Bryon_Kershaw's page

Name: Tadirion Maevaryn
Race: Elf
Classes/levels: Wizard 2
Adventure: The Stolen Lands
Location: The Old Sycamore
Catalyst: "I have how many Hit Points again?"
The Gory Details:
After battling their way through scores of mites(and having a good laugh at the critters who didn't put up much of a fight), the party engaged the leader of the mites and their whiptail centipedes. Despite his injuries, the elven wizard Tadirion boldly strolled forward to face the creature, easily within range of its deadly jaws and seemingly heedless of the danger to his person. The centipede, somehow unmoved by the display of bravado from an unarmoured wizard covered in wounds, proceeded to eat him. The party avenged him, paid a quiet moment of silence and then proceeded to divvy up his worldly possessions and leave his remains behind without another thought.

Yet another cartoon interview at wotc....

Mindflayer Looking For Thralls

I thought this one was much funnier than the Beholder and then Tiefling/Gnome one. The troglodyte humour was kinda cheap, but it's a troglodyte so it's to be expected.

Uhm, you are right. However... the vampire vizier lists "Radiant 10, sunlight" as weakness, while the vampire lord only lists "Radiant 10". The powers of both creatures also have some minor differences.

Perhaps they are different templates? Or one of them is an unfinished version?

Certainly possible that are different templates, I hadn't thought of that. I did want to stress though that we are still seeing vampires being harmed by it. As was mentioned, perhaps a Vampire Lord is a more advanced vampire?

Well, I can't see the part where that is said. Could you please point the source?

While not listed in this article it has been featured elsewhere, namely here:

Hurt by Sunlight Only 1 standard action per turn; no blood drain, dominating gaze or regeneration. 26 damage each round, destroyed at 0 HP.

We were told the minis' stat cards were reflective of the game, so that would make that a precedent: sunlight toasts vamps.

~ Bryon ~

Razz: Vampires are, in fact Razz, still vulnerable to sunlight. They take about 1/4 of their hit points in damage from being in sunlight and cannot use any of their abilities. As for feats, you can add on whichever ones you feel the monster needs. Part of what feels, for me at any rate, nice about this system is how fluid it seems to be. I feel very creative when working with these monsters.

Lazaro: The ability to create spawn isn't one which is dealt with her but we know there are vampire spawn in the game, so vis-a-vie, vampires can spawn away. It's just an ability which is either handled via DM fiat or is taken care or elsewhere, such as in the entry for vampires. My gut reaction is the latter.

James: I would foremost like to say that I truly respect your opinions on the state of gaming - the Savage Tide Adventure Path is probably the best 3rd edition material I've ever seen for D&D. However I would like to point out an analogy on Monster building - based solely upon the rules without any leeway or swing, building monsters in 3rd is a tough prospect. In the same way that if you ask a professional computer programmer what version of Windows they prefer you'll only get laughter as an answer, Linux is something that is going to be a mystery for most casual users. When you're really deep into the ins and outs of the 3.X system it all flows and you can probably whip up a monster with no problems at all. For myself at least, I found the entire process erudite and rather aggravating. The entire monolithic process of creating a monster from the ground up felt like too much effort for me to undertake, only to see that monster killed off by a lucky critical hit, or even worse, wipe out the party and know that I was directly responsible and their tactics and strategies didn't make a difference.

For my two cents, the customization of 4th edition monsters and really making them feel like a part of the world will be found in Rituals. These out of combat abilities aren't specifically addressed here, but will be pretty easy to include into a monster's stat block and represent at least some of what a monster is doing outside of its doing battle with the PCs.

I certainly think there's a difference between simple and elegant. As has been expressed in a post at ENWorld, many of the sundry abilities higher level monsters need in 3rd edition to be viable are simply ones to counter PC abilities. No matter how many hit points a monster has, if it has no ranged attacks or means of dealing with flying creatures around 15th level when the entire party can easily take to the air, it's a bum ticket. The true complexity and tactical milieu of 4th edition isn't going to be found with individual monster entries anymore. Instead it will be found in Encounter groups.

What monsters can do on their own then pales to what they can do in a group. Taking the earlier example of a vampire's henchmen, a large group of Vampire Spawn get bonuses when attacking a target adjacent to another Vampire Spawn. A simple enough encounter, but removing some of those Vampire Spawn and adding in a Chillborn Zombie, a creature who immobilizes you, suddenly makes the encounter much more dangerous. Replacing a few more Vampire Spawn with wolves serving your evil Vampire Overlord who knock foes prone suddenly turns a dangerous encounter into a fight to stay alive, all for the same Experience budget.

As the PCs try to stave off the Vampire Hordes, the cold hands of undead reach for them and steal their ability to flee, while wolves keep pulling their legs out from underneath them and the Vampire Spawn surge into melee.

By looking at monsters individually and believing them to be simple, it is similar to looking at the individual pieces of a machine and commenting that they don't seem to do much. On their own they don't necessarily, but once combined together you get a completely different animal.

Just my humble opinion and we'll need to see the game once it's in action to know for sure, but the experiences I've had with it so far have been very positive and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the matter.

~ Bryon Kershaw ~

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

And the text:

Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.

The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.

The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.

Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.

Either of you fine folks have an e-mail address I can send it to?

So, anyone out there in the wide world of Paizo interested in trying out a 4th edition Demo adventure I'd written? It hasn't been play-tested yet so I can't guarantee how difficult it will be, but it should at least be interesting. It can be played with the D&D XP Demo characters or with characters made via the Player's Handbook Lite available on ENWorld.

So, any takers?

~ Bryon Kershaw ~

Don't you understand?

In 4th edition THERE IS NO BLOOD WAR!

They took the entire cosmology and FLUSHED it.

I can't reconcile my 20+ year Forgotten Realms game with the crap they're doing. It's not possible. My game doesn't have a Feywild, or an Elemental Chaos.

So basically, Wizards is spitting in my face and throwing me out the door, regardless of how much money I spent on their hobby and would have continued to spend if the cosmology remained convertable.

Thanks, Hasbro!

