of proportion on this here Interweb thingie. Read a nice summary thread here.

It's not so much the statement about "products through 2008" that brought about the accusations of deception. The "We are not currently working on 4th edition" quote was the one that was a blatant lie. There is no need for accusation here, and there is no defending it. We were lied too, so we would continue to purchase 3.5 products at least up until the GenCon announcement.

The quote was that WoTC was not actually working on a 4e that required minis.

While I realize that Paizo is in a tough spot, I'd rather have them switch and support 4e than create another OGL variant of D&D, mainly because I want to use their kick ass adventures in the new edition without a lot of converting, but also because if I wanted to play a OGL variant I'd already be playing a game system like C&C, True 20, or Conan.

On a side note, I also regularly visit 5 FLGS and I don't exactly see the non-D&D stuff flying off the bookshelves (hell, I can only find a good supply of Pathfinder and Gamemastery modules at one of those stores).

Or WoTC will just rake it over the coals, and take out the juciest bits to use in thier new generic sourcebooks, and greyhawk will be limited to what us fans (or maybee a 3rd party company) create for it.

While I wouldn't quite put it that way, but isn't that pretty much what was done with Greyhawk in 3.x anyways? My bet is that we will continue to see the majority of Greyhawk support through web articles on the DI and modules (apparently, WoTC plans on releasing 4e versions of classic dungeons).

Did I miss the WoTC announcement that Greyhawk was going to be permanently discontinued? I hope not, since I read the ENWorld 4e boards every day. I do remember reading that Greyhawk will no longer be the official default campaign setting used in the core books. Big, big difference.

How do you know if the material is mediocre if you didn't read it? Will Nick Logue's "Hell's Heart" be deemed mediocre because it did not appear in the print magazines.

Only if you take the quote out of context and are pre-disposed to reading everything that WoTC says in a negative light.

Actually, I was wondering how long it would take before someone quoted that phrase on this thread. In the context of the article, he's using the phrase "merciful designers" to stress both the new lethality of zombies and the importance of turn undead when facing them. The entire article is written in a conversational manner and I think its clear that he's not being all that serious. Here are more examples from the same article:

"Shambling, mindless corpses are getting all gussied up for 4E."

"Although it might be hard to believe that something as simple as an animated carcass needed an overhaul..."

"Every 3rd Edition D&D player thinks of a zombie, at best, as a tough bag of hit points that can take a beating."

"That’s right. I did say, “critical hit.” The zombie is vulnerable to that now, which is sweeter than a head shot in any zombie flick."

"The bigger the zombie, the uglier the thump. And when zombies swarm you, some of them are going to grab you, maybe even pulling you to the ground. That’s not the place to be when the dead come knocking."

"They should be most worried about the pummeling their characters are taking anyway."

"It’s a whole new game, even from the very bottom of the undead barrel. Now if we only had a few zombies that added some spice to the basic shambling corpse recipe."

In short, if Chris Sims writing was devoid of any humor, you'd have a point.

I wouldn't say it was willful deception. There was a lot of misquoting that got blown out of proportion on this here Interweb thingie. Read a nice summary thread here.

I judge articles on the basis of the quality of the writing and their utility (or potential utility) at the game table. Overall, I think that the quality of the writing has been very good, but some of the feature articles are lacking in utility from my perspective.

I bought the "Fortress of the Yuan-Ti" a few days before the web enhancement was released; seeing more encounters written by Ari Marmell was a nice little bonus for me and I liked the inclusion of full-color artwork in a supplement for a B&W module (and let me say, I think that the artwork in the e-magazines, especially Dragon has been outstanding).

"The Ecology of the Death Knight" was hobbled by the fact that it was largely trying to describe how the Death Knight would work in 4e without access to the actual mechanics; while I thought some of the new fluff had potential, I found that the actual article was interesting more because it showed the potential of a web-article instead of it's actual content.

"D&D 360" should probably have been released as a column instead of a feature (I generally judge columns on how well the author keeps my interest); it was a nice, quick read, nothing special.

"Dragons of Eberron: Dragon Hoards" was a nice plug and play utility feature whose usefulness is not restricted to Eberron campaigns. I particularly liked all of the detailed devoted to the art objects found in the sample hoards.

