Holy smokes!
[...] Each class has it's own chapter that details different builds and lists the powers available (Between 3-8 per level it seemed). Monster entries are much shorter than in 3.5, but much more concise. [...]
The books look and feel great, there seems to be more artwork and a more logical layout in all the 4e books. The new DM screen is 100% better than the old one.[...]
Ok, multiclassing is done entirely through feats. You take one feat to multiclass and gain a power from that class, and then take additional feats to take more powers from the class.
Rituals are obtained by buying ritual scrolls or ritual books. Ritual scrolls are consumed after one use, books teach the ritual to you permanantly. All rituals seem to have a casting time of at least 10 minutes, require a material component, and require the use of the ritual casting feat (which wizards and clerics get for free at 1st level) Most of the divination spells in 3.5 are now rituals as well as some of the old illusion spells.
Each class has about 15 or so pages written about it which includes powers and paragon paths. It's possible to make characters that don't fall into their presupposed role, but you have to multiclass to do it (you'll need defender powers from fighter to be an effective rogue defender, etc.)
There are no subrace rules (drow, gold dwarf, etc.) in the PHB.
There are approximately 3 times the amount of feats in the 4e PHB as the 3.5 PHB.
The DMG is all about how to run a game. There is no reason at all for a player to have one.
Oh and by the way, Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are definately getting 4e campaigns down the line as well as Planescape and Spelljammer (which they just started working out). They assured us that we can look forward to most of the old campaign setting being remade, and mentioned the above by name.
From this thread on ENWorld! Lots of juicy info.
I've never seen an honest to goodness campaign setting book for Greyhawk. Sounds like I might finally get to.
Any thoughts?
From this thread on ENWorld! Lots of juicy info.
I've never seen an honest to goodness campaign setting book for Greyhawk. Sounds like I might finally get to.
Any thoughts?
Very intresting! It's good to know that the older settings will indeed be getting a 4e redo. The amount of options for each class looks very intresting.
Would you quote the whole test from ENworld? (Under a spoiler tag if it's really long?)
Thanks!
I'm scared at the thought of WotC re-doing Dark Sun.
The dark sun articles a few years back were horrendous, and from what I understand, the problems landed solely on the wotc editors and not on the ortiginal author of the articles.
Very intresting! It's good to know that the older settings will indeed be getting a 4e redo. The amount of options for each class looks very intresting.
Would you quote the whole test from ENworld? (Under a spoiler tag if it's really long?)
Thanks!
Well, that is pretty much all there is on ENWorld, really (except for this ...)
Almost forgot to add, social encounters seemreally cool. Different encounters rely on different skills and number of successes. Some skills can be used to cancel out other player's skills. An example would be: You need 4 successful skill checks to convince the king a man was guilty, you could choose from diplomacy, bluff or intimidate. The Vizier wants to convince the king otherwise, so he can use his bluff to cancel out a successful diplomacy check that the PC made, etc.
However, the post I stole all this info from (thanks RyukenAngel, and thanks especially to Tanus!) is itself a post stealing info from Gleemax here. I haven't read the Gleemax thread personally, but others on the ENWorld thread said this is the best info that you can gleam. If you have the time/patience to puruse the original thread, bring back any nuggets of goodness you can find!
And quite welcome! :)
|
Ok, multiclassing is done entirely through feats. You take one feat to multiclass and gain a power from that class, and then take additional feats to take more powers from the class.
Huh. Similar to UA's Generic Classes.
Rituals are obtained by buying ritual scrolls or ritual books. Ritual scrolls are consumed after one use, books teach the ritual to you permanantly. All rituals seem to have a casting time of at least 10 minutes, require a material component, and require the use of the ritual casting feat (which wizards and clerics get for free at 1st level) Most of the divination spells in 3.5 are now rituals as well as some of the old illusion spells.
Again, UA: Incantations.
Each class has about 15 or so pages written about it which includes powers and paragon paths. It's possible to make characters that don't fall into their presupposed role, but you have to multiclass to do it (you'll need defender powers from fighter to be an effective rogue defender, etc.)