So here's the thing. The current cosmology features this:

In the times before the world was made, there were two things. The elemental chaos, which churned and spat out new life only to consume it again and the astral sea, in which the Gods resided. The elemental chaos spat out the Titans, powerful beings who rivaled the Gods in power, and so were able to craft the World. They then decided to tear it apart, having grown bored. The Gods fought to prevent it and eventually sealed up the Titans.

The abyss formed at the very heart of the Elemental Chaos through the machinations of some unknown God, possibly Tharizdun. It then began to bleed out Demons like a sick wound pours out pus. Demons are interested in carnage, destruction and devastation. Vis-a-vie, the Demons are interested in, at least to some extent, destroying the World.

Asmodeus, the Lord of all Devils, chose to rebel against his divine master. The interesting question to ask here is - why? Hunger for power? Unlikely. After all, when do angelic beings hunger for power? Angels, by and large, are creatures of duty. So what could cause an angel to shirk its duty? Perhaps the fact it realized its duty was something greater and beyond what was currently being performed - a duty to the Cosmos as a whole as opposed to one doddering God or something. Perhaps even to a God of prophecy, who commanded the act of betrayal be done.

If we (and by that I mean you) were to accept that logic for your campaign, then suddenly you've got the very heart of the Blood War put into place. The Demons stand posed to destroy all of creation, something the lawful (while still evil) Devils oppose. And so the Devils harvest evil souls, gather power, breed and multiply in their dark pits awaiting the hour when the Demons pour over the World and are met kind for kind, atrocity for atrocity by Devilish arms and forces. The Blood War no longer needs to be something happening in th Grey Wastes or the crashing cubes of Acheron - the Blood War could be happening on your very doorstep or in another country or on another continent, roiling and drawing ever nearer to you.

So is the Blood War gone from D&D? Well, that depends on you.

Glad to hear you enjoyed it! Any chance you might be able to direct us to where you found Escape from Sembia? I'd been poking around ENWorld and couldn't seem to find it over there.

Also if you haven't tried it yet, I'll be giving "Raiders of Oakhurst" a try this evening, so I'll likely post how that goes. I'll be using a smaller than average party too, so it should be interesting.

1. Nightscale's breath weapon recharges on a 5,6. Does that mean that each round the DM rolls a d6 and on a 5 or 6 it is available again? Is that how recharging works in general?

If the dragon used its breath weapon it cannot use it again until it successfully recharges. You roll the d6 at the end of the monster's turn that the breath weapon is unavailable - on a 5 or a 6 it gains access to the breath weapon again.

2. The hobgoblin's flail attack slows AND marks an opponent until the hob's next turn. How many spaces does the target get slowed? Is it 1/2 move? And is there an additional effect of the mark?

While it isn't specifically mentioned, I would impose a -2 penalty to attack to anyone the Hobgoblin Soldiers mark (this seems to be the norm of being marked, at least by PCs). The slowed condition reduces your movement to 2 unless it would otherwise be lower.

3. The pre-gen Cleric has an ability that damages a foe and bestows "vulnerability 5 (save ends)" to all of the Cleric's attacks against the foe. What exactly does "vulnerability 5" mean?

Vulnerability 5 means you inflict 5 additional damage, so in this case any attack the Cleric makes which inflicts damage inflicts 5 additional damage of that type to the target.

4. Looking at King Meepo's "Wicked Dodge" ability...can he use it EVERY time someone tries to melee attack him if he makes the recharge roll? Even in response to multiple attacks in a single combat round?

After Meepo uses this ability he cannot use it again until it successfully recharges. This means at best, even if Meepo King of the Kobolds successfully recharges it at the end of each turn, he can still only use it once per round. If it fails the recharge, he obviously can't use it at all. Since recharging only happens at the end of the creature's turn, he is limited to it theoretically twice per round (once before his turn, successful recharge on his turn, later in the round when someone else attacks him after his initiative).

Thanks in a advance for any help. I'm really looking forward to running this scenario!

Enjoy and I hope the adventure goes well! Careful of that final battle!

~ Bryon ~

Actually, that was from First Edition I think - or Basic... I vaguely remember it being in one but not the other (and being confused the first time I ran an adventure with a troll as a result, since I'd only recently read through both versions at the time...)

2nd as well, since the 2nd edition Monster Manual was one of the sources I was using to try and construct a troll (the other was the 3.0 MM). As for finding a way to block the Healing, it's tough to find one easily phrased under this system. With the way it's setup now, the trolls do take the 10 additional damage from Fire and Acid, which should make a big difference towards being able to put it down.

Perhaps just a clause about regeneration no longer being usable after being exposed to fire and acid?

Bryon_Kershaw wrote:

Regeneration (minor, Recharge 5,6) Usable only after being bloodied,

Hmm - they only regenerate after being bloodied?

No mention of fire or acid impeding their abilities (though it may be mentioned in any fire or acid based attacks, I suppose)?

Is this an official stat block or an estimated one?

...if official, then it's further support of my ongoing theory that:
4E does look like a good game but
4E does not look ANYTHING like what I know of as "Dungeons & Dragons" (in this case, the abandonment of the Pohl Anderson Three Hearts & Three Lions troll just a fast-healing brute).

I like the attacks these guys get though...

Just something I came up with myself. An easy means of adding in the preventative nature of fire or acid would be causing the ability to no longer function after fire or acid are applied, or to increase the refresh from 5,6 to 6 to represent a much lower chance of it successfully gaining back its healing abilities.

As for the regenerating after being bloodied, I chose to go with that because I thought it was reasonably close to the 2nd edition Troll's ability to begin healing only three rounds after suffering wounds.

Hello everyone! So things have quieted down here quite a bit since the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I thought I might post something for anyone interested in playing 4th edition at present using the Demo characters from XP. The following are statistics for a 2nd level Elite Troll, suitable for sending two up against a party. I haven't gotten a chance to playtest it yet, but any info or suggestions people have would be fantastic.

