Positive Things about 4.0


4th Edition


and no I don't mean "I'm positive this will suck!"
I mean, what sounds like a good thing (from what very little we've heard). Or what would you really like to see them do with it. Just thought I might try making a friendlier thread.

Grand Lodge

swirler wrote:

and no I don't mean "I'm positive this will suck!"

I mean, what sounds like a good thing (from what very little we've heard). Or what would you really like to see them do with it. Just thought I might try making a friendlier thread.

- Improved multiclassing. You should not have to make an entirely new class for a class combination to work (such as duskblade for the fighter-mage) and it sounds like 4e will finally deliver on the long-delayed promise of the effective multiclassed character.

- Power sources. Putting martial combat on the same plane as magic and psionics. Sure, everybody can use a sword. Not everybody can be a hero with it.
- Class complexity. Complexity should increase as you go from level 1 to level 30, not as you go from a fighter to a magic user.
- ENCOUNTER DESIGN. 3rd edition encounter design was a mess; the way it was supposed to work in theory didn't equate in any sense to the way it actually worked in practice. 4th edition promises to fix this.

I'll stop there because I want to leave room for other people. ;)


This is something positive I've seen in Star Wars Saga, but since I think they'll be keeping it for 4e . . . . well, I guess I hope they'll be keeping it.

The Non-heroic class.

At first level in saga, Heroic characters hit point wise characters have what I'd say would be the equivalent of 3-4 HD in 3.5 terms. the Non-heroic class doesn't get that extra HP bump.

It allowed a group of first level characters in a game I was apart of take on a large group of storm troopers (10-15 roughly) as their first fight, and still survive. That's compared to a group of only three dog-slicer weilding goblins as the first encounter in a 3.5 rule set.

I hope 4e works like saga in that regard . . . and if it does, when I run Burnt Offerings in 4e I plan on having more than just 30 goblins raid Sandpoint.


Ahh...the interesting use of the Star Wars style mook squad.

Heres a question for you, I haven't looked at SW Saga, but they still had the mook stormtroopers in the 3rd edition revised version too. Non-heroic classes had Wounds, but no vitality score. Which made them have good atk scores, but they died in droves. Which I kinda liked.
Is this still handled the same in Saga, or did they do away with the whole Vitality/Wound system in favor of a simplified low Hp version of the mook classes?


Yasha0006 wrote:
did they do away with the whole Vitality/Wound system in favor of a simplified low Hp version of the mook classes?

The Vitality/Wound system has gone away. In its place is now a Damage Threshold system.

Using DT, creatures have HP the same as they would in Your standard 3.x game. The Damage Threshold is based off a creature's size and toughness. If the damage from an attack exceeds this threshold and You still have HP left then Your Condition worsens by one level:

Condition Track:
Normal, DT has not yet been exceeded
-1 penalty to all d20 rolls
-2 penalty to all d20 rolls
-5 penalty to all d20 rolls
-10 penalty to all d20 rolls
Unconscious or incapacitated

If an attack exceeds both Your DT and Your remaining HP then that creature is dead.

Effectively, this achieves the effect that the old WP/VP system was trying to achieve without all the extra book-keeping and over-the-top character mortality. For a D&D-based game, it means not having to go mucking with how Crits or Spell damage are applied when You try and add that system ala Unearthed Arcana. (I myself had come up with a Damage Threshold system for D&D that worked well, but it was based on WP/VP. I have to give the designers props for coming up with a better solution.)

There was a good preview article I read a couple of weeks ago, I'll try to find it.

In the meanwhile, I just noticed they have a SW Saga conversion guide out:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sagaconversion


I'll take a look at it. I did like what the V/W system did for the game, but I did dislike the bookkeeping and the HUGE discrepancies you started to get with the really big monsters (like dragons...300-400 wounds points...ouch!).