LOL. I can already see this sections going to be tinkered to death as folks substitute their own powers. :) (Btw, they're called "variants" in 3.x.)
There are approximately 3 times the amount of feats in the 4e PHB as the 3.5 PHB.
Powergamers are having an orgasm right now :)
The DMG is all about how to run a game. There is no reason at all for a player to have one.
Well, here's a book to consider optional. Again.
Oh and by the way, Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are definately getting 4e campaigns down the line as well as Planescape and Spelljammer (which they just started working out). They assured us that we can look forward to most of the old campaign setting being remade, and mentioned the above by name.
Deathknell to 3.x.
Ok, multiclassing is done entirely through feats. You take one feat to multiclass and gain a power from that class, and then take additional feats to take more powers from the class.
Huh. Similar to UA's Generic Classes.
Probably somewhat similiar, but not quite. We don't know, for example, if the power you gained from your multiclass feat would replace or be in addition to one of your own powers (I'd assume it would replace one, but I have no idea ... although the excerpt for the 30th is supposed to be multiclassing so we'll know soon!)
Rituals are obtained by buying ritual scrolls or ritual books. Ritual scrolls are consumed after one use, books teach the ritual to you permanantly. All rituals seem to have a casting time of at least 10 minutes, require a material component, and require the use of the ritual casting feat (which wizards and clerics get for free at 1st level) Most of the divination spells in 3.5 are now rituals as well as some of the old illusion spells.
Again, UA: Incantations.
I've never used them, but heard good things from those who did. I'm interested in what rituals we know so far ... the idea of a mystical ritual using Fighter seems cool to me.
The DMG is all about how to run a game. There is no reason at all for a player to have one.
Well, here's a book to consider optional. Again.
I dunno. Everyone who talks about the DMG says it has the best advice on running a game they've ever read. EVER! It's rare I do more that skim the DMGs, since I'm familiar with most of the concepts, but enough playtesters have suggested thouroughly reading it by now that I think I may have to ...
Oh and by the way, Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are definately getting 4e campaigns down the line as well as Planescape and Spelljammer (which they just started working out). They assured us that we can look forward to most of the old campaign setting being remade, and mentioned the above by name.
Deathknell to 3.x.
Perhaps. In my mind 3E was slain some time ago, but then many on these very forums would tell us both we were wrong (and that 2E/1E/whateverE is still alive and kicking!)
But yeah, some support for all the 2E settings was something I always wanted in 3E. Hopefully the new limited setting release per year idea is a viable way to produce a lot of different campaigns without them all pulling WotC down.
Cheers! :)
[...] Each class has it's own chapter that details different builds and lists the powers available (Between 3-8 per level it seemed). Monster entries are much shorter than in 3.5, but much more concise. [...]
If each class has its own chapter, how big is this sucker supposed to be?
The books look and feel great, there seems to be more artwork and a more logical layout in all the 4e books. The new DM screen is 100% better than the old one.[...]
Logical layout is good...artwork is secondary, IMO. If you can't get to where you're going easily, all them purty pictures are not going to help.
Ok, multiclassing is done entirely through feats. You take one feat to multiclass and gain a power from that class, and then take additional feats to take more powers from the class.
Oh, Gods...Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that means it may take even more time to build a character than it does in 3.5. BTW, does the system address one of my own major nitpicks with 3.5 -- the tendency to multiclass for the bennies as opposed to multiclassing for character/story reasons (In other words: Player A wants to join the Grand Knights of the Wooferoonie PrC because he has had since childhood [and has roleplayed as such] looked up to the order, while Player B wants his PC to multiclass into it out of the blue because at 3rd level he can destroy planets with one swipe of his sword?) Is multiclassing for naked optimization/powergaming discouraged at all?
Each class has about 15 or so pages written about it which includes powers and paragon paths. It's possible to make characters that don't fall into their presupposed role, but you have to multiclass to do it (you'll need defender powers from fighter to be an effective rogue defender, etc.)