Troll Whelp, Level 2 Elite Brute (250 XP)
Large Natural Humanoid (Giant)
Initiative +3, Senses: Perception +7, Scent
HP 68; Bloodied: 34, (See Regeneration)
AC 16; Fort 17, Ref 13, Will 12
Vulnerable Fire 10, Acid 10
Speed 6
m Claw (standard; at will) reach 2, +7 vs. AC, 1d4+4 Damage
m Double Attack (standard; at will) reach 2, Perform two claw attacks, if both hit see follow up attack.
-Follow Up: m Rend (immediate reaction) If both claw attacks hit, +7 vs. Fortitude, 2d4+6 Damage and 5 Ongoing damage (save ends).
Regeneration (minor, Recharge 5,6) Usable only after being bloodied, Heal 17 HP
Skills: Athletics +10, Endurance +8, Perception +7
Strength 18 (+4), Dexterity 14 (+2), Constitution 14 (+2), Intelligence 4 (-3), Wisdom 12 (+1), Charisma 10 (+0)

This could definitely give a small party a run for its money as it tears up the party's defenders, and I think would be an interesting challenge. If anyone gives it a try, lemme know!

..Of course, the drawback comes at the player and GM end. There's no learning curve because the mechanics you used for the basilisk gaze and the mechanics you use for the medusa gaze are totally different. Maybe one is an attack that does damage (and turns you to stone when you hit zero), maybe the other is a automatic effect that immobilizes and weakens you if you don't choose to take an arbitrarily defined "eyes closed" penalty when attacking it. Or whatever. The DM has to learn each new monster completely from the top because there are no consistencies. The player has to learn new tactics each and every time because each critter who is surrounded by an aura of flame works totally differently.

Several excellent points, however once the GSL has been released and they have taken a look at the current monster design, similar powers can be modeled off of what they have now. If the Medusa's Stone Gaze is an attack against Reflex that moves you along an Immobilized Condition which will eventually kill you, then you've got something of a base template to go off of if they say, didn't include the Basilisk.

In addition, the Monster Manual can serve as something of a prototype for these basic design choices but I absolutely agree that they don't need to be adhered to. However with monsters focused on survival for only a minimum number of combat rounds, it's no longer nearly so important to memorize statistics. This double edged sword turns nicely on your players, particularly the sort with a photographic memory.

In one of my own games, I told the players I would feel free to change things occasionally without the need to tell them, but the changes would be perpetually consistent. So of course as soon as they encountered trolls, they knocked 'em down and set them on fire. When I said the troll gets up and just looks pissed, and they watched the damage healing up right before their eyes the look on their faces was priceless! There's nothing like altering what a rules lawyer knows, particularly when it's such accepted canon as trolls+fire = dead trolls.

Incidentally, I made my trolls only vulnerable to salt, which would cause them to shrivel up or being reduced to -35 hit points (all while they're healing).

There is also the only one mark thing. Why would someone elses mark be negated by yours (or Vice Versa)? Wouldn't (by the explaination provided) it in fact make your marking effect even more effective? Three guys glaring is way more intimidating then one. Three gods burning your ass effects you more the one. Etc.

I think I might have the answer for this one - when the system was originally designed the designers hadn't accounted for more than one Defender in a party. Subsequently in a group with all Defenders, the monster could effectively be destroyed by everyone rushing up and using the Paladin Challenge and then going into a total defense action. Lame? Yes. Effective? Also yes.

A simple idea I've had for this problem: Monsters and characters may only be marked by one mark from any given power source (Martial, Divine, Arcane, Necrotic, Psionic, Etc.) at a given time. If an additional mark is placed, the old mark is superseded (two paladins cannot place both their God's divine wraths upon the same target, since Gods are the jealous types/Two fighters cannot both be giving the stink-eye to the same monster at the same time/etc.)

Just an idea, but it could help to balance things out. As for using marks on fearless creatures, I dunno. Some seem like they should work (The Ranger's Hunter's Quarry, the Paladin's Challenge) but others (The Fighter's Steely Eyed Glare) feel a little out of place.

I've always been partial to the Einsteinium dragon - you've got two rounds to beat it before its halflife expires and it disappears, since it was created by a mad wizard calling himself a "Theoretical Materials Alchemist."

Seriously though, I did enjoy the preview books but I just read them at Barnes and Noble. I love the changes being made to giants, since I've found 3e giants to never be... well... giant. 10 or 15 feet tall just isn't what I think of when I hear the word "giant." I'm liking these truly massive and towering elemental giants they're going to feature.

Please pardon my lack of information, but I haven't seen anything concrete about how Monster Powers recharge. I've seen in several monster entries little snippets, like the Black Dragon's Breath Weapon which has (standard; recharge 5 6) but I don't actually know what this means.

If I were to take an educated guess, I'd say it's a d6 roll every turn, with the Power recovering on a 5 or a 6, but as I said, it's only a guess.

Any chance anybody could clear this up for me? It'd be much appreciated.

Actually, a few more:

What if the space between is blocked by a non-physical barrier, like a Wall of Fire or a Blade Barrier? What if one of the two creatures is something with a damaging touch, like a Fire Elemental? What about smashing against a soft or squishy creature, like a Gelatinous Cube or an Air Elemental?

They could have just concepted the fluff to involve more squishing in place, instead of having a glossed over didn't-really-move mechanic. Why would the wizard put the foes back afterward, anyway, except to allow the mechanic to ignore side effects of battlefield positioning?

What's strange is looking at that, if you cut the line about smashing the hands together from the text, the spell seems like it'd be perfectly fine. By being able to move the enemies once grappled, it seems to indicate that the hands themselves can move, yet nothing else appears to show this. Can the hands only move towards one another and then back?

Also, it seems like Otiluke's Sphere cannot be cast just anywhere. If I wanted to cast it in a doorway to prevent someone from entering it, can I do that under this rule set or no? Do I need a person standing in the door in order for it to work?

I am really hoping to see a lot of Utility spells from the Wizard, or potentially a different class in the future who focuses on Utility mechanics.

Wow. A KOBOLD has 27 hit points?

I feel traumatized. What happened to the days where you could kill a kobold in one swing? I mean, really, even though some kobolds do have levels now, it's still okay to give people that feeling of killing normal kobolds every so often.

I imagine the party can still take the little fellas down pretty fast. I gotta say though, I remember the days when Kobolds had 4 hit points.

I think we're missing a key point here, which can be gleaned from the old article on the Paladin's smite ability. It wasn't until epic levels (when we've seen things devolve into silliness anyways) that a monster is forced to attack the paladin. The monsters have a choice prior to this.

