Alright, I've spit out enough venom on some of the threads here to kill 4th Edition if it were an actual person.
For something not along those lines and to take a break from that (because I worry some folks actually have a problem with another's strong opinion).
I want to discuss about the "Whys?" of 4th Edition's changes.
Pretty much, I'll start a topic and we can figure out why WotC decided to change it and why it's supposed to make the gameplay better in D&D. Once the topic gets old, me or someone else here can start a new "Why" question, same thread of course.
So here's my starter question:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elves living only 200 years, with eladrin and drow living 300.
Why the age change? I am curious how altering the realities of people's campaigns and elven PCs and NPCs is supposed to make 4th Edition play better. Any fan of fantasy lore will tell you "Elves live the longest, they live centuries." (or are immortal, depending on who you ask).
So what I really want to understand is the reasons behind elves living only for a few centuries instead of what has always been common knowledge to all RPGers. How does this make the gameplay...better? For the many gamers who take RP a little more seriously than WotC's "target audience" would, this can have drastic and inconsistent effects in one's game. NPCs are killed, possibly PCs elves are killed off, elves lose their "mystique" at being the elder race of D&D. And trying to retcon all that is just a real hassle and quite discouraging to such types of gamers.
Sure, one can ignore the age change and continue with what they know and have used for years. But I am concerned with how thick the line is between the fan base with D&D gamers now. Imagine the pre-4E and post-4E gamers in heated confusion when one side is split between "Elves living 700+ years" and "Elves living 200-300 years." And, I won't get into the specifics, like for those playing in specific campaign settings.
To me, the former was something widely accepted. Why split the base on this issue by altering it so drastically? What was the absoulte necessary reason behind the change?
I am curious to hear thoughts on this. I honestly cannot come up with any, really. I can't see how it betters gameplay other than cause mass warpings of people's campaigns and splitting the D&D gamers between "What has always been known." and "What is known now."
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
|
I guess having a race that live so long seemed uneccesarily complicated for them. Maybe they want elves to be more like humans? I don't really know. This isn't exactly earth shattering or game-breaking stuff. You should really ask questions: like : Why are they removing saving throws? Why are they removing save or die effects? Why remove the magic schools? Why are there no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers in the first PHB? These are the types of questions that I'd want answered.
Why the age change?
Without specifically getting into the merits of such a decision (I'm going to try avoiding the pro vs. anti-4e line) I would say that the change may be due to the effects on a game world of having creatures that live 1000 yrs. That means if someone were born in 1007, they would be dying today. Imagine the population problems. Imagine the huge minds that would exist and how quickly they could advance technology.
Personally, I can't conceive what it might mean to live 1,000 yrs, but 300 yrs is more in my realm of perception (still that would mean I might have been born in the 1700s and seen mighty changes.) And if humans can advance to "immortality" in a lifetime (by achieving 20th level or higher), wouldn't all elves be immortal gods after 1,000 yrs?
I'm not saying these are the right reasons, but perhaps the reasoning behind the age changes.
Why remove the magic schools?
This one has confused me a great deal.
Schools of magic have not always been present/prevalent in D&D (they existed in 1st edition but weren't used for anything really). They also are certainly not perfect, often with people arguing over the classifications (which probably is what led to the dual-school spells).
But they provided an excellent shorthand for some effects, and separation/limitation of Wizard effects (such as Spell Focus). I suppose if they are drastically reducing the types of spells that wizards have (as I've heard) then having 5 total enchantment spells and 100 evocation spells would seem a bit silly - although Clerics having only 1 illusion spell never seemed to cause much fuss.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on why this is occurring? Why not just reduce the number? Have Evocations, Transmutations, Conjurations, Abjurations and Maledictions or somesuch, moving all the protective, illusion, necro stuff into abjuration and malediction. Note, I'm not suggesting this personally, just seems odd to throw out the shorthand notation.
Why remove the magic schools?Well, I certainly haven't read all the preview material out there, but I did read through the 'Races and Classes' book.
It seems the magic system (for the wizard at least) is being heavily changed with spells cast through 'foci' or cast as rituals. So the 'schools of magic' way of categorizing spells will not be used. Instead certain types (or 'schools') are associated with specific foci or rituals.
This is a pretty big change. Will it be better or worse or just different? I guess we'll see in June. I like the idea of doing something different as the old way seems a bit stale to me, but making such major changes is risky (as is evident by the strong emotional responses to 4E).
Does anyone else have any thoughts on why this is occurring?
This is a threadjack against Razz I suppose, but my thought is "What was the purpose of having spell schools in the first place? What effect did they really have on the game?"
Not much really, IMO. It was mainly just flavor, and in some cases flavor that limited campaign setting design on how magic functions and how spells must be designed. Mechanically it allowed wizards to have a minor boost in spells per day at the cost of fewer spells available to learn and it allowed wizards to increase the DCs on a limited number of spells.