"Rogue defender?" In my day, we called them "fighters" or less charitably, "meatshields" :D
There are no subrace rules (drow, gold dwarf, etc.) in the PHB.
That's pretty much expected. There weren't in any of the other iterations of the PHB.
There are approximately 3 times the amount of feats in the 4e PHB as the 3.5 PHB.
<sarcasm>Oh goodie...just what we asked for...MORE feats...</sarcasm>
The DMG is all about how to run a game. There is no reason at all for a player to have one.
If it's a "how to" book, is there any reason for a DM to have one either? Is it more like a "here's all the charts that the DM and NOT the players need to see," or is it like "DMing for Dummies?"
Oh and by the way, Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are definately getting 4e campaigns down the line as well as Planescape and Spelljammer (which they just started working out). They assured us that we can look forward to most of the old campaign setting being remade, and mentioned the above by name.
If their "remakes" are anything like what was inflicted on the Forgotten Realms, they're not going to be the same settings.
But we'll see when they get to Ebberon, I think. The new fluff is alien to that campaign world, too. If they change the halflings/elves/drow of Ebberon to match 4e instead of making 4e variants to match Ebberon, we'll know which way the wind is blowing well in advance.
I don't think so. Keith Baker himself mentioned that he thinks 4E is much more suited to Eberron than 3E. It seems much of 4E official fluff was based on Eberron:
- PCs are special compared to most ordinary folk- Ressurrection is extremly rare; most people in the world can't be raised from the dead
- Action points
- NPCs without PC classes sometimes learn utility magic for everyday use
- Cosmology based on non-symmetric, thematic planes rather than symmetric planar-aligned planes
- Dead people all go to the same "Death" plane, until they eventually disappear and nobody knows where the hell they went. Most people never join their deities on eternal rest
- Every empire built is fated to be destroyed by a catastrophe
- Aberrations originated from a "Cthulu"-like plane
- Alignment has far less importance than before. On traditional 3.5E, if a NPC has "Lawful Good" written on it, than you know he is a champion of the cause of the good and enemy of everything which is evil. On Eberron, Queen Aurala is lawful good and her main goal is... to conquer the entire continent of Khorvaire?
- Dragon colors are not related to their alignments
- Warforged, shifters and changelings will be core, playable monsters
- No more dozens of subraces (only the elf-eladrin split, of course)
- Hobgoblins use flails (minor, but I doubt it wasn't based on Eberron)
In fact, it seems that 3.5E fluff was much more alien to Eberron than 4E fluff.
Only the new races may actually not fit well to Eberron without some modifications. But it's hard to know without seeing what they are going to do. Remember some of Eberron's major races were not featured as PC races on 3.5E (Goblinoids, orcs and gnolls, for instance). And they have to invent weird excuses for half-orcs having a prominent role in the setting ("humans and orcs live together for centuries and are very friendly. Then we happen to have lots of half-orcs and they lead their orc and human friends).
I prefer to see full orcs taking the role of half-orcs on 4th edition.
Yeah, that's the big worry. Planescape without the great wheel? Could be well done, but its definitely scary. And Dark Sun's whole motif is different. Shouldn't be hard to do right, but if they feel they need to add the feywild and everything else it'll be ugly.
Why would you immediatly assume that the Great Wheel isn't going to get any upgrade with the Planescape setting?
It's the perfect time to do it. You could upgrade the old cosmology using the setting books, and give them a lot more detial then they would have gotten by being shoved into the back of the DMG like they were in 3rd edition.
And yes Dark Sun's feel is inded totally different and they will reflect that in the main book for Dark sun I'm sure. I'm sure you'll see variant races in many of the campaign setting books.
That's the whole point of putting out the Realms first and the remaining settings later. The Realms is the setting which will hew most closely to the 4E assumed setting, and with each new campaign setting they will depart more and more.
Don't forget that we'll still be having PHBs, DMGs, and MMs supposedly coming out every year. We already know a lot of what will be in the second set (and a ton about what will be in the first!) but keep your eyes out for info on the third. That will tell you what setting is coming out in 2010 ...