Simply put: The Pit Fiend in question might be marked by the Fighter, but will it really care if the fighter uses "Shield Bash to the Face" (for lack of a better clue over the types of moves which will go off of marked) and then gets an AoO if it can fly past him and engage the Wizard in melee? Prolly not. Will a wolf or animal? Yeah, probably.

So far we've seen nothing which means the enemy has to stay in melee with the fighter, it's just that they'll get smacked around a bit if they try to leave. The Paladin gains a smite attack at level 27 (3 levels away from the maximum) where the enemy cannot gain line of sight with anyone but the Paladin until the end of his next turn.

I think the number of conditions is definitely on the rise though, and it will be a pain for DMs to keep track of if they don't include a condition summary on the DM Screen.

Also of note: I saw they were advertising for Paizo's item cards.

Draconomicon for 3.5 set the scale very, very high.

On the bright side, dragon puns!

A thought behind Rogue Tactics:

So just a small thought, but perhaps the reason we've seen the two very simple tactics so far (Artful Dodger and Brawny Thug) is to allow DMs to easily facilitate their own Tactics? I'm sure this can easily be spun into "To sell more books" as well, but with this mechanic in place, I imagine a DM can pretty easily create "The Master Spy" Tactics which would grant more Intelligence based options and modify a few Powers, or "The Vigilante Archer" and have the build grant access to Bows, allow for Bow sneak attack and give a bonus to a few powers.

Just a thought I had which I wanted to toss out there and see what people thought.

KaeYoss, good catch on how to get around logging in. I'd like to comment a bit on a few things though...

I hate the sentence "The trickster rogue and the brawny rogue are the two rogue builds". So it's about "builds" now? And there are only two?

As was mentioned in the article, these are suggestions, not absolutes. Think of them as the equivalent of the Starting Packages in 3rd edition. You're equally as free to ignore them if you'd like.

Will more be available to you in other books? Sounds like going back to restrictions with splat books removing those.

Or will more be available in DDI? So much for "you don't need DDI."

Kinda jumping the gun a bit. We don't know what types of content they're planning on making available for the DDI, so we can't immediately say it will or it won't be needed.

Skills: Trained skills are stealth and thievery plus others. So instead of the 3e rogue, we practically have a sneakthief again. The classes become more narrow again. Probably so they can sell more books with extra classes you want to play.

I am all but certain that in Star Wars: Saga Edition you gained additional Trained Skills based upon Intelligence. I sadly don't have the book to confirm this at the moment, but Saga Edition was the base template for how a lot of the stuff we're seeing now will be played. Also, you can use most skills untrained now at a reasonable chance for success (all untrained skills have the equivalent of 1/2 your level in skill points in them).

Sneak Attack: So now I can no longer sneak attack with any weapon? I figure sapping soem rube with a club on the back of the head is simply not fun.

I don't personally have much complaint about this, since as I have always known it, a Sneak Attack is a precision based strike, which couldn't be accomplished with most larger or bulkier weapons. I'm not too thrilled by the lack of a club or sap option, but remember we haven't seen what all the Powers do either. Perhaps some are a "utility" style which allow you to use any weapon to Sneak Attack?

"Powers". Those seemingly reinforce the narrow stereotypes. Your are continuously forced to use certain weapons, or you cannot use your "fun, cool powers".

Not all the Powers we've seen demonstrated have forced you to use particular weapons. Most have, however. I think what we'll be seeing is that certain Attack oriented powers expect you to use the basic weapons of your class, but other powers will instead be utilities or other such things. If you want to play a Rogue who wields a Long Sword, I imagine it'll be easily possible to select only Powers which never use attacks. You'd be a little bit screwed over by the Sneak Attack part, but I think it would be possible.

So I am uncertain how to feel about the fixed weapon selection. It reminds me of the older 2nd edition style. I wonder if we'll be seeing the return of Weapon Proficiencies as you level up? Failing this, does anyone think the Class Training feats will incorporate gaining access to that classes weapon selection?

Also of note, while the Starting Hit Points list that you gain Constitution Modifier to them, the Hit Points per Level do not.

The Rogue Tactics section is definitely a parallel to what we've heard about with the Fighter class, where they select either Weapon and Shield or Two-Handed Weapon as a focus. I think we'll be seeing something similar for all of the classes. Wizards as I recall get to select an Implement (Rod, Orb and Something Else, I think?)

It would appear that at 1st Level you get to select Two At-Will powers, an Encounter power and a Daily power, but I am hoping that proves to just be the suggested option, and you can instead do as you wish.

One gripe I have is that it mentions all Rogues gain Stealth and Thievery as trained skills, yet Stealth and Thievery are both on the list of skills Rogues can have trained. This seems strange, after all, they've already got them? Perhaps this will also be a mechanic explained latter, related to Multi-classing? I'm also fairly certain Intelligence still adds to your Skills, as it did in Star Wars: Saga Edition.

What WotC has done with their "World" if you want to call it that is Crap. A year from now, they'll be charging you $40 to get the "Real Core World" when they realize how weak what they're doing is.

What don't you particularly like about it, if I might ask?

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

Yes, I intend to pick up and play 4th edition, and in addition will likely be pre-ordering it through you fine folks.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

I've really enjoyed Paizo products in the past, but I've fallen off the horse with the Adventure Paths. I'd like to start making my own campaign again, so I will likely pick up only a few things, and possibly some setting neutral products like the Critical Hit deck and Critical Fumble Deck.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

Same as above pretty much.

So I was looking through the Worlds & Monsters book and on the whole I was very impressed. A whole fresh world, with historical underpinnings for its races, whole nations and cultures, unfolding histories. They even give some names for this place--Creation (which, okay, was lifted straight outta' Exalted *sigh*) and The Middle Realm (which I really kind of like, halfway between the Elemental Vortex and the Astral Sea, and likewise straddling the Shadowfel on one side and the Feywild on the other).

So what my take on what we've seen is the following: The default world, named "The Middle Realm" or "The World" or whatever it might be called will be the assumed world. In it, there is a rich history, the rise and fall of civilizations, epic battles and ancient decayed cities just waiting for plunder. In modules, these places will be referenced. For instance, the Tiefling city of Bael'Turath (I must admit, I like the name) might be mentioned by a Tiefling Cultist of Orcus who is the boss of a module.