Keeping it IMO would be tradition just for tradition's sake. There's nothing wrong with tradition, but in this case I don't think it was that important. And if you still want that flavor, I'm sure some third party will come out with a close approximation.
How does this make the gameplay...better?
There is an assumed rate of progression in many module designs. For example, in Pathfinder, the default timeline assumes you will go from 1st level to 15th in about 6 months.
This is bad campaign design, IMO.
In older editions, you didn't have this issue. Campaigns lasted for decades. And mechanically your body should age. I'm not sure what the physicals effect of growing old will be in 4E, but in 3.5 they're significant.
Elves aging at half the speed of humans is more tolerable in campaign design than one fifth the speed. Instead of having a 'teenage archmage elf', you can pace the campaign over the course of 30 years or so.
And I don't see how this shift into what is IMO a better design prevents others from houseruling it into whatever they want. It's more of a new default setting assumption change, and not a fundamental ruleset change.
"Why the age change?"
This is a funny one, I feel like every edition or even every expansion product (like campaign guides) change the height, age, description of races. Elves seem to go through this the most.
I have always thought of an elf as slightly taller than human (lighter of course) and long-lived (centuries or immortal). I'm not even sure where I ever got that...Tolkien I guess (since D&D elves have always been shorter {in core}).
Anyway, it's hard to guess why they made this specific change. Maybe it fits the way the new rules function better or maybe it is a way to make the race easier to relate to as a player (seems to me there have been articles on this in Dragon or a previous edition change).
I suppose in the end this one will never have a perfect answer. I prefer my elves the way I've always though of them, but if a new version fits the game or a game world nicely I'll give it a chance (and change it if I don't like it).
Hopefully we won't have to 'change' too much... We'll see.
|
|
So here's my starter question:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elves living only 200 years, with eladrin and drow living 300.Why the age change?
Well, if it were just the drow living 300 years and not the eladrin, I would say skin cancer due to global warming.
But seeing that that is not the case, I have no idea other than they just wanted a flavor change.
I guess having a race that live so long seemed uneccesarily complicated for them. Maybe they want elves to be more like humans? I don't really know. This isn't exactly earth shattering or game-breaking stuff. You should really ask questions: like : Why are they removing saving throws? Why are they removing save or die effects? Why remove the magic schools? Why are there no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers in the first PHB? These are the types of questions that I'd want answered.
It is earth shattering depending on what type of game you're running. I have yet to see a gaming group that plays a pure hack&slash D&D game. Though I am sure they exist, and they must exist in multitudes, because that appears to be the very crowd 4E calls out to.
SAVING THROWS
Removing saving throws is a good question. Why do they believe players don't like rolling to protect themselves from harm? I have asked every D&D player I know, and no one had any problems rolling their saving throws. It "was D&D" to them, they'd say. It's always been like that.
What I don't like about the change to saving throws is this: the DM can't fudge for storyline purposes. Several times I have had a PC cast a spell or make a special attack that involved the death of a very important NPC. Behind my screen, I'd roll but I would fudge it. For story purposes, only.
However, with the new way of saving throws, I can't do that anymore. Say the PC makes a Fortitude attack against my NPC's Fortitude Defense. If he rolls a 15 and succeeds, that PC knows that at least a 15 succeeded. Now say he does another such attack and it will kill my important NPC. The player rolls a 18. Can't fudge, can you? Of course, you can probably do something cheesy like "Oh, the guy used an immediate action and pumped up his Fortitude defense. It failed."
That just sounds like an argument waiting to happen. Whereas having the DM roll behind a screen is much safer.
How does Saving Throw Defense make gameplay better? WotC still hasn't answered that. Again, another change for the sake of change and making D&D their own game, it seems.
HALF-ORCS
Ah, I can't remember her name, but one of the designers stated that she didn't like to deal with the half-orc because of the conception that they're spawned through rape. I don't understand why, after 30+ years, this is suddenly a game-breaking issue. Again, WotC astonishes me.
GNOMES
According to Races&Classes, they don't know what to do with it. They want to make it more appealing, though I don't see why. Every gaming group I have seen, including my own, has had at least 2-3 people playing a gnome at some point. And I don't see what's so wrong with the little guys.
SAVE OR DIE
Apparently, this ruins the "fun factor" of D&D. Though it's never happened to me. My players actually get excited at Save or Die attacks because it makes them feel like the battle is more of a challenge. And it's not like there isn't magic to help stave these off.
I don't like the "Immortal PC" idea that 4th Edition is going for.
BARBARIANS, BARDS, DRUIDS, MONKS, SORCERERS
These classes will be in 4E, just not right away. You'll have to wait 2009 or later for these classes to appear, they said.