Cheers! :)
From ENWorld, an idea on Sigil in 4E's new cosmos:
If the Wheel is gone (and I hope it is), my first choice would be that no one knows where Sigil "is". Everyone's been there (through a portal), but no one has actually ever found it by non-portal means. It's still a torus, and it's floating over some really big spire, and you can just barely see (way, way down) a land of some kind. Only the largest geographical features are visible (rivers, oceans, mountains, the greensward of some large and ancient forest, etc.) but no one in Sigil (or anywhere else among the Domains) has ever been there or knows anything about it, or ever met anyone from there.
I like, you?
Cheers! :)
What ever happend to Dragonlance? Guess it died with the time of the twins. Releasing Dark Sun?!? Im horrified!
After the event killing off most of the gods and lots of the populace, the setting was fast forwarded and released using the terrible SAGA rules, where dice rolling was replaced by card drawing (even character generation!) Note this was towards the end of TSR.
When WotC took over they ended up giving the license out (like licenses for most 2E settings) to a community ... I'm not sure if it was Margaret Weis Publishing, or if they somehow got it at a later date, but Dragonlance books WERE released during 3E's time. Recently, they have taken the license back and will presumably be re-releasing DL at some point in the future using 4E rules.
Note, someone who still follows DL can likely give you more details than I. I just know the rough outline.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Ok, multiclassing is done entirely through feats. You take one feat to multiclass and gain a power from that class, and then take additional feats to take more powers from the class.
Huh. Similar to UA's Generic Classes.
Probably somewhat similiar, but not quite. We don't know, for example, if the power you gained from your multiclass feat would replace or be in addition to one of your own powers (I'd assume it would replace one, but I have no idea ... although the excerpt for the 30th is supposed to be multiclassing so we'll know soon!)
LOL. Many 4E advocates are celebrating the fact that 4E will be more "balanced" regarding the classes and the monsters. The above ruling and possible speculation is going to be a power gamer's wet dream :)
Rituals are obtained by buying ritual scrolls or ritual books. Ritual scrolls are consumed after one use, books teach the ritual to you permanantly. All rituals seem to have a casting time of at least 10 minutes, require a material component, and require the use of the ritual casting feat (which wizards and clerics get for free at 1st level) Most of the divination spells in 3.5 are now rituals as well as some of the old illusion spells.
Again, UA: Incantations.
I've never used them, but heard good things from those who did. I'm interested in what rituals we know so far ... the idea of a mystical ritual using Fighter seems cool to me.
Ceremony feats in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.
The DMG is all about how to run a game. There is no reason at all for a player to have one.
Well, here's a book to consider optional. Again.
I dunno. Everyone who talks about the DMG says it has the best advice on running a game they've ever read. EVER! It's rare I do more that skim the DMGs, since I'm familiar with most of the concepts, but enough playtesters have suggested thouroughly reading it by now that I think I may have to ...
That's a lot to promise. I, too, read every book on GM advice I can get my hands on and they're all pretty similar. I work in the auto industry and, with few exceptions, many reviews of new vehicles are "glowing". Sounds to me the "good will" effect from the 4E system is spilling over.
Anyway, thanks for the info, David.
Ceremony feats in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.
Definitely, those were some of my favorite parts of AU/E. Ever tried Earthdawn? It too had some pretty rocking ritual action. If 4E is even a little like either one, I'll be pretty jazzed. :)
|
|
Definitely, those were some of my favorite parts of AU/E. Ever tried Earthdawn? It too had some pretty rocking ritual action. If 4E is even a little like either one, I'll be pretty jazzed. :)
Ceremony feats in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.
Earthdawn? Have it but haven't had a chance to read it yet. First became aware of it after reading about 4E's PoL campaign theme. Intriguing. Love the almost Lovecraftian atmosphere.