However, the game will never tell you "Bael'Turath is 50 miles north of the Keep on the Borderlands." Locations will never be somewhere specific. Instead we will see vague rumours, persistent references and references to particularly famous places. Will we also see reference to famous NPCs from other modules? I dunno, but my gut says no.

I don't think we'll see a fully developed and fleshed out world with maps and specifics ala the (Old) Forgotten Realms or Eberron where certain things are placed in certain areas, etc. But the basic presumption is that players will all be functioning within the same core world, unless the DM chooses otherwise.

I'd be really surprised if we eventually saw a fully fleshed out and developed world out of the name-dropping of Worlds and Monsters.

I really like that view of the Illusionist, but the same concept would ultimately fill the controller role as well. Controller is just the broad role, but doesn't mean they have to take direct control of the enemies. Just control their actions a little bit by changing the face of the battlefield.

I think it would fall somewhere between Defender and Controller, combining elements of the two roles into one. I think that a Controller is more wide ranging control: moving enemies around, altering how the battlefield is shaped, confusing/paralyzing/hindering multiple enemies at once so that the Strikers can wail on one more powerful enemy, etc.

I think of the Defender as being the type to pick one or two enemies and really stymie them: keeping them stuck in melee, preventing them from moving, hindering their attack or armour class, etc.

The roles are really loosely defined though, so we shall have to see what they look like in practices once the actual books are released.

I've gotta say, not a big fan of this article. Now I've played a character with a lower Wisdom than the author's character, and he did some DUMB things. However, about as often as his brilliant plans worked they also blew up in his face and that of his party.

I think a part of what we're seeing here is a designer's response to this type of character - the no-holds barred free character who is just living by the seat of his pants and not thinking everything through. While this is great, it's wholly possible that the system isn't as much a part of that as the character itself is.

I don't think there's quite so much venom as some people are reading into this article either. More along the lines of a very excited gamer saying "Oh my God! You haven't tried *THIS* yet!?"

Still, if this is indicative of most 4th edition play, I too will feel a bit put off by it. Here's hoping he's just over-excited...

As of "Worlds and Monsters" Shadow is a confirmed Power Source, and was mentioned as being the power of Necromancers, Illusionists and somebody else though I can't recall who... undead or some such, I believe.

It was in the Shadowfell section at any rate.

I definitely see the Illusionist as the Controller, but I think too many of their powers would be wrapped up in the Psion. What could be really interesting is the Illusionist as an Arcane Defender, not putting them self into danger but instead conjuring up phantasmal soldiers who hold monsters attention.

Just when I thought my question was too...something, there it was! lol. Once again, thank you for coming to our humble board to answer questions for us. My anti-4E meter has dropped from no fracking way to heavily guarded curiousity.

I am willing to be open minded and check it out, but the groaning bookshelf behind me tells me that I am just too tapped out to start collecting a whole new edition. That may or may not change in the future depending on the qualkity and flavor of the product in question.

Can you tell us when we can expect the floodgates of information to open up? Official release is closing and there is very little concrete information still! Can't help but remember the 3.0 and 3.5 buildups and how well they were covered in Dungeon and Dragon, but that is a seperate discussion all by itself.

I think I can actually help with this one. The deluge of information should begin at D&D Experience in a few weeks - I believe it's been mentioned in a Podcast or somewhere else that tons of info will be given out there, as well as actual demos of 4th edition.

Edit: Message board has eaten this post twice now... hope the third try is the charm.

After people expressed disappointment that gnomes wouldn't be a core race, there has been some rather confused talk concerning their being playable via the Monster Manual. Can you confirm whether or not the Monster Manual will feature non-standard races, and if so will they also get the same progression of racial feats as the other races in the Player's Handbook?

Well, this has been skewed just slightly towards the negative... so, a few points on the other side of things, if I might.

In 4th edition, when you're brought below 0 hit points you have a very long time to die. You can go down into the negatives equal to 1/2 of your total hit points. So if a monster is pummeling your whimpering soon to be corpse, suffice it to say it'll be awhile. In combination with an increase in hit points overall (it seems, uncertain about that one so far) you will have a much longer time to die in theory.

However each round you roll a d20 for stablization. If you roll a 1-9 then your condition worsens. If your condition worsens three times, your PC expires and you are dead. If you roll a 10-19 nothing happens. If you roll a 20 you regain consciousness and recover 1/4th of your total hit points.

When healing an unconscious and dying character, you no longer need to heal through the threshold of negative HPs. Instead negative hit points are ignored and you begin healing from 0 upwards.

Monsters and Player Characters are no longer designed along the same template, so we will be seeing something much closer to 2nd edition AD&D where monsters could do things the Players couldn't. While people have listed this as being strongly negative and very limiting for monsters, it also means they can pull of tricks that the PCs may have no defense against, things that will surprise the players and other such shenanigans. While it might seem off-hand like the DM will have less to do and will be bored, the DM will likely still have plenty of tricks up his sleeve since the new combat encounter system is designed to feature one monster per player character in an encounter - or one hazard per player character - or one elite monster per two player characters - or two minion monsters per player character. Thus, it creates a lot of potential options and mixability in encounters: if a group of four players is moving into a cavern and see two Grell, they'll know something is up. Will they be carefully scouting out for traps and pitfalls? Will they brace themselves in preparation for two elite grells who are tougher than normal? Or do they try to back pedal out of the room into the four Grimlock minions who were hiding in the shadows and spring at them when they least suspect?

The reason for the shrinking of enemy abilities is to try to make things easier for a DM to put together and also require less preparation time to churn out a memorable and exciting encounter for the players.

Also, it's still a Dungeon Master - this is still Dungeons and Dragons, after all.

I never thought they needed to be taller just abit heavier.

Presuming a general human build, 3rd edition halflings have a grossly low BMI based upon their height/weight. Halflings should all look pretty emaciated and be little more than skin and bones.

2nd edition Halflings meanwhile had bulked up, and on average they were 3'4" and weighed 62 lbs. This meant that on average they were actually overweight/obese.