MAGIC SCHOOLS
Now THIS is an interesting one. I was appalled by the omission of this. Talk about killing sacred cows. This one made it to the Top Ten.
Was it necessary? Why couldn't they somehow keep the schools of magic and make it work in 4th Edition, for the sake of not splitting the fan base and for the sake of making D&D feel the same game, while making it more suitable for the gameplay they envision? This intrigues me, and I have no idea why they ditched it.
I didn't see anything wrong with it. The dual-school deal wasn't a problem either. None of it was really confusing at all, and I think spell Subtypes helped tell apart the spells easier. It could be they don't want to burden their "target audience" with 8 schools of magic and subtypes. At the rate 4th Edition is going, they literally want you to pick up the books, read only a little bit, and dive right in. I believe alot of the material will be HEAVY with crunch material. This is something their "target audience" loves to read about, and not why elves live in trees and dwarves live in mountains.
I'm afraid to say the word....but anyone hear anything about... PSIONICS?
I'm afraid to say the word....but anyone hear anything about... PSIONICS?
Actually, yeah, they want to do Psionics. All those missing Enchantment, Mind-Affecting, Compulsion magic missing in 4th Edition? They said they want the Psion to specialize in that style of "magic". Same with Necromancy, they plan on having a class that specializes in that.
The Psion beating up the Wizard and taking his stuff? I don't like that at all, personally. I always liked it better if Psions were just uber-good at Mind-Affecting "magic" than other spellcasters.
I think the reasoning behind the change in elf longevity is to attain a certain order to realism. In previous versions of D&D, elves being several centuries old, say 700+ were able to witness the rise and fall of kingdoms and acquire such a vast knowledge that it could be exploited by the PCs.
Want to know where the long lost dungeon is....ask an elf, he was around during the time.
Want to know all about some artifact....ask the elf, he was around during the time..
and so on.
I don't think elves living for so long is a bad thing, I think it has more to do with how individual DM's handle it. The removal of their longevity I think stems along the same lines as removing wish for example, many DMs don't know how to deal with it and it created problems for new DMs versus experienced ones.
I think this is the thought process behind many of these types of changes.
As far as the schools of magic...I'm guessing they threw them out for two reasons....
1. They didn't serve enough of a purpose (personally I wish they would have kept them and expanded upon the purpose)
2. They don't fall into line with their new magic system.
And I will add a third reason.....
I think the terms and concepts behind them are to big of words for the younger audience to understand. I'm all for everyone playing....but not at the expense of reducing the reading level of the game. Some games are intended for younger audiences, others are intended for older audiences. That's why they put the age range on the box or the book. Example...for all ages, for players 14 and up. etc.
How does this make the gameplay...better?There is an assumed rate of progression in many module designs. For example, in Pathfinder, the default timeline assumes you will go from 1st level to 15th in about 6 months.
This is bad campaign design, IMO.
Im not really sure why you have that impression but its not true in my experience. If one takes the the U series Sinsiter Secret of Saltmarsh, Danger at Dunwater and The Final Enemy you'll probably find that this whole series takes your players maybe 3 months to complete in game time. Maybe a little less or a little more but ultimatley each of the adventures hooks to the next and the clues are all there. There is nothing in the adventures themselves that should slow your players progress down.
Other linked series are more or less the same way if you do the whole against the Giants series and then follow that with the Descent to the Depths of the Earth series it will again probably take your players less then a year.
Finally lets consider the obvious forbearer to all modern APs, the Dragonlance series DL1 through DL15. More so then just about any other series of linked adventures this one runs on a time line. The armies of the Dragon Highlords have places to get to and they will arrive at certain points roughly on certain dates so the thing is choreographed to a level not seen in any other AP that I am aware of and this whole series runs somewhere between 8 months and a little over a year and takes players from about 3rd level to 15th or 16th or so.
There really is nothing within the actual game that in anyway made one think that years would go by, now the length of time it took to gain levels, especially after name level was pretty impressive and that tends to increase the amount of game time that passes. Furthermore your players would have to go on a lot of adventures to get the kind of XP needed to keep gaining levels.
This is in part where the real time starts to kick in. Figure on average you need to complete 1 adventure to gain a level for levels 1-5, about 2 adventures to make a level for levels 6-10, 3 adventures to gain a level for levels 11-20.
Well that means that you need to have gone on 35 adventures to make 20th level. all of those adventures have some down time between them and there is also time that passes while doing them etc.
As a player it will take many years to run 35 adventures compared to the roughly 15 or so adventures that are required 3.5 to reach 20th level.