"Dragons of Eberron: Lethal Locations" the jewel so far (go Nick!), this is a great article especially for me since I really enjoy Eberron. I hadn't planned on buying anymore sourcebooks until 4e was released, but this article is seriously making me consider buying Dragons of Eberron. While relatively short, each place description was well written and just packed with details. Again, the artwork was top knotch!

"Infernal Aristocracy: The Dukes of Hell" was a good, solid article, though I have to admit, given the size of 3.x stat blocks you need to devote a considerable amount of pages to really get to the meat of high level opponents (something like the upcoming Demonicon of Iggwilv). That said, having the full stat blocks and historical summary of 5 Dukes would prove useful to anyone running a high-level, planar, or devil-centric campaign. I'm doing neither, so I ended up reading this one for my own enjoyment.

No, I am not kidding. Saying one is "underwhelmed" by the current content adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Its one week later, and I'm still underwhelmed.

Why are you underwhelmed?

I swear I think most of You are all just looking for things to find fault with at this point. Nothing that the author of that article wrote was necessarily ground-breaking but there was some worthwhile advice in there. I myself thought the notion of scripting a campaign in terms of seasons (rather than an endless soap opera) was actually a rather good idea as I've run into that problem before too.

Also, what's wrong with the guy stating his credentials and letting You know his background and how he intends to approach the column? I can see it now, if he'd just written an article with no preface then people would still be complaining wondering who-the-hell this guy thinks he is to go telling people what to do.

Get a grip [on an ale]!

QFT

Evilturnip, read the thread further, Chris Thomasson directly responded to the thread that Sebastian started. I don't frequent the WoTC that often because I can't keep up with the sheer volume of threads and posts, but I have seen posts by Chris and other WoTC staffers on various threads throughout the D&D boards.

Shroomy wrote:

Um, guys, gnomes are going to be in the first Monster Manual!

Yes, but not in the Player's Handbook. Which means for those who only buy the Player's Handbook (like most of my friends since they never DM) there won't be any gnomes.

So what you are saying is that nobody in your group will purchase a MM that you can borrow while making a character?

Um, guys, gnomes are going to be in the first Monster Manual!

I'm not the oldest of the old school, but they haven't alienated me. I set aside my anger and adapted to the new situation, principally because I like what I hear about 4e and also because I see all kinds of potential in the web format (art and map integration into the digital table-top, hyperlinks to other articles both inside and outside of the DI, searchable indexes, the ability to integrate errata, etc. etc.) What good does being PO'd for months on end do anyways?

Gnomes are supposed to be in the MMI with notes on how they can be used as a PC race.

After what I have learned about 4e, I want it more than ever. I was mad about the cancellation of the magazines, but that was six months ago and I got over it.

Guys, they've updated the article and made that a Spoiler that you have to click on now. There are some advantages to the electronic format, including the ability to update it once it has been released and bibliographical hyperlinks.

I suspect the majority of gamers, and not those on messageboards, don't care one way or the other.

I think you guys are overestimating the popularity of the planes and especially the Great Wheel cosmology. Even if every 4e designer hated, hated, hated the Great Wheel (and I don't), strong market research to the contrary would have probably disuaded massive changes to the core planar settings. I doubt this change will have a significant impact on the sales of 4e

"H" means "Heroic." The other two letter designations apparently are "P" for "Paragon" and "E" for "Epic." These three categories reflect the three, general levels of play in 4e:

Heroic - Levels 1-10
Paragon - Levels 11-20
Epic - Levels 21-30

A....after slogging through skill points for monsters and the DMG EL chart, which I hate, I'm ready for a new system that makes creating encounters easier.

If 4th edition does anything about the clunkiness of iterative attacks

Iterative attacks are gone in 4e, though if SWSE is a useful guide, you can invest in feats that grant multiple attacks per round.

I think with the supposed 4e de-emphasis on alignment, they needed to differentiate the fiends in some other, "better" way. Personally, I don't really care about these changes too much.

WormysQueue wrote:

stop with this stupid claim

Stupid? That is the way how insults start in a forum. Did you know?