Height for both was the same however. If Halflings remain around the same weight but increase in height (to say, 4'6") then their BMI would be hideous. Not that this will in anyway inform design decisions, I just wanted to throw it out there.

From what I've seen so far, I suspect the Warlord will keep pace with the Cleric on healing, as it's a Leader role thing.

Based upon World and Monsters, death will have a different feeling at different tiers: at the epic tier (21-30) it is little more than a speed bump, at paragon tier (11-20) death is a significant problem and in the heroic tier (1-10) when you die you make a new character.

As far as not seeing many literal punches thrown, I think that stems from the people on these forums not meeting in person!

Teiran wrote:

Okay, so assuming that a warlord actually can restore an entire party's hit points effectivly.

Characters can heal themselves. What do we need divine casters for?

I think Dungeons and Dragons would become a very different game where death is permanent.

Currently we don't know how the luck mechanic works, they haven't revealed that one yet.

The halflings presented here (with material gleaned from Races and Classes) are somewhat similar to the traveling Romani of Europe, they appear in town to trade and offer their services as handymen and women, merchants, etc. Occasionally they'll also bilk some people and then make a quick get-away, disappearing down river. (The previous wasn't meant to be disparaging to any Romani, merely the glamourized kind of perception seen via Hollywood).

Also, on the subject of halflings and size... have you ever considered that, despite both a size penalty to encumbrance for being small and a -2 to strength, that halflings can lift a frighteningly large amount based upon their size and general physique?

At a 16 Strength a halfling is capable of lifting over his head 172.5 pounds. At his impressive physique of 3 feet tall and 34 pounds (as an average) he can lift just over 5x his own body weight above his head.

He's not quite as far as an ant in lifting terms, but he's about half-way there. So I guess that makes him an Uncle.

I'm shocked. Absolutely no comments that talk down about any players or playstyles. If they keep this up, I might regain respect for WotC.

As to the contents, it sounds like Halflings and Kenders have crossbred. And I am more than a little worried about this "slight influence over luck" that is mentioned. While it could just be a die roll modifier/reroll whatever, it could be a new Luck mechanic they have influence over. And it isn't the influence part that worries me. It is the possibility of a new Luck mechanic. That doesn't seem all that streamlined.

I would be very surprised if there was a luck mechanic. I am sure action points are in, but I think they work differently than from Eberron where they boosted a die roll.

Also, I wish they hadn't added in the last sentence. They could have avoided the word "fun" in the entire piece.

The money required was a leap of faith to begin with.

From what I'd heard, companies weren't ponying up the five grand sight-unseen; they got a chance to take a look at the 4th edition rule set and judge for themselves whether or not they wanted to join in. However, that is something I'm going off having seen a relatively long while ago, so I can't be 100% sure about that.

Ooo, I've caught two articles in a row before anyone else got to 'em. The text:

Rivers and streams crisscross the world, and upon these waterways, the nomadic halflings quietly do the same. Legend says that Melora and Sehanine together crafted the halflings, instilling in these small folk a love of water and nature, as well as an innate wanderlust and stealth. The same stories say that both goddesses then left the halflings to their own devices.

Left to themselves, halflings lived for ages. They formed close families and communities, centered on their wisest elders. Clans of halflings wandered creation, never stopping for long, and rarely claiming any particular spot as their own. Their traditions formed and survived among a population constantly on the move and influenced little by the ways of other races. Unassuming, resourceful and independent, halflings hardly ever attracted much notice.

But Avandra, the goddess of boldness, luck and travel, took note of the halflings traversing the world. It seemed to her as if these little people, whom she didn’t create, were hers nonetheless by virtue of the fact that they were living manifestations of her best-loved ideals. Halflings say Avandra smiled on them that day, adopting them as her people and blessing them with good fortune through their worldly struggles. Anyone who knows halflings has little doubt that chance is indeed on their side.

Halflings, for their part, hold fables such as these as true, and their rich oral tradition of such tales is an important part of their culture. Young halflings learn the lore of their people, clan and family from hearing stories. From these, halfling children also pick up lessons on morality and knowledge of many subjects. Outside the political struggles, wars, and other concerns of nations and empires, but widely traveled, halflings have observed and preserved what they learned in their common yarns.

Favorite sagas retell the life and deeds of halflings bold enough to strike out on their own to see the world, right a wrong, or accomplish a great task. Most halflings are practical folk, concerning themselves with the simple things in life. Adventurous halflings are of the same stripe but practice such habits in a different way. A halfling leaves the security of family and clan not for high ideals, fame, or wealth. Instead, he goes to protect his community or friends, to prove his own capabilities, or to merely see more of the world than his nomadic lifestyle can offer.

A halfling hero might be the size of a preteen human child, but he has quick feet, deft hands and quick wit. He is forthright, bold and nigh fearless. His talents run toward sneakiness and craftiness. Pluck and fortune carry him to success where others would fail. He is an expression of all that halflings esteem, and so he is a valuable ally and a daunting foe.

All this went into creating halflings for the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game. The popular halfling of 3rd Edition is only slightly re-imagined so the race’s mechanical elements make the story elements true. Halflings are still Small, even though they are not 3rd Edition’s versions—in which halflings are the size of 3- or 4-year old humans. They still make great rogues, but they also make good rangers. A few new aspects, such as a tweak to Charisma and a slight influence over luck, in addition to making halfling warlocks viable, reinforce the halfling as a lucky, loveable protagonist. A halfling can also be a hard-to-kill enemy sharp of tongue and blade.

In other words, halflings are exactly what veteran D&D players expect from the 4th Edition refinement to something that worked well in 3rd Edition. Similar flavor, mechanical underpinning to the story, and as much, if not more, fun.

So I think this is something of a repeat of what we've seen from Races and Classes. Still, I like the direction they're taking Halflings and I can see a few little mechanical bits in there, such as the fact Halflings get a "tweak to Charisma and a slight influence over luck." It sounds like they'll get some kind of die manipulation and also be +2 Dexterity and +2 Charisma.

I seem to recall that it's been said that whatever material the OGL is used with hence forth *needs* to require the core three books to function. Thus I've heard no d20srd as we've seen, which I think is something of a poor call, but oh well. We indeed shall have to see.

So a new Design and Development article is up, and I gotta say, not all too impressed.