The fact that many real life years are passing will tend to encourage players and DMs to have a more time pass in the actual game. My bet if if you gave your players about 15% of the recommended XP per encounter you'd be roughly on par with what players earned in 1st edition. Now tell your players your running a campaign from 1st through 20th and you figure it will take between 9 and 11 years to finish the campaign if your players say 40 times a year. I suspect if you check back 10 years from now your players characters will have actually aged considerably during the course of this 10 year campaign.
I'm afraid to say the word....but anyone hear anything about... PSIONICS?Actually, yeah, they want to do Psionics. All those missing Enchantment, Mind-Affecting, Compulsion magic missing in 4th Edition? They said they want the Psion to specialize in that style of "magic". Same with Necromancy, they plan on having a class that specializes in that.
The Psion beating up the Wizard and taking his stuff? I don't like that at all, personally. I always liked it better if Psions were just uber-good at Mind-Affecting "magic" than other spellcasters.
I always liked Psionics, though I preferred when people specialized in things like telepathy, etc as opposed to big flashy things. So maybe their "plan" might not be a bad idea. Though hopefully they don't make everyone wait for a couple years. I think it's something that needs to come out quickly - so we don't get iconic DnD Monsters like Illithids in the MM non-psionic and then later revised a year or whatever later. I'm still not supporting 4E, but I'm curious to track the progress of a game I've loved and played for more than 2 dozen years. I do believe that magic and psionics have to remain seperate. I never supported that magic and psionics could/should be treated the same when it came to items/dispels/etc.
Im not really sure why you have that impression but its not true in my experience.
It's my opinion. Going from 1st to 20th in 6 months is ridiculous. Or even 5 years.
Other linked series are more or less the same way if you do the whole against the Giants series and then follow that with the Descent to the Depths of the Earth series it will again probably take your players less then a year.
The links generally didn't assume a timeline, and they didn't take you from 1st to 20th.
Finally lets consider the obvious forbearer to all modern APs, the Dragonlance series DL1 through DL15.
I don't have a very high opinion of those modules, and neither do many of the gamers I know.
Furthermore your players would have to go on a lot of adventures to get the kind of XP needed to keep gaining levels.
Well I think that answers in a nutshell why elves shouldn't age as slowly in 4E: fewer adventures per career means less reason to live so long, especially if there is no max level as in older editions.
I think the reasoning behind the change in elf longevity is to attain a certain order to realism. In previous versions of D&D, elves being several centuries old, say 700+ were able to witness the rise and fall of kingdoms and acquire such a vast knowledge that it could be exploited by the PCs.
Want to know where the long lost dungeon is....ask an elf, he was around during the time.
Want to know all about some artifact....ask the elf, he was around during the time..
and so on.
Forget asking them - be a friggen elf, better yet (if you Dm does not catch on) be an old elf ... claim you have 'interest in other cultures' and 'news junkie' as character traits. Keep extensive diaries of such details that go back many many centuries. Drive DM insane by insisting on using your intimate knowledge of history and politics of the campaign world a thousand years ago.
anyway my suspicion is this is traditional. I'd have to double check but I think they shorten the elves life span in every new edition. Next edition their only going to live 150 years.
Am I the only one to find a 700 year old elf level 1 PC completely ridiculous?
It's like, what has this guy been doing for 700 years? I mean in 700 years, he would probably have the time to learn how to use a sword a little bite better than let's say a 20ish year old human wouldn't he?
Also, if you are a near immortal being, why on earth do you risk your life in a dungeon? Also, if you know that you will outlive your opponents, why even bother to fight? Just wait & see... you'll win in the end.
With a 200 year span life, a young inexperienced elf is a much more plausible.
The age change brings the elves down a peg. I welcome it.
|
Good question: About the elves...
*boom*
Since you've asked for ideas about the intentions of changing elven life-spans, here is some friendly speculation (not looking for argument) and based on some rumors I've heard... the longevity of the elf may be tied to that company's desire to set this other game hundreds of years (perhaps 1000 years) into the future, thus enacting a complete and total reset of the game. In this scenario, even the characters of associated novels will be a distant memory. Perhaps their intention is to make it further "new" and different from 3.5. Wi$ards of the Coa$t may be looking for a clean break that allows for "new" stuff to be sold. I've heard people suggest that company fears their greatest competitor could be their own product (3.5) continued in the hands of 3rd party OGL publishers. [Wow, I'd love to see that happen.] I'm guessing the "Winterhaven" of their first module release will be set as a "point of light" upon the ruins of some town we may already be familiar with in 3.5. Their recent writing on the revised 4.0 FRCS reads: "The world has changed since the Spellplague, and from this arcane crucible have emerged shining kingdoms, tyrannical empires, mighty heroes, and monster-infested dungeons." Again, in the spirit of this thread-my thoughts on "why": I don't think this was any skillful design consideration, just avorice, novice, or wanton abandonment of 30+ years of tradition that defines our game, not this other game they're hoping to sell under the title of their trademarked name.