I never thought I'd say it, but I'd rather have no new Greyhawk book than one done using 4E rules and assumptions. Wouldn't there have to be some Oerth-shattering event (again) to explain all the changes? If 4E Forgotten Realms is a barometer of how changes are made, then please, Wizards, just don't bother. :(
With the changes to alignment and the planes, Planescape would be horribly gutted too.
Following this release pattern, Paizo will have a much more supported campaign setting for Pathfinder than anything brought out by Wizards, which I find interesting.
Just as Eberron will mostly be left alone by the change to 4E, I suspect future campaign settings will veer closer to their original content than 4E FR. As others on this board have said, because of FR's position as the flagship campaign setting (and possibly because of some legal wrangling around it?) it HAD to be changed.
The rest will be left in peace.
joela,
Definitely read ED if you can get a chance. It's one of the best settings ever (in my mind at least) ... one of the few fantasy RPGs I've ever been really interested besides DnD.
Cheers! :)
"Rogue defender?" In my day, we called them "fighters" or less charitably, "meatshields" :D
The important thing is that you had an onion on your belt, 'cause that was the style at the time.
But really, the classic campaign settings are back? This might be what tips me over to 4E, if they get it right. I'm having trouble imagining Planescape without the Great Wheel. We kind of already have that, it was called Beyond Countless Doorways, by Monte Cook & Friends. I would have preferred Paizo to do the Greyhawk, that way we could be sure that we don't get Greyhawk Wars II, but c'est la vie.
What ever happened to Dragonlance?
http://www.dragonlance.com/products/
:)
Cheers,
Cam
How wonderful! Planescape will be back!!!
It will now be about fifty thousand years later, Sigil has been vaporized, no NPCs have survived, instead of dozens of different planes, there are now only two, namely PlaneScapeGeneralPlane and PlaneScapeShadowFeyPlane. And instead of factions, there are now a different set of organizations warring for belief (or DKP, as it's now called), namely Tanks, DPS, Healers, Main Assists, Pullers and the Clueless. Oh, and there is a new Cant, with words like OMFGLOL, ROTFLMAO, STFU n00b and 1337.
Planescape is dead, long live Planescape! =)
|
|
joela,Definitely read ED if you can get a chance. It's one of the best settings ever (in my mind at least) ... one of the few fantasy RPGs I've ever been really interested besides DnD.
Cheers! :)
Definite plans to. I even bought the Barsaive(sp?) supp as a potential insertable setting for my current Eberron game.
"Rogue defender?" In my day, we called them "fighters" or less charitably, "meatshields" :DThe important thing is that you had an onion on your belt, 'cause that was the style at the time.
And, we called sauerkraut "Liberty Cabbage." And we called Liberty Cabbage "Superslaw." And a suitcase was known as a "Sweedish Lunchbox..."
I'm scared at the thought of WotC re-doing Dark Sun.
How can you say that? Look at the love and respect they've shown FR.
For anyone unsure, that's sarcasm :)
Oh and by the way, Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are definately getting 4e campaigns down the line as well as Planescape and Spelljammer (which they just started working out). They assured us that we can look forward to most of the old campaign setting being remade, and mentioned the above by name.
With respect to David, this bit destroys all credibility for me. When did WotC have such a profound change of heart? Supporting multiple settings has been anathema for WotC for over a decade.
Even if it's true, IMO they've wiped away their flagship setting in favor of a default world with Forgotten Realms names attached to it. How should I expect other settings to be treated?
I'm probably over-reacting, but I won't believe any of this until I see it in print.
With respect to David, this bit destroys all credibility for me. When did WotC have such a profound change of heart? Supporting multiple settings has been anathema for WotC for over a decade.
Even if it's true, IMO they've wiped away their flagship setting in favor of a default world with Forgotten Realms names attached to it. How should I expect other settings to be treated?
I'm probably over-reacting, but I won't believe any of this until I see it in print.
I'm not sure if it was included in the post up top, but the planned revival of campaign settings is currently based off their strategy of only three books per setting (and this includes FR).