Seems kinda like they took HP and added a dice penalty mechanic somewhat reminiscent of the White Wolf Health level system. Interesting...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
swirler wrote:
and no I don't mean "I'm positive this will suck!"

Ok, then I have to go with the OGL/SRD model, so real D&D lovers like Paizo and Necromancer Games can keep producing superior stuff (like this).


OFF TOPIC:

Yasha0006 wrote:
I'll take a look at it. I did like what the V/W system did for the game, but I did dislike the bookkeeping and the HUGE discrepancies you started to get with the really big monsters (like dragons...300-400 wounds points...ouch!).

Yeah V/W was kind of nice for keeping things real but trying to graft it to 3.5 D&D as-is was nigh infeasible without a DT system in place.

FWIW, the way I had been doing DT in 3.5 was:

Base Fort* + Cha Bonus** + Armor bonus*** - (AC Size Modifer ×2)****

* i.e. Fort Save without the Ability Score Modifier from Con.
** Charisma was used as Divine Grace rather than how pretty You are.
*** Game used Defense Bonus rather than AC for determining hits. Therefore this was JUST the AC bonus from armor and items, not deflection bonuses, etc.
**** i.e. The bigger You are, the higher Your threshold.

Usage:
* Damage that exceeded DT was applied directly to WP whether it was a critical hit or not, criticals also went straight to WP.

* Damage Reduction affected only the loss of VP not WP. Thus a really big hit could inflict WP loss even though You didn't lose much VP.

* Weapon damage was not multiplied on criticals, spell and energy damage were only applied to VP (then at a reduced rate to WP once VP were gone).

* To prevent excessive character deaths, I ruled that creatures were knocked out once they ran out of VP so that they wouldn't burn thru their WP by trying to keep fighting.

At any rate, I know I'm forgetting some of the details but that's how my DT system had basically worked. It did a pretty good job of combining Wound Points, Defense Bonus and Armor as DR. However, in light of the DT system in SW Saga, it was clunkier and required the DM to basically revamp monsters ahead of time. (I built a big database to do this for me.)

Still, it was kind of gratifying to see that we both derived the actual DT score in nearly identical ways and that the basic idea I had wasn't that far off the mark.


START RANT

For the love of all that is Holy! THREE TIMES now over the past 2 weeks.

THREE F&*@%$G TIMES have I tried to make a post about talent trees.

1st Try: I try to open up a web page in a new window and it decides to replace the Paizo Forum window.
2nd Try: The forum seemingly eats it.
3rd Try: We're sorry, an unknown problem has occurred and has been reported to the administrator. Like the 2 prior times, when You press Your back button You will be presented with an empty text box devoid of whatever it was You had taken the time to type.

ENOUGH!!!

Alright so I'm going to write it in Notepad this time. I WILL make these forums accept it even if I have to research the seal of St. Michael to have him to carve it into the server's hard drive with his sword. >:|

END RANT

DitheringFool wrote:
swirler wrote:
and no I don't mean "I'm positive this will suck!"
Ok, then I have to go with the OGL/SRD model, so real D&D lovers like Paizo and Necromancer Games can keep producing superior stuff (like this).

DF, I'm honestly trying really hard here to give the benefit of the doubt...

At 1st read my gut reaction is that You are trying to thread-jack this into 4E-hate. Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*


Talent Trees: Instead of requiring a glut of niche prestige classes, the classes included in SW Saga and 4E D&D will be based around the use of Talent Trees (as featured in d20 Modern). Since players can now pick and choose what abilities their characters will have, no longer will feat and skill selection be the only difference between two characters of the same class at the same level.

One benefit that is not immediately obvious involves multiclassing. In 3.5 if You were to multiclass a Ranger and a Druid, the Woodland Stride ability is given by the former at level 7 and the later at level 2. This effectively means that at one of those levels, the character will not gain a new ability.