Am I the only one to find a 700 year old elf level 1 PC completely ridiculous?
It's like, what has this guy been doing for 700 years? I mean in 700 years, he would probably have the time to learn how to use a sword a little bite better than let's say a 20ish year old human wouldn't he?
Also, if you are a near immortal being, why on earth do you risk your life in a dungeon? Also, if you know that you will outlive your opponents, why even bother to fight? Just wait & see... you'll win in the end.
With a 200 year span life, a young inexperienced elf is a much more plausible.
The age change brings the elves down a peg. I welcome it.
I am pretty sure the Complete Book of Elves from 2nd Edition, Races of the Wild from 3rd Edition, and many articles from Dragon Magazine have ALL explained why this is so.
To sum it up in a nut shell, not EVERY elf picks up a sword, learns magic, or is constantly defending their land from orcs. There are average elf citizens, just like there are average human citizens.
Elves spend their time carefree. Out of 700 years, 1/6 of it is spent on entering trance, 3/6 is spent lounging around and simply living life (and time passes quite quickly to elves, lounging around for what felt like a day was probably a whole month) and the remaining 2/6 of their lives spent actually making themselves a valuable citizen to their people, such as learning pottery, tailoring, gardening, scouting, whatever.
Humans perform these very same things but on a much faster and quicker pace, because their lives pass in the blink of an eye.
Are you insisting that every 75+ year old human in a D&D game is above 1st-level too? Are they all honed warriors or mighty magic users? No, they don't have the talent, the resources, or the guts probably. The same for elves, or any race for that matter.
Also, just because some DMs have a problem handling it doesn't mean we have to take it away. That's their job to figure out how to handle it. I remember a day in D&D when the DM actually did the planning, worked his own imagination, and solved his own game problems. Since when was it WotC job to do that for us, I ask sincerely?
Why the age change?I would say that the change may be due to the effects on a game world of having creatures that live 1000 yrs. That means if someone were born in 1007, they would be dying today.
I don't think in a medieval world people live so much, think in all the diseases without an effective cure, think on the wars that are frequent in a medieval world, think also in the huge quantity of monsters lurking everywhere and you will finish with only perhaps a 10% of elves reaching death by age.
I'm afraid to say the word....but anyone hear anything about... PSIONICS?Actually, yeah, they want to do Psionics. All those missing Enchantment, Mind-Affecting, Compulsion magic missing in 4th Edition? They said they want the Psion to specialize in that style of "magic". Same with Necromancy, they plan on having a class that specializes in that.
The Psion beating up the Wizard and taking his stuff? I don't like that at all, personally. I always liked it better if Psions were just uber-good at Mind-Affecting "magic" than other spellcasters.
I always liked Psionics, though I preferred when people specialized in things like telepathy, etc as opposed to big flashy things. So maybe their "plan" might not be a bad idea. Though hopefully they don't make everyone wait for a couple years. I think it's something that needs to come out quickly - so we don't get iconic DnD Monsters like Illithids in the MM non-psionic and then later revised a year or whatever later. I'm still not supporting 4E, but I'm curious to track the progress of a game I've loved and played for more than 2 dozen years. I do believe that magic and psionics have to remain seperate. I never supported that magic and psionics could/should be treated the same when it came to items/dispels/etc.
BW, I agree w/ some of what you say. As a psionics fan, I don't want to wait a year or two to be able to play a 4th ed. psion out of the gate (though, to be honest, I wouldn't be starting 4th ed.--if I even switch--for a year or two down the line anyway). I don't agree w/ you on the magic/psionics transparency issue, but that's straying off-topic.
What I am worried about is that 4th ed psionics has an idea of what ROLE a psion should be fulfilling. If they really want a psion to take over certain types of spellcasting for the wizard and that's it, that'll be a major downside for getting me to play such a psion. I really think that the 3.5 version of the psion, who must choose 1 of the 6 paths as their main specialty, allows you incredible amounts of versatility. You can be a blaster, a telepath, a shaper, etc. If 4th edition strips away this flexibility, then I'm far less likely to play it.
Am I the only one to find a 700 year old elf level 1 PC completely ridiculous?
It's like, what has this guy been doing for 700 years? I mean in 700 years, he would probably have the time to learn how to use a sword a little bite better than let's say a 20ish year old human wouldn't he?
Also, if you are a near immortal being, why on earth do you risk your life in a dungeon? Also, if you know that you will outlive your opponents, why even bother to fight? Just wait & see... you'll win in the end.
With a 200 year span life, a young inexperienced elf is a much more plausible.
The age change brings the elves down a peg. I welcome it.