I have read reviews about 4.0 and most of them claims it is heavily web-based, so what can I say we all share the same source of information, isn't it?

Wow, you read reviews of a system that will not be released until May of 2008, lucky you. And here I was going off of statements from WoTC staffers categorically stating that D&D will remain a pen-and-paper game with optional on-line support. This is kind of like your claim that vintage Dungeon supported 1e and 2e material simultaneously. It did not, they ran 1e for a while and then switched exclusively to 2e (for AD&D support that is) around Issue 20.

Shroomy wrote:

No, you're wrong, it is not a MMORPG and you are not required to be online to play 4e. Can we please stop beating this dead horse.

Maybe not right now, but wait a little, hi, hi, hi.

Oh, puh-leaze...

Like an idiot, I clicked the post button before I replied...

I think the supposed stated premise for the release of 4.0 D&D, which is that of "Simplifying the game" is not very genuine. If the main purpose of 4.0 is indeed to simplify the game, then WHY, as the post above illustrates, will the game then require the VAST array of Books/Tomes/Manuals/Etc. that you know will be following & forthcoming after the 4.0 PH/DMG/MM have been released. A "simplified 4.0" game that was necessary to "replace a supposedly complex 3.5 system that required updating" should not by default then require DOZENS of support books that will inevitably follow the 'simplified 4.0 PH/DMG/MM'. That is a paradoxical proposition.

If the reason for the release of 4.0 is Money and an attempt to market the game to even more prospective players (which we all know it IS), then why not just say so WoTC? Spare me this intellectually dishonest mumbo-jumbo about "simplifying the game" when you (WoTC) know that the first round of "Complete" books for 4.0 are probably ALREADY on the drawing board.

I don't think WOTC is being dishonest in this instance because there is a difference between simplifying the base rule system and simplifying the game by eliminating supplementary material (and then betray this simplification by adding optional, supplementary material). I think it is clear that WOTC is talking about the former when they talk about "simplification," "less prep time," and "easier to run." And its not like they are hiding the release of future, supplementary material, WoTC has been pretty upfront about it.

D&D 4.0 based on on-line game the same as MMORPGs eh?

Well 3.5 players will take their books, maps, combat mats, miniatures and dices and will play at any place of the world even on those places where there is not electricity or internet access.
I would like to see the face of a 4.0 player in a blackout, without computer and without game.
In the blackout I and my fellow players will light some candles and play a horror fantasy adventure, what an experience.
Poor guys without game in the blackout hi, hi, hi.

No, you're wrong, it is not a MMORPG and you are not required to be online to play 4e. Can we please stop beating this dead horse.

Two questions:
- they list the Kobold Chief as having a CR of 4. Is this a typo? With his Warrior 4/Rogue 3 (don't have it in front of me) I thought his CR would have been 6 which would also make the EL for his chamber higher than shown since he has elites and regular kobolds with him too?

Per the SRD: "Kobolds with levels in NPC classes have a CR equal to their character level -3." A Kobold Warrior 4 is only a CR 1 threat.

Very cool Shroomy! Congrats on the "revise and resubmit!" Here's hoping it sees web-print! Good luck with it!

No word on any of my slush yet, but that's just fine...got a lot on my plate right now, what with moving to NYC and the FringeFestival and some more stuff for Paizo.

Still, I hope to hear back about a few of mine that I was particularly excited about.

Thanks Nick (and everyone else), I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Of course, the part WoTC wants revised is the main villain and her motivations, so I have to come up with something completely new!

Just wanted to give everyone a FYI, it looks like WoTC is making progress on the Paizo slush pile. I received two emails regarding adventure proposals I sent in last fall, one was a rejection (oh well) and the other was request for a revised proposal.

Chris Thomasson posted on the WoTC website that he jumped the gun by announcing an auto-response in the submission guidelines before IT was ready. I think they installed a beta version yesterday, but for any responses sent prior to that, he has to reply manually.

Um, have you guys read his critiques of the iconics? They are based on the elite array and the 3.5 SRD. Not only that, I think his analysis and suggested changes are both convincing and reasonable.