Also, they've already said Eberron is largely unchanged by the shift to 4E ... I'd assume there are SOME changes, but they've been pretty consistent with saying the changes will be few and far between. I'd think other settings would receive similar treatment (but maybe that just depends on who they get to do them.)
As for the veracity of these claims, I'm afraid all I can't offer much proof. I'm anxious to see it in print myself!
Cheers! :)
Yeah, I think that's interesting too.
Following this release pattern, Paizo will have a much more supported campaign setting for Pathfinder than anything brought out by Wizards, which I find interesting.
Last year when Scott Rouse posted the question to ENWorld what 8 fluff books would you like to see, some of the more popular responses (including mine) were comprehensive settings books, settings like Dark Sun and Ravenloft and other less popular ones. We asked for one major settings book a year and some support for the rest of the year. Wizards listened. I certainly can't fault them for that.
Now I kind of expected the Forgotten Realms to be supported every year at the same time, but you know, that's their decision.
I think most of the settings can easily work with 4E, especially the ones that themselves took a bat to the rules (Darksun anyone...)
I'm more skeptical.
Look at FR. I think the bat will be used on the setting before it gets used on the rules. WotC has put a lot into a new style of play that appears to trump other considerations.
Which I think is going to be the fundamental flaw of 4/e.
IMO, again.
I'll stop beating this dead horse. Sorry if I'm stirring the pot unnecessarily...
Look at FR.
The new edition was just an excuse for what they did to FR. They wanted to make it more popular among new gamers (or at least people less seeped in Realms lore)
I pretty much agree, Tatterdemallion. Other edition changes were heralded by in-game fluff, but nothing quite so heavy-handed as this. For instance, "Fate of Istus" was meant to transition Greyhawk players from 1e to 2e play more or less seamlessly (I don't know if other settings had analagous adventures), and "Die Vecna Die" and its setting-neutral counterpart "The Apocalypse Stone" were intended to explain the earth (Oerth?)-shattering events that culminated in 3e.
But in those cases, the setting pretty much stayed the same regardless of the rules, excepting that 2e's designers painted themselves into a corner when they wrote out monks and assassins forgetting that the Scarlet Brotherhood was run by both those classes. But no radically new cosmologies, nor alien races were introduced into any of the three editions as core. Greyhawk was advanced really no time at all (and has been advancing in realtime since the Living Greyhawk campaign started at the dawn of 3e), with all the main players still in their seats. In the Forgotten Realms, Elminster, Storm Silverhand, Manshoon, and (yes, even #$%^ing) Drizzt still rule the roost.
Now, with 4e, we're seeing the "Spellplague" sweep over Faerun, which seems to be WotC's way of remaking the Realms into a more 4e, "Points of Light"-friendly setting. As such, they've pretty much Waldorfed the Realms, from what I can hear. It's looking like they're killing off the goddess Mystra, and driving most mages mad (if they're not killed outright) and causing other assorted nastiness, up to and including radically changing the geography of the Realms. (I'll bet when they inevitably bring in warforged, they came from the regions placed on Toril from the lost Abeir.) In every other case, the changes to the system have been relatively minor (even the switchover from the classic D&D rule mechanic to the d20 system) and painless to the setting.
I pretty much agree, Tatterdemallion. Other edition changes were heralded by in-game fluff, but nothing quite so heavy-handed as this. For instance, "Fate of Istus" was meant to transition Greyhawk players from 1e to 2e play more or less seamlessly (I don't know if other settings had analagous adventures), and "Die Vecna Die" and its setting-neutral counterpart "The Apocalypse Stone" were intended to explain the earth (Oerth?)-shattering events that culminated in 3e.
But in those cases, the setting pretty much stayed the same regardless of the rules, excepting that 2e's designers painted themselves into a corner when they wrote out monks and assassins forgetting that the Scarlet Brotherhood was run by both those classes. But no radically new cosmologies, nor alien races were introduced into any of the three editions as core. Greyhawk was advanced really no time at all (and has been advancing in realtime since the Living Greyhawk campaign started at the dawn of 3e), with all the main players still in their seats. In the Forgotten Realms, Elminster, Storm Silverhand, Manshoon, and (yes, even #$%^ing) Drizzt still rule the roost.
Now, with 4e, we're seeing the "Spellplague" sweep over Faerun, which seems to be WotC's way of remaking the Realms into a more 4e, "Points of Light"-friendly setting. As such, they've pretty much Waldorfed the Realms, from what I can hear. It's looking like they're killing off the goddess Mystra, and driving most mages mad (if they're not killed outright) and causing other assorted nastiness, up to and including radically changing the geography of the Realms. (I'll bet when they inevitably bring in warforged, they came from the regions placed on Toril from the lost Abeir.) In every other case, the changes to the system have been relatively minor (even the switchover from the classic D&D rule mechanic to the d20 system) and painless to the setting.
I think you're missing two important details Pat. First, while you are correct that many settings transition between editions relatively painlessly, that isn't always the case. Next to the Spellplague inflicted on FR going from 3E to 4E you have the Time of Troubles inflicted upon ... FR, going from 1E to 2E.
FR has always been a sucker for these kinds of cataclysmic changes, heck, they have an acronym (RSEs!) Between its status as a flagship setting, being the first one out, ALWAYS getting picked on historically, and the potential for some legal claim of copyright (I never found out if that last one was true ...) I guess WotC felt they had to rip it up.
The second thing you're missing is the fact that WotC has already said Eberron isn't getting this treatment. And while I guess things could change, I'd suspect any other settings they release won't get that treatment either.
Maybe it really just comes to whether you're a half-full vs half-empty type of guy?
Cheers! :)
Edit: As a side note, the Goddesses of Magic in FR have some really bad luck. This last one is what? Number three or four? One died in the prehistory of the setting, and another in the Time of Troubles ... didn't the next one get into some mischief too?
They've damaged my optimism again. It's a funny thing -- members of these boards occasionally get me feeling better about 4/e, but WotC is hell-bent on turning me keep away.
So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide releasing in August, for example, is a separate and unique setting on one hand, while being totally core D&D on the other. That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away! (At least as far as your personal campaigns are concerned.) Why not use the best ideas, powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks from any product -- regardless of the campaign world your game is set in?
Campaigns can be unique, but they can't displace core content (like tieflings, I imagine). If they force tieflings into Greyhawk as a core race, I'm outta here on principle alone. I can play just fine with my 3.5 rules.
It's not the mechanics that bug me, it's the overall flavor of play -- for some reason they want to carefully define and control how people will play, and what elements they will use. I just don't get it.
I never thought of that... Abeir Toril... warforged would come from Abeir. Or perhaps Abeirron? They're obviously planning a massive merging of FR and Eberron!!!
|
|
Very intresting! It's good to know that the older settings will indeed be getting a 4e redo. The amount of options for each class looks very intresting.
That depends on what they do with the older settings. If they shoehorn in all the new stuff, and do resets, I'd rather they left some of the older settings in peace.
Not sure I want to see what they do/ruin in greyhawk, based on past experiences.
Very intresting! It's good to know that the older settings will indeed be getting a 4e redo. The amount of options for each class looks very intresting.
That depends on what they do with the older settings. If they shoehorn in all the new stuff, and do resets, I'd rather they left some of the older settings in peace.
Not sure I want to see what they do/ruin in greyhawk, based on past experiences.
As I've said in other threads, I seriously doubt that the older campaigns will suffer the same kind of realms shaking event that the FR has.
There's a simple reason that Forgotten Realms got so shook up for the new edition. Forgotten Realms has been the flagship setting for nearly two decades, and the amount of books and material available in book storers right now is staggering. They needed a shake up to make buying the new books logical, and they wanted it to conform to the setting information provided in the core books. They want the Realms to be easy to get into and start playing. Thats a good reason to change things. (It may anger the heck out of the old fans, but it's still a solid reason to shake the realms up.)
However, they have no reason to do that with the older settings.
Each setting coming after the Realms, like Ebberon, is designed to be different from the core setting. They don't want the basic Realms modle to be copied across the rest of the settings, they want to recapture the look and feel of the older worlds. That means they will by nessesity hae to deviate form the core setting.
That means teiflings will not be running all over the place in Greyhawk. They will exist, on the fringes and in low numbers, but they will not be suddenly changing old charaters into eladrin and teiflings just because.
I dunno... as good ol' Dr. Leonard McCoy once said:
And I'll bet they redesigned the whole sickbay too! Engineers! They love to change things!
think you're missing two important details Pat. First, while you are correct that many settings transition between editions relatively painlessly, that isn't always the case. Next to the Spellplague inflicted on FR going from 3E to 4E you have the Time of Troubles inflicted upon ... FR, going from 1E to 2E.
But as far as I recall, even that one wasn't as wide-ranging and cataclysmic as what I'm hearing of the Spellplague. They got rid of assassins as a class in 2e -- the assassin cults went in FR. In Greyhawk, you didn't hear much out of the Scarlet Brotherhood for many a year, as half the Brotherhood's leadership was assassins, and the other half was monks (another class that got the heave-ho in 2nd until the last year of 2nd's existence).
The gods were cast down and made mortal in FR, with Myrkul, and a slew of others dying. However, many of them basically Jean Grey'd their way back into divine life relatively quickly (Myrkul and Bhaal being two notable exceptions to this -- tho' Myrkul apparently does have a coccoon at the bottom of Jamaica Bay still... :D ).
Areas of wild magic and dead magic? This one, yeah, stayed, but even that didn't change the radically change the landscape.
and the potential for some legal claim of copyright (I never found out if that last one was true ...) I guess WotC felt they had to rip it up.
I can't see how FR would have any copyright tangles -- Ed Greenwood sold the setting lock, stock and barrel to TSR. He has an author's interest in it, and gets royalties, but no copyright interest, as far as I know.
The second thing you're missing is the fact that WotC has already said Eberron isn't getting this treatment.
All I have to say to that is "doveryai, no proveryai".
And while I guess things could change, I'd suspect any other settings they release won't get that treatment either.
No slight to the other settings like Dark Sun, Mystara and Birthright, but those settings are rather obscure to the layman gamer of today... I wouldn't really put it past Wizards to change those settings six ways from Sunday to fit the 4e mld, mostly because their target audience (the adolescents of today) would have no experience with those settings and wouldn't grok that anything's been changed. And Wizards of late has shown that it's willing to alienate some of its longstanding fanbase if it thinks that that'll be offset by an influx of new money.
As for Greyhawk? They're already cannibalizing the setting for the 4e core (3e was an ersatz Greyhawk -- here in 4e they're just ripping out names and locations and putting them in a new core setting) so I hold out no hope that the powers that be at WotC have much if any respect for the setting, at least not enough to stay their hand with monkey business similar to what happened to FR. All the respect for Greyhawk I can see actually went to Paizo with Eric Mona et alia.
(IIRC, Eric, Jason and James were explicitly ordered to put the "Super Dimension Fortress Castle Greyhawk" ending in the EttRoG supermodule to allow the use of Chez Zagyg in any campaign setting, for instance.)
Maybe it really just comes to whether you're a half-full vs half-empty type of guy?
It's a fair cop. :) I personally don't mind change, but I guess I tend to get a little pessimistic when I percieve it as change purely for change's sake, because that's often a path to the Fonz on waterskis. And we all know how that ended...
|
I can't see how FR would have any copyright tangles -- Ed Greenwood sold the setting lock, stock and barrel to TSR. He has an author's interest in it, and gets royalties, but no copyright interest, as far as I know.
There is a small clause in there that is something along the lines of "if they don't produce one major Realms book each year done by Ed Greenwood then the licence reverts to Ed." While he didn't get much for selling it to TSR (and it did transfer to WotC with this intact), he did at least protect against the possibility that they would just buy it and bury it. I think that might also include novels, not just game resources.
Now that it's the primary setting I'm sure that won't be an issue, sadly.