Actually, I found the idea of the world being populated with 90+% 1st level human commoners pretty ridiculous as well. Don't get me started on the 0-level humans of AD&D.
Much like the D&D "economy", I viewed this as a flaw of D&D. However, I ran across an interesting post at ENWorld years ago. A poster suggested that NPCs in his world "learned something everyday". Basically, the act of surviving and thriving in a D&D world was worth 1 XP per day. I worked out a spreadsheet showing "avg. NPC level" for each of the core races. The results were pretty interesting (at least to me) and showed me a simple way to change a 3.x "bug" into a "feature".
Middle-aged and old humans were higher level - which made sense for those guildmasters, village elders, temple clergy, or temple administrators. The average level of the dwarven and elven populations was higher than that of humans. Suddenly I had game mechanics that supported the idea of dwarves and elves having powerful kingdoms despite having inferior population numbers to humans. More importantly, every NPC above level 2 didn't have to be a current or retired adventurer.
I've seen this type of methodology applied in other games, although not in as formulaic a fashion: d20 Modern and Mongoose's Conan RPG to name two.
Sorry for the tangent.
As for elven lifespans, that's pretty easy to houserule regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
As for why not just taking the oulive/outlast you opponents tactic? Because sometimes your enemies bring the battle to you, sometimes you feel like a coward sitting on safely on the sidelines while innocents suffer, or maybe the longer you wait to fight the evil the stronger it will become. Despite the "logic" or "wisdom" of pacifist, isolationist, or neutrality arguments there will always be people within a culture who will believe that there are things worth fighting, and even dying for. Even in fantasy RPG cultures. ;)
I think WotC is doing the right thing by lowering the max age of elves. I played Vampire the Masquerade for many years and I learned that realistically role playing a centuries old vampire was HARD. Look at Vampire the Requiem; they instituted the “fog of ages” effect which is much better IMO. What DM wants a player character that has first hand memories of an event that happened 400 years ago (I like what if stories like national treasure and the Da vinci code, personal interpretation of incomplete historical fragments is key for those stories). What player can role play a 150 year old character correctly (I thought I could understand a 30 year old when I was 18, now that I am 31 I do not agree with my original belief). History should always be DM fiat.
I also think that this makes the game easier for the demographic they are marketing to (12-24 y/o) to play. The 4th edition designers are actually doing a really good job at what they are trying to accomplish. Look objectively at 4th edition in terms of what you would have liked, wanted, played when you were in junior high or high school and not in D&D terms. I definitely do not like all the changes they are making to the game, but I do not expect to like the new edition WITHOUT MODIFICATION, I have a different idea of fun than a 16 year old (and proud of it no offense to the youngsters, now just gets off my damn lawn). That is why I enjoy Paizo and follow their books; they have mature designers making stories for mature gamers like me. I do not know what edition Pazio, Green Ronin and Necromancers games will adopt, but I know it will be a system highly altered from the 4th edition rules as shown so far since they make games that they (more mature gamers in my demographic) want to play and are used to. Wizards may not make 4th edition a flexible as 3rd in this regard and that would honestly be the only reason not to change IMO from a business standpoint (don’t kill me Razz). But for reasons I will mention later I do not believe that WotC will make 4th edition as flexible (or OGLish if you will) as 3rd.
Finally a why to the other questions (and the big why of why make a 4th edition):
Why are they removing saving throws: I do not know? I suspect it is because we have created an ADHD society and people like to be active rather than passive. It likely is consensus opinion for the younger generations and I can easily see this bias switching back and forth in future editions of the game. It really makes little difference from a game mechanics standpoint, only personal opinion.
Why remove save and die effects: I will not miss this one. I have been fudging rolls for both players and NPCs for my whole DMing life. I believe in second (and third sometimes) chances and am a self confessed softy to my players (an important NPCS), not something I am always proud of and admittedly a flaw in my DMing skills in a way.
Why remove the magic schools: Same reason you remove any other popular game mechanic, to expand it into a core idea so you can make more money $$$$. Long gone is the 3rd edition design philosophy to have classes use spells from other classes spell lists (saving page counts and being used as a marketing tool to drive core book sales). If each specialist type of wizard gets it own unique spell list that is 10 books verses one book people, and trust me they will sell and sell well. (Spell compendiums people, take your top sellers and sell more of the same Marketing 101).