With hierarchical talent trees (i.e. those trees which require You to pick talents in a set order), if You already had Woodland Stride from another class, You are already considered to have taken that talent for the current class too. Thus, You would be able to skip ahead and pick Trackless Step or maybe Camouflage instead.

For an example of a D&D 3.5 prestige class built using talent trees, have a look at:

The Monster Hunter*

*It is possible that I posted this elsewhere once before, but given how many times Paizo's forums have eaten my attempt to comment on Talent Trees I just don't know anymore.

Scarab Sages

Laithoron wrote:

DF, I'm honestly trying really hard here to give the benefit of the doubt...

At 1st read my gut reaction is that You are trying to thread-jack this into 4E-hate. Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*

Take it easy there big guy. A threadjack would be if I came in here and said 4ed sucks, and how bout them Packers. See? I poo-pooed your topic and then brought up a completely different issue.

What teh ol' ditherer did was exactly what you asked for. He stated something about 4ed that he likes - OGL.

now, what he implied was a completely different ballgame. However, if you set the bar for a threadjack that low, you will basically be performing a ritual of summon snarky poster (*reads own post*) ooops, too late.

chill out my friend, its still all good here.

As for your original question, basically the only thing I've heard that i like is the points of light concept. I honestly felt Eberon & Realms were heading in the wrong direction. My own long developed homebrew is sort of a high magic bronze age that draws heavily on the Celts, Norse, Levantine, and pre-Dorian greek cultures (Minoan & Mycenean).


Laithoron wrote:
Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*

That's what I took it to mean.


Thanks for the confirmation underling & swirler. The forums losing my post *yet again* had me seeing red and beating the keys out of my keyboard so I had a pretty hefty penalty to my Sense Motive check there.

BTW, could someone expound on (or link to) what exactly this "Points of Light" setting is that everyone keeps talking about. I'm having flashbacks to George Bush Senior here.


Laithoron wrote:


BTW, could someone expound on (or link to) what exactly this "Points of Light" setting is that everyone keeps talking about. I'm having flashbacks to George Bush Senior here.

rofl I thought that too. I kept hearing "No more broccoli" in my head

Scarab Sages

Laithoron wrote:

Thanks for the confirmation underling & swirler. The forums losing my post *yet again* had me seeing red and beating the keys out of my keyboard so I had a pretty hefty penalty to my Sense Motive check there.

BTW, could someone expound on (or link to) what exactly this "Points of Light" setting is that everyone keeps talking about. I'm having flashbacks to George Bush Senior here.

the idea is that towns and cities should be point of light in a dark world. Most of a game world should be unexplored or underexplored, mysterious, and wild. The idea is that the players are trailblazers who plum the darkest regions of the world, kill its inhabitants, take their possessions, and generally make a nuisance of themselves to the former (rest in peace) inhabitants of the region. :)

It suggests a de-emphasis on large nations with clearly defined borders. the emphasis instead is place onto a frontier feel.

Scarab Sages

DitheringFool wrote:
Ok, then I have to go with the OGL/SRD model, so real D&D lovers like Paizo and Necromancer Games can keep producing superior stuff...
Laithoron wrote:
DF, I'm honestly trying really hard here to give the benefit of the doubt...
Laithoron wrote:
At 1st read my gut reaction is that You are trying to thread-jack this into 4E-hate. Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*

I hope he'll forgive me for putting words in his mouth, but I'm sure he meant that the OGL is a Good Thing.

And I have to agree; it was a very good thing for the players, in 3rd Edition. In fact, it was so good, our group assumed at first it was a hoax. Knowing how many publishers had put out product for 1st/2nd Edition, with blatantly transparent advertising ('useful for any level-based RPG...', 'useful for RPGs with stats in the 3-18 range...', etc), we couldn't see how any publisher could afford to relax their hold on their Intellectual Properties, without making themselves obsolete and insolvent.