Death and Dying

The text of it is:

Character death is one of the ultimate threats in any RPG, and D&D is no exception. Besides the obvious, um, “inconveniences” that death might cause your character and his allies in both the short and long term—inconveniences which vary based on your level, the current situation, and of course your attachment to that particular character—death is a mark of failure. In some hard-to-explain but very real way, a dead character symbolizes that you just “lost” at D&D. That can prove a bitter pill for many players, and in my experience is even more frustrating than paying for a resurrection.
What We Hated

Early in the design process, Rob, James, and I identified a number of ways that we were unsatisified with D&D’s current death and dying rules. For example, we strongly disliked the inability of 3rd Edition D&D’s negative-hit-point model to deal with combat at higher levels—once the monsters are reliably dealing 15 or 20 points of damage with each attack, the chance of a character going straight from “alive and kicking” to “time to go through his pockets for loose change” was exceedingly high; effectively, the -1 to -9 “dying” range was meaningless. Ask any high-level fighter whether he’d prefer the second-to-last attack from a monster to leave him at 1 hp or -1 hp; I’d put odds on unconsciousness, and how lame is that?

Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever).

On top of all that, the game added a complex state of being at exactly 0 hp, which wasn’t quite like being fully capable but also wasn’t quite dying. Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp? Why did the game need a condition that existed at exactly one spot on the big, broad range of hit point possibilities?
What We Wanted

We wanted a death and dying system that added fun and tension at the table, scaled well to any level of play, and created the threat of PC mortality (without delivering on that threat as often as 3rd Edition did).

Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?

The system also had to be simple to remember and adjudicate at the table. Being able to keep the rule in your head is important, because you don’t want to be bogging the game down flipping through a book when a character is clinging to life by a thread—that should be high-tension time, not slowdown time!

Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.) Put another way, it had to feel like D&D—one of those tricky “you know it when you see it” things.
What We Did About It

Back in 2005, this was obviously a much lower priority than, say, creating the new model for how classes and races worked, so we put it on the back burner to simmer. As the months passed, we and other designers proposed various models that tried to solve the conundrums set out above, varying from exceedingly abstract to witheringly simulationist. We playtested every model, from death tracks to life points, each time learning something different about what worked or didn’t work. A few times, we even temporarily settled on a solution, claiming that the playtesters only needed time to get used to our radical new ideas.

Side note to all those would-be game designers out there: When you hear yourself making that claim, you might be in danger of losing touch with reality. Sometimes you’re right, and your innovative game design concept just needs a little time to sink in. (The cycling initiative system used by 3rd Edition D&D is a good example of that—back in 1999, some very vociferous playtesters were convinced that it would ruin D&D combat forever. Turned out that wasn’t exactly true.) But every time you convince yourself that you know better than the people playing your game, you’re opening the possibility of a very rude (and costly) awakening.

Thankfully, our awakening came well before we released the game (or even before widescale playtesting began, for that matter). Despite some quite elegant concepts, none of our radical new ideas met all the criteria necessary, including simplicity, playability, fun, and believability.

The system had to be at least as simple to remember and at least as easy to play as what already existed. For all their other flaws, negative hit points are pretty easy to use, and they work well with the existing hit-point system.

It had to be at least as much fun as what already existed, and it had to be at least as believable as what already existed. In ideal situations, negative hit points create fun tension at the table, and they’re reasonably believable, at least within the heroic fantasy milieu of D&D, where characters are supposed to get the stuffing beaten out of them on a regular basis without serious consequences.

Every one of our new ideas failed to meet at least one of those criteria. Maybe they were playable but too abstract to feel fun or believable, or they were believable but too complicated to remember. Nothing worked, and I admit we experienced a couple of freak-out moments behind closed doors.
The Breakthrough

Eventually we got it through our heads that there wasn’t a radical new game mechanic just waiting to be discovered that would revolutionize the narrow window between life and death in D&D. What we really needed to do was just widen the window, reframe it, and maybe put in an extra pane for insulation. (OK, that analogy went off the tracks, but its heart was in the right place.)

Characters still use a negative hit point threshold to determine when they move from “unconscious and dying” to “all-the-way-dead,” but now that threshold scales with their level (or more specifically, with their hit point total). A character with 30 hit points (such as a low-level cleric) dies when he reaches -15 hit points, while the 15th-level fighter with 120 hp isn’t killed until he’s reduced to -60 hit points.

That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition. At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit. The threat of “alive-to-negative-everything” on a single hit remains in play, but it’s much less common than in the previous edition. That puts that bit of tension back where it belongs.

The new system also retains the “unconscious character bleeding out” concept, but for obvious reasons speeds it along a bit. (There’s not really any tension watching that 15th-level fighter bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round for 30 or 40 rounds.) Thanks to some clever abstractions, the new system also removes the predictability of the current death timer. (“OK, Regdar’s at -2 hp, so we have 8 rounds to get to him. Yawn… time for a nap.”)

It’s also less costly to bring dying characters back into the fight now—there’s no “negative hit point tax” that you have to pay out of the healing delivered by your cure serious wounds prayer. That helps ensure that a character who was healed from unconsciousness isn’t in an immediate threat of going right back there (and you’ll never again have the “I fed Jozan a potion of healing but he’s still at negative hit points” disappointment).

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Oh, and speaking of zero hit points? You’re unconscious and dying, just like every new player expects it should be. It’s not as harsh as the “dead at 0 hp” rule of the original D&D game, but it’s still not a place you want to be for long!
Try It Now!

If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.

Discuss?

I think the core Points of Light campaign setting will be good, and mechanically I like a lot of what I've seen from the rules. I was never a big fan of the Forgotten Realms, but from everything I've heard, I don't forsee that changing anytime in the future.

I get the distinct impression that a lot of fans are going to pick up the Realms Corebook in the store, flip through it and put it back. I understand the logic behind why they'd change the setting so much - this both frees current DMs and writers from the *very* long history of the Realms and also will allow them to sell a book without hearing cries of "I already bought this! Twice! I don't need a third copy! I can just use my 2nd edition/3rd Edition/Grand History of the Realms book!" but I think the changes have gone a bit far for most people. Particularly the fact that the setting now seems to correspond to the Points of Light model.