Why are there no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers in the first PHB. I am a self confessed gnome lover. I love to play gnome illusionists and jesters (shout out to all you 1st edition dragon mag readers). I will admit that they do not make good dungeon crawl characters though so they probably do not deserve a core book treatment. This is the same reason they are likely axing the paladin’s war mount, the familiar, NPC companions, animal companions and the like. If it cannot be useful in most campaigns (which looking at most of the Dungeon APs, a riding horse or wolf follower really is more a hindrance than a help on a whole), why make them core. Now I can see a splat book totally devoted to a fey power source gnome tricksters in the future though (much to the chagrin of my fellow players at my table ha ha). Half orcs are gone due to personal designer hate, that’s life. Barbarians, bards, druids, monks were in the 3rd edition players handbook due to their design philosophies. They wanted to make 3rd edition all inclusive and open source so that our game we all love could never be taken away from us. (Anyone remember cease and desist letters and lawsuits to little ole fan web sites, it seems so stupid that most of the new players I am sure will not even believe me and think I’m a paranoid schizophrenic, and honestly I am sooooooo thankful for that.) Play balance issues were not the main goal so I can see why these classes are getting the axe now that it is more important. They are rushing 4th edition out the door for 8 character classes as it is, let’s face it we would definitely be doomed to a 4.5 in 3 years if they tried to get 13 of them in the first players hand book and it would limit future money for them also (never let people think that they have everything they will ever need to buy).
Why Aura bonuses and static saves on perception: Makes the game more miniature driven and easier to computer code (you need to know relative location constantly and something extra to help you remember your bonuses). This is the thing I most hate and I know some most love. Human beings are hoarders (look at my magic the gathering and role playing books collection) and it is how Wizards makes money off D&D (gone it the “make products to drive core books sales” idea. The money is in driving the miniatures sales. The OGL idea is no longer relevant in the in the world of gaming from the purely high margin profit driven standpoint. This is the opinion that I most want people to discuss by the way, Paizo making their own AP miniatures raise anyone else’s ears for great money making strategy to keep a company I know and love in business for a long long time).
Finally why rerolls vs. bonuses (looking at you new elf feat): Human beings, especially those in the 12-24 age brackets, have a hard time fundamentally understanding statistics. (Of course a reroll on an attack is more powerful than a measly +4, I could roll a 20 on the second attempt, this rule is utterly broken ;).)
I would love to hear your guys’ opinions on all of these. I personally rarely take offense so I hope none is taken by anything I said here. I will say Paizo will likely have to jump off the WotC coat tails eventually since the business model 3rd edition created and worked under (OGL driving more core books sales = profits) may be leaving as a prime mover and a 4th edition business model (core books driving more miniatures and computer top gaming = profits) seems to be starting to take over. Time will tell which is better from a business standpoint but as a player and lover of the game my heart is with the 3rd edition model of gaming and I hope WotC keeps viewing and using 3rd party publishers as a vital part of their marketing campaign (making almost all the rules open to them) so they can be included and share in their monetary pie. I do not know if they will though and I would love to know if Erik, Lisa, and James have noticed this business model change as well or if it is just me.
I didnt know that they reduced the elf lifepsan to only around 200 years. That actually sounds great to me. No more jokes about elves living in diapers for 100+ years, and having to use the exact same excuse that "all" elves just take things slowly since they have "forever to learn things".
Finally a why to the other questions (and the big why of why make a 4th edition):
Why are they removing saving throws: I do not know? I suspect it is because we have created an ADHD society and people like to be active rather than passive. It likely is consensus opinion for the younger generations and I can easily see this bias switching back and forth in future editions of the game. It really makes little difference from a game mechanics standpoint, only personal opinion.
Why remove save and die effects: I will not miss this one. I have been fudging rolls for both players and NPCs for my whole DMing life. I believe in second (and third sometimes) chances and am a self confessed softy to my players (an important NPCS), not something I am always proud of and admittedly a flaw in my DMing skills in a way.
Why remove the magic schools: Same reason you remove any other popular game mechanic, to expand it into a core idea so you can make more money $$$$. Long gone is the 3rd edition design philosophy to have classes use spells from other classes spell lists (saving page counts and being used as a marketing tool to drive core book sales). If each specialist type of wizard gets it own unique spell list that is 10 books verses one book people, and trust me they will sell and sell well. (Spell compendiums people, take your top sellers and sell more of the same Marketing 101).
Why are there no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers in the first PHB. I am a self confessed gnome lover. I love to play gnome illusionists and jesters (shout out to all you 1st edition dragon mag readers). I will admit that they do not make good dungeon crawl characters though so they probably do not deserve a core book treatment. This is the same reason they are likely axing the paladin’s war mount, the familiar, NPC companions, animal companions and the like. If it cannot be useful in most campaigns (which looking at most of the Dungeon APs, a riding horse or wolf follower really is more a...
As before, saving throws arent really going anywhere. The argument of "I like to be in control of my own fate" holds little water when you consider that about half of the attack options allow the enemy to roll to hit you, anyway. You will usually have someone attack you, and there really isnt anything you can do about it except hope you applied your Dodge feat to them beforehand.