As it happens, the gamble worked, and the (now-legal) third-party product kept interest alive in the D&D brand. I'm possibly in a small minority here, but I'm one of the wierdoes who enjoyed seeing the d20 minigames in the combined Dungeon/Polyhedron. Though I have yet to play most of them, I enjoyed reading them, and considering using some of the options as house rules in other games (the Gumball Rally/Cannonball Run game had cross-country racing rules applicable to any d20 Modern campaign, if readers would be less blinkered), so I don't consider them a waste; I've yet to play or run most of the adventures in Dungeon (as, I'm sure, is the case for most people; does that make Dungeon a waste?).

Though I have many RPGs, and consider myself a system-junkie, I am aware not everyone feels the same, and it was always difficult to overcome player-inertia to try a new game. Having the OGL/d20 meant it was much easier to persuade players to try a new flavour of game, without expecting them to buy or learn new rules. Knowing that (if I wanted) I had a Buffy game, a mecha game, WW2, Gamma World, Pulp Heroes, Iron Lords of Jupiter, a hacking game etc was tremedously liberating, and meant I didn't have to spend time or money whoring myself out to other publishers (though I did pick up D20 Call of Cthulhu, Dragon Lords of Melnibone, Slaine and Judge Dredd...). Heck, even the free 'Scooby Doo/Josie & the Pussycats' game looked a hoot, though all the players would have to be in a strange mood...

Scarab Sages

Laithoron wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation underling & swirler.

And, as usual, someone else beats me to the point again; DOH!

That'll teach me to keep it short! LOL

Grand Lodge

Snorter wrote:
DitheringFool wrote:
Ok, then I have to go with the OGL/SRD model, so real D&D lovers like Paizo and Necromancer Games can keep producing superior stuff...
Laithoron wrote:
DF, I'm honestly trying really hard here to give the benefit of the doubt...
Laithoron wrote:
At 1st read my gut reaction is that You are trying to thread-jack this into 4E-hate. Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*

I hope he'll forgive me for putting words in his mouth, but I'm sure he meant that the OGL is a Good Thing.

And I have to agree; it was a very good thing for the players, in 3rd Edition. In fact, it was so good, our group assumed at first it was a hoax...

I agree that the OGL is a Good Thing. On the other hand, the post seems to have a snarky backhand-compliment nature, which basically says "I like the OGL because MY GUYS care about REAL D&D."

Hell and damnation, we know next to nothing right now about 4th Edition.


A positive thing I'm hoping to see is a reworking of familiars. I haven't been following 4e threads closely to know if its been discussed by WOTC, but David Noonan did say in a podcast prior to the 4e announcement it was something they wished they could redo after 3.0 was released. My experience seems to be that people either don't bother with familiars, or the familiar ends up popping in and out of existance like in the Order of the Stick.

The Exchange

DitheringFool wrote:
Ok, then I have to go with the OGL/SRD model, so real D&D lovers like Paizo and Necromancer Games can keep producing superior stuff...
firevalkyrie wrote:
... which basically says "I like the OGL because MY GUYS care about REAL D&D."

It basically says "Paizo and Necromancer Games care about D&D."

It implies "WotC doesn't."

firevalkyrie wrote:
Hell and damnation, we know next to nothing right now about 4th Edition.

If this is the case, where's the point to make a thread about "positive things in 4.0?" ;)

But to add something positive, what I heard so far about encounter balancing in 4.0 sounds quite good for me. I hate winging encounters just 'cause I miscalculated them when I prepared the adventure. So if this is made easier for me, I'm a happy DM.

And I will keep my mouth shut about the gnome/tiefling-disaster ;)


In Part 2 of the Gen Con presentation, at about 7:20:

The D&D Insider site will allow You to access the electronic version of any physical rulebooks You have purchased by entering a code from the hardcopy into the website.

If anyone can confirm whether this will be a subscription feature or not that would be great. I know that the 3.x PDFs are almost as expensive as the hardcopy so either way this is still a better deal than what we have now IMO.