Obviously time will tell, but I suspect that this time next year when they're trundling out Eberron, we'll see something much closer to the original material for the setting instead of something wildly different, based upon the sales (or lack there-of) for the Realms.

For me the race will really depend upon what I like of the racial abilities. I'll probably try something a little less common like an Elf Warlock or an Eladrin Paladin. I think something a little different could be fun.

Thank you for someone catching the Chaosium reference there, otherwise I was about to go on a tirade. I *love* Chaosium, and it is a company which remains excellent despite years and years of product being available.

Now as for will Hasbro or even the Wizards of the Coast go under if 4th edition tanks? I don't think so. I think the most we'll see is sales being less than expected, and that's if the system is itself awful. If it's good, then I think the profits will come rolling in.

As for Wizards spreading themselves too thin, it's debatable. Points to consider:

The Dungeons and Dragons Online MMO was released much earlier, and while still being supported it's already out there and was released during the life cycle of 3.5

As far as video games go, many Dungeons and Dragons titles have actually sold very well. The Baldur's Gate franchise (as well as, to a lesser extent, the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance line) did quite well. I can't really comment on R.A. Salvatore's Demonstone as I never played it, but it seemed passably fun.

The same can be said for the Dungeons and Dragons board game. I don't think it's still being produced at this point, so I wouldn't really count that as a profit or loss.

The Miniatures game continues to sell well, both as a tie-in product and also for the miniatures themselves which are mostly of fair to good quality. I don't know what the tournament scene is like for it, but it might be going well.

So it seems to me while they are in a lot of different venues, none of them are selling reasonably poorly. As for the failure of TSR towards the end, a lot of things lead to their downfall, far more than simply trying out a new medium or two for the product. They were cranking out settings and products faster than could be believed, sometimes with little concern for whether or not they would sell.

I don't think we'll see the company fold, and I think that 4e will do fine once it's out in player's hands and no longer under the purview of the marketing department. But that's just my two cents.

DMcCoy, Bryon, in all candor, I am curious now as to why you both immediately concluded I was being a sarcastic jerk--am I always that way? Or are feelings about the new edition/new monster so strong that it's impossible to compliment someone who has a different opinion on the matter than one's own?

Honestly, my post was meant to be cordial, and seemed so to me, and if anyone read it without being predisposed to assume it was nasty, well, they might agree with me...

Honestly the post read very sarcastically. Were that not your intent, fair enough, it simply seemed like it was coming across very aggressively. As for whether you're always that way, I wouldn't know.

As for my feelings on the new edition, they aren't so overpoweringly strong that I feel the need to brandish torches and howl about anyone attacking anyone else. Simply seemed like it was attempting to dig into him as opposed to his argument, the discussion or the creature being dealt with, and so I felt the need to say something.

Chalk it up to a lack of tone on the internet on that one then, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

I don't think Ranger is going to be in the PHBI. He's clearly an ideal candidate for the Nature power source and the write-up in R&C indicates that he is not completely finished yet.

I had thought I heard Rangers were definitely in. Also, where exactly is the reference to this Nature power source coming from? I don't recall seeing anything about it previously.

In Worlds & Monsters, they mention that "Shadow" will be an additional power source, something necromancers and other suitably dark characters draw their powers from.

As for an Arcane Defender or a Martial Controller, I could see the Hexblade work in either of those roles. It's kind of a fine line, and with the Warlock having gained the Hexblade's "Curse" feature, I think it's a bit unlikely unfortunately.

I don't suspect that there will be a Core set of books for Asian style classes and characters. I don't think it would get adequate support. I get the feeling we'll see the return of the Monk in the PHB II and that's about it.
One gripe I have about the classes chosen for the PHB I is that there's, I feel, a bit of an overemphasis on Strikers, and not enough love elsewhere.

Currently there are 2 Leaders (Cleric (Divine) and Warlord (Martial)), 2 Defenders (Fighter (Martial) and Paladin (Divine)), 3 Strikers (Rogue (Martial), Ranger (Martial) and Warlock (Arcane)) and only 1 Controller (Wizard (Arcane)).

I really wish we'd seen another controller rather than an additional striker, perhaps looking at the Ranger as the Martial Controller (performing all manner of arrow related wonders as mentioned above). I suppose you need more options for Strikers since it's going to be a very common class, but I don't like that it's still maintaining the mentality of "The party will have a wizard, definitely."

Having played games with three people where no one wanted to play a Wizard was rough, particularly because we played pre-written modules and sometimes the challenges would be unduly difficult for the party to overcome.

- Barrow Wight: I wouldn't call it a "button-mashing-esque-bloodfest" anymore than I'd say Dungeons and Dragons Online resembles 3.5 edition D&D. I don't foresee sweeping changes to the game, I think instead we'll see a lot of little changes which will add up to a faster game. Not rolling to confirm criticals for instance, is one less die roll needed, and one thing which can make play a little faster. There's been some mention of removing fire resistance, but I don't recall the specifics.

Also, you seem to be really pushing this comparison between 4e and MMO's. Does it really seem to you that they're so alike? I can see similarities certainly, but at the same time there's a lot of differences here which you seem focused on ignoring to make your point.

- DMcCoy: The only problem we have with the numbers right now is we don't know what type of enemies the group is facing. While it seems evident that it'd be 5 players to 5 enemies, the Development and Design articles have indicated it isn't always so. An encounter hazard can take the place of one or more monsters, and the monsters themselves may be elite or minions, thus halving or doubling their numbers respectively.

I find myself doubting that the group did absolutely no role-playing either, or that everyone needed the full alloted time you gave them. What can that mean? Faster completion of a turn, perhaps?

The MMV and the Complete Mage were test books for 4E.

- Kirth: There's a useful term in debate and discussion called "Ad hominem." If you happen to be passingly unfamiliar with it, it's a tactic where you attack a person as opposed to their arguement. It's really both poor form and also not particularly productive to the discussion. Whether Crosswiredmind (whom for some reason I always thought was named CrossMiredWind) has a facebook or not or any of the other crap you spat out is moot. You're weighing in on neither 4e or on the Pit Fiend; so either keep up with the conversation and ditch the personal attacks on people, or keep quiet. Either or, it was poor form.