I suppose the uphand of this is that at least there is some consistency: if you attack someone, you make a roll against them.I will also not miss save-or-die effects. I know some DMs think that it makes the game more "realistic" or whatever, but really its just a pain in the arse. Whenever a player dies, that player has to take a backseat (or maybe just go home), while we invent a plot device to bring them back, often with a one-time ritual since at low levels, raising isnt really an option at all.
That assumes that the player is connected to the character at all. I can see a player rolling a character that they just dont sync up with and not minding just coming in with something else. I can see other players sucking it up and bringing in a new guy.
However, there are other ways to "prove" how "real" the game is without having it come down to a single botched roll. I prefer my players to die by a means that is a little more complicated or meaningful that that.
As has been said before, the removal of the schools was only done as a mechanical device. They exist just as much or as little as you want to focus on them. And, they only really removed Enchantment effects from the wizard, so those of you that think its all a marketing scheme probably got it all wrong. At worst, I see them making an Enchanter class (or something like that, or just giving the lion's share of mind-affecting things to the psion).
If they want to make money off of wierd class books, there are plenty of other things they can do besides making "specialist wizard books". It has been mentioned that its possible that specialist wizards might end up as paragon paths, or perhaps epic destinies.
I am too a gnome lover, and I think this was an instance where Wizards DID listen to people by putting them in the Monster Manual. They could have just not put in in the first set of core books, or pulled it from the game entirely (some races wont be coming back, after all). So for all the flak they catch, I think that they are listening to the majority share.
|
SAVE OR DIE
Apparently, this ruins the "fun factor" of D&D. Though it's never happened to me. My players actually get excited at Save or Die attacks because it makes them feel like the battle is more of a challenge. And it's not like there isn't magic to help stave these off.I don't like the "Immortal PC" idea that 4th Edition is going for.
*sniff* I sure am gonna miss the old "Save or Die". There was almost nothing like the excitement of one of those die rolls.
|
|
To chime in on the change to elf longevity. It does seem arbitrary like many decisions made for 4.0, but it seems like it is also one of the easiest to change. Just say "For my games, elves age the same as they always have." That seems easy enough. The other stuff they are messing with (lack of saving throws, save or dies, vancian magic, missing races, classes and types of magic) are far more problematic. Theses things are hardwired into the system, and are more difficult to modify.
Finally a why to the other questions (and the big why of why make a 4th edition):
Why are they removing saving throws: I do not know? I suspect it is because we have created an ADHD society and people like to be active rather than passive. It likely is consensus opinion for the younger generations and I can easily see this bias switching back and forth in future editions of the game. It really makes little difference from a game mechanics standpoint, only personal opinion.
The stated goal is to speed up combat. Rather than rolling a separate saving throw for every target of an area attack, the attacker rolls once and compares the roll to the appropriate "defense" score (like AC). The problem with this is the inclusion of a critical hit mechanic. If the attacker rolls a 20, this could result in automatic death (with a high-damage effect) to an entire group of targets (the PCs, for example) with no chance of avoiding or reducing the result.
Why remove save and die effects: I will not miss this one. I have been fudging rolls for both players and NPCs for my whole DMing life. I believe in second (and third sometimes) chances and am a self confessed softy to my players (an important NPCS), not something I am always proud of and admittedly a flaw in my DMing skills in a way.
IMO, removing "save or die" effects entirely tends to cheapen the player's experience (DM fudging is not something players should rely on). The threat of "dying" (or being otherwise incapacitated) from the result of a single unlucky roll keeps players from feeling invincible. Adventuring is supposed to be a "high-risk/high-reward" occupation, which is why adventurers are (should be) rare; it's much easier/safer to be a farmer or learn a craft.
Besides, it's not as if character death in 3.x is as traumatic as it was in earlier editions. In earlier editions, you generally had to start over with a 1st level character or (maybe) take on a NPC or DM-created replacement. In 3.x, the guidelines for creating PCs (with appropriate gear) at any level let a player create a replacement tweaked to their taste.
Why remove the magic schools: Same reason you remove any other popular game mechanic, to expand it into a core idea so you can make more money $$$$. Long gone is the 3rd edition design philosophy to have classes use spells from other classes spell lists (saving page counts and being used as a marketing tool to drive core book sales). If each specialist type of wizard gets it own unique spell list that is 10 books verses one book people, and trust me they will sell and sell well. (Spell compendiums people, take your top sellers and sell more of the same Marketing 101).
From what WotC has said, they are going to make all casters specialists. Instead of the generalist magic-user/mage/wizard, there will be blaster/misdirection wizards, mentalist psions, necromancers, etc, some of which will not be released initially. While this can be useful for flavor and character creation, it also makes 4e less suitible for use with the wide variety of possible campaign settings based on fantasy fiction, myth, and the DM's imagination.