Grand Lodge

Laithoron wrote:

In Part 2 of the Gen Con presentation, at about 7:20:

The D&D Insider site will allow You to access the electronic version of any physical rulebooks You have purchased by entering a code from the hardcopy into the website.

If anyone can confirm whether this will be a subscription feature or not that would be great. I know that the 3.x PDFs are almost as expensive as the hardcopy so either way this is still a better deal than what we have now IMO.

The WizO's said on the WotC boards that the electronic versions are 100% independent of the D&D Insider site. You can have the e-books without the insider site, you can have the insider site without the e-books, you can have the insider site and the e-books.

The Exchange

This is what Randy Buehler wrote in his blog at Gleemax:

Randy Buehler wrote:
Another digital offering that we're making in conjunction with 4th Edition is that we're putting codes into all of our books. If you come to the website and put in the code you get two things: 1) You get an e-version of the book that can be read and searched on your computer. This will cost a nominal fee (probably a dollar) and will not require an Insider subscription. 2) If you are a subscriber, then putting in the code will unlock all of the content from that book in all of the databases that are available through Insider. For example, without the code for the relevant book you would see only a one-line description of a feat during character creation. With the code you see the full rules. Similarly, without the code you would see only a one-line description of a monster on the game table but with the code you can see the full stat block, etc.


Snorter I agree with you about the cool things the ogl allowed, and yes you are not alone, I also liked the minigames in polyhedron.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Laithoron wrote:

DF, I'm honestly trying really hard here to give the benefit of the doubt...

At 1st read my gut reaction is that You are trying to thread-jack this into 4E-hate. Are You instead saying that one of the pro's of 4E is that it will continue the OGL/SRD model so that other companies can contribute worthwhile content? *confused*

I wouldn't do that. You said go for something positive and so far the only positive thing out of 4e is that it will remain open.

Look at the plethora of 3.x material third parties have created over the years! There are a lot of talented people out there doing really talented stuff (and yes there is a lot of really bad stuff too, but this is a positive thread). I am sincerely glad they have the chance to contribute.

...of course since my first post I read about Necromancer Games 4e plans and I am ecstatic about that! So now there are two things.


WormysQueue wrote:
This is what Randy Buehler wrote in his blog at Gleemax<snip>

That's music to my elven ears — I can live with that setup. Thanks for the info WQ. :)

DitheringFool wrote:

I wouldn't do that. You said go for something positive and so far the only positive thing out of 4e is that it will remain open.

<snip>
...of course since my first post I read about Necromancer Games 4e plans and I am ecstatic about that! So now there are two things.

You a boxer DF? Somehow You always manage to slip a jab in there. ;)

BTW, I'm in agreement about the OGL being nothing but a good thing. Even if 4E has changed my plans a bit, I'd still like to someday publish contributions of my own...

Scarab Sages

swirler wrote:

Snorter I agree with you about the cool things the ogl allowed, and yes you are not alone, I also liked the minigames in polyhedron.

Yay!

Lets have a Scooby-Doo vs Josie and the Pussycats play-off!

Let's put on the show right here!!!!

(Which gets sabotaged by Alvin & the Chipmunks...<shake fist> "Why, I oughta....")


Snorter wrote:

Lets have a Scooby-Doo vs Josie and the Pussycats play-off!

Let's put on the show right here!!!!

(Which gets sabotaged by Alvin & the Chipmunks...<shake fist> "Why, I oughta....")

I'll see Your Mystery Machine and raise You a Yamato...

WMG FTW!


what about Jabberjaws???

heh
yeah the one with the mech rules in it, I actually tooka friends copy and made him go buy another
lol

Scarab Sages

swirler wrote:

what about Jabberjaws???

heh
yeah the one with the mech rules in it, I actually tooka friends copy and made him go buy another
lol

Quit yo jibber jabber!

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Positive Things about 4.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition