
![]() |

Actually the only thing in the entire rules that annoys me is the halfling one not being able to take smaller versions of regular weapons. First they make Halfling taller saying that them being so small makes no sence in a game were logic goes out the window when someone lobs a fire ball. Yet it somehow dosent make sence that a halfing smith would make weapons and armour that are sized to them? Come to think about it how tall are halflings now anyway?

thatdarnedbob |
Everbody *still* wants to post their review on how it's different from 3.5E like this is somehow news? :-) Move on already!
It's interesting that in many of the negative reviews so far a number of the things folks see as "negatives" I view as "<shrug>" or "great".
It's a streamlined version of DnD. They traded some simulation aspects for some streamlined rules and gameplay. Ok. That's what it is. If you get a group of folks together I bet you could still manage to have some fun with it, within the context it presents.
Play 3.5E! Play PFRPG! Play 4E! Drink some beer, eat some fritos, have fun with your friends.
I feel like I must comment that the first game of 4E I played with the core books incorporated a drinking game. By the time we fought the dragon at the end we were toasted. Therefore I can wholeheartedly recommend 4E.

![]() |

Everbody *still* wants to post their review on how it's different from 3.5E like this is somehow news? :-) Move on already!
It's interesting that in many of the negative reviews so far a number of the things folks see as "negatives" I view as "<shrug>" or "great".
It's a streamlined version of DnD. They traded some simulation aspects for some streamlined rules and gameplay. Ok. That's what it is. If you get a group of folks together I bet you could still manage to have some fun with it, within the context it presents.
Play 3.5E! Play PFRPG! Play 4E! Drink some beer, eat some fritos, have fun with your friends.
Well, people (not you specifically, but certainly some of 4E's more vigorous enthusiasts) have been telling people we shouldn't comment negatively until after we've read the books. Now we're being told we shouldn't comment after we've read the books as it's too similar to what we said before. I give up. It's not like the OP is waiting for six months after release and then posting his dislikes. The verdammt things only came out yesterday.
Although, the last paragraph is very true. Mind you,people will vent for a few weeks (if we're unlucky until the Pathfinder Beta comes out) and then we can all calm down and get on with playing.

David Marks |

...Although, the last paragraph is very true. Mind you,people will vent for a few weeks (if we're unlucky until the Pathfinder Beta comes out) and then we can all calm down and get on with playing.
I've been waiting for people to "calm down and get on with playing." for some time now unfortunately. I had thought Paizo's announcement would mostly have gotten people not interested in the new edition to wander off, but it seems not to be the case.
If things here aren't settled until Pathfinder Beta I'm not sure I'll be here to see the calm when it finally arrives ...

![]() |

It all depends on how you define campaign setting. It's not an unambiguous term.
o_O *puzzled*
What in the world is ambiguous about the term 'Campaign Setting?' And in what way would Greyhawk not count as one? :/
Mind you, I figure the slight comes from ignorance, not malice aforethought and of all the things to dislike about 4e, this barely blips on my radar. But still,...
How do you define a campaign setting?

Craig Clark |

It all depends on how you define campaign setting. It's not an unambiguous term. So crying that the phb goes out of the way to be insulting about Greyhawk is hard to take seriously (and kinda petty).
Please, to even consider this wasn't done as a marketing ploy is naive. If anything we can gather that a Dragonlance setting book is almost assured at this point.
I finally got a chance to play 4ed and to be honest it isn't a bad game. I also enjoy the occassional game of Talisman, Descent, and Runebound. And that is exactly what 4ed seemed to me, a hybridized version of those games. Whether you consider it a more complex board game or a streamlined RPG/Wargame it certainly isn't another step in the progression from 1st edition. It simply isn't THAT game anymore.
You can say it is simplified and easier play, or you can say it is watered down and no longer your cup of tea, I don't think those view points need to be so disparate.
I do like some of the systems from 4th ed. and plan on moving them into my 3rd ed game, but I don't think I would ever run a campaign length game with just 4th ed.

![]() |

It all depends on how you define campaign setting. It's not an unambiguous term. So crying that the phb goes out of the way to be insulting about Greyhawk is hard to take seriously (and kinda petty).
THe term isn't really that ambiguous. Compare the Greyhawk boxset to the original realms release or Mystara and you'd be hard pressed to find a difference. You're right about the complaint being kind of petty. But as a greyhawk fan, its frustrating to see the almost continual disdain for the setting that has come out of Wotc since the early 3.0 releases.
Does this really matter much? not really. But it is worth at least an exasperated comment or two.

![]() |

It all depends on how you define campaign setting. It's not an unambiguous term. So crying that the phb goes out of the way to be insulting about Greyhawk is hard to take seriously (and kinda petty).
I'll either have to create a litmus for campaign setting, or look at the exact statement from the book at Borders, or both.
I think it would be nice to mention that Greyhawk was this world that the guy who came up with the game set all his adventures in, and it had this fictitious history and backstory, and a big map with some locations on it. Let me know when it reaches the point of qualifying as a campaign setting, or where that nebulous point even exists.And then all these other guys got a Living Something-or-other together and continued to flesh it out some more.
Then, Dungeon magazine fleshed it out some more too.
And, I think Greyhawk predated both of those works quoted.

![]() |

I think it begs several questions. Why was Greyhawk not mentioned along with these campaign settings?
What does this mean for the future of Greyhawk? To somebody who really digs Greyhawk, I don't think that's a petty concern at all. I think it's a weighty issue.
Okay, so what even is a campaign setting?
Greyhawk isn't one but FR and Dragonlance ARE campaign settings?
Let's define terms here. Let's define campaign setting.

![]() |

Let's define terms here. Let's define campaign setting.
Campaign Setting: A world or setting in which roleplayers place their campaigns.
What I want to know is what is Sebastian's definition of a campaign setting.
Greyhawk had its own maps, its own books, its own modules and players ran campaigns in it. But it might not qualify (and in fairness I saw similar comments in a similar thread on ENWorld - so its not just him) as a campaign setting in the minds of some.
Personally I think it's people trying to defend 4e and WotC against any and every complaint without even bothering to stop and ask whether an individual complaint has a legitimate point but thats just my opinion and YMMV.

![]() |

I know wiki can be spurious at times, but:
"The very first role-playing settings from the late 1960s and early 1970s (World of Greyhawk, and Blackmoor) were based in the fantasy genre, primarily based on the popularity of fantasy works by authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. Over the decades since, fantasy role-playing has evolved and expanded tremendously, even developing its own sub-genres. The genre can be subdivided..."
The statement didn't seem to be tagged for questionable authenticity.

Blackdragon |

Blackdragon wrote:I disagree. I think that a high level character should always have a chance of failure. Even the best should still have to fear a fumble. It keeps players humble.There is humble and then there is humble.
Falling off a log 5% of the time no matter how good you are at balancing yourself is just a bit too much for me.
Instead you should now have an issue with walking across a rope the thickness of a human hair or something reasonably appropriate.Pumping up every difficult at a constant rate turns the whole thing into playing a sequence of more and more modern pinball machines. The values on the bumpers get extra zeroes, but so does the value needed to get an extra play. After a point, being higher level just means shouting out bigger numbers.
I view a fumble as unforseen environmental factors. Falling off of a log might equate to a slim covered crumbling rotted log. It's the chance of failure that makes success so sweet. A bad roll can make a perfect plan crumble but at the opposite end, an natural twenty can make an imopssibe action happen. It ballances out. It's not like athletes at the top of their game don't screw up from time to time. WIth you logic, Shaq should be able to hit a freethrow as a free action, and every NFL kicker should hit every field goal. That just doesn't happen.

![]() |

It all depends on how you define campaign setting. It's not an unambiguous term. So crying that the phb goes out of the way to be insulting about Greyhawk is hard to take seriously (and kinda petty).
By all means, give us your definition, and explain how it encompasses Dragonlance in the 80s (nothing but modules) and excludes Greyhawk (campaign set suitable for sandbox play). It's not really petty to complain when WotC rewrites history to exclude the original campaign setting. It would be like pretending D&D started with the Player's Handbook.

![]() |

Personally I think it's people trying to defend 4e and WotC against any and every complaint without even bothering to stop and ask whether an individual complaint has a legitimate point but thats just my opinion and YMMV.
Ha! That's hilarious. To the extent it's a legitimate complaint, underling hit it on the head as to the magnitude (extremely minor and based largely on feelings of long neglect for Greyhawk.) It's people that go into hysterics over this one stupid sentence that are looking to be offended without a legitimate complaint.
Anyway, you've got a definition above, I don't feel I need to elaborate on it or offer a better one.
Which planet in our solar system was discovered first?
Who first discovered America?
If you say anything other than Earth or the first dude over the Siberian landbridge, I will be offended at your slight.

![]() |

To the extent it's a legitimate complaint, underling hit it on the head as to the magnitude (extremely minor and based largely on feelings of long neglect for Greyhawk.)
Well yeah. Not really bothered by the slight against Greyhawk myself (I'm a Kalamar and Golarion man). :D
I'm just wondering in what way you think campaign setting is an ambiguous term and in what way Greyhawk doesn't qualify.
It was your statement. I just thought you should clarify.

![]() |

It's people that go into hysterics over this one stupid sentence that are looking to be offended without a legitimate complaint.
Pass me a tinfoil hat too, please
I would like to see us try to keep this thread free of attacks against the character of people upholding a given position. That has already been requested of the posters many times.
Pointing out that Greyhawk got left out of the history of the game isn't hysterical, and it isn't a tinhoil hat conspiracy theory. It is a legitimate observation. Belittling the opinions of other posters and painting them with aspersions (hysterica, crazy) are some of the behaviors that leads to board wars.

![]() |

Wicht wrote:
Personally I think it's people trying to defend 4e and WotC against any and every complaint without even bothering to stop and ask whether an individual complaint has a legitimate point but thats just my opinion and YMMV.Ha! That's hilarious. To the extent it's a legitimate complaint, underling hit it on the head as to the magnitude (extremely minor and based largely on feelings of long neglect for Greyhawk.) It's people that go into hysterics over this one stupid sentence that are looking to be offended without a legitimate complaint.
Anyway, you've got a definition above, I don't feel I need to elaborate on it or offer a better one.
Which planet in our solar system was discovered first?
Who first discovered America?
If you say anything other than Earth or the first dude over the Siberian landbridge, I will be offended at your slight.
So in other words, you did not intend to be part of the conversation, but just to be spurious. Got it, moving on now ...

![]() |

Sebastian wrote:They were the first two campaign settings.They were not the first two campaign settings.
The Greyhawk folio was first published in 1980 with the boxed set following in 1983.
Mystara (The Known World) received the first significant mention in 1981 in the Expert Rulebook, although the first gazzetter did not come out until 1987.The first Dragonlance adventures were released in 1984, with the hardcover first published in 1987.
The first Forgotten Realms boxed set was published in 1987, with its first adventure appearing in 1985.
I have written for Dave Arneson and have talked to him at length about the origin of the game. Blackmoor was technically the first setting to house the game. However, I think Greyhawk and Blackmoor were developed simultaneously and really need to be understood as parallel efforts to develop the original system.
In thi we are talking about the support materials developed with the old white box and consequent to Chainmail.

![]() |

It's an extremely legitemate complaint. I think I'll hit the arrowhead again now, before my irrational hysterics get the better of me.
If it makes a difference, I would say that Greyhawk is more than a campaign setting - it is D&D. The two were inseperable prior to the publication of other campaign settings. Greyhawk is like earth, it's not just a planet, it's our home planet and it is only with the existence of other planets that you can define it as such. The way the offending section is written, it describes briefly the history of D&D. First, D&D was created (which includes Greyhawk, even if not expressly stated), then independent campaign settings.
Could they have credited Greyhawk in their recounting of the creation of D&D? Sure. Could they have been more specific and said FR and DL were the first independent campaign settings? Sure, that would have been more accurate. However, if I ask you what was the first planet discovered, is it wrong to say something other than Earth in the context of that question?Sorry Heathy, I can appreciate the emotional reaction, but I think it's more prospecting for reasons to be offended than anything else.

![]() |

Ha! That's hilarious. To the extent it's a legitimate complaint, underling hit it on the head as to the magnitude (extremely minor and based largely on feelings of long neglect for Greyhawk.) It's people that go into hysterics over this one stupid sentence that are looking to be offended without a legitimate complaint.Anyway, you've got a definition above, I don't feel I need to elaborate on it or offer a better one.
Which planet in our solar system was discovered first?
Who first discovered America?
If you say anything other than Earth or the first dude over the Siberian landbridge, I will be offended at your slight.
Normally I find your your inssights useful and telling but I think this is markedly unfair.
This is clearly a tactical decision about IP and brand and a political stance on the part of WOTC. Some people find it alienating.
4.0 is not diminished as a system by this observation. It says more about how the company is positioning itself than the structure of the rules.
It really is ok to allow folks their responses.

![]() |

This is clearly a tactical decision about IP and brand and a political stance on the part of WOTC. Some people find it alienating.
4.0 is not diminished as a system by this observation. It says more about how the company is positioning itself than the structure of the rules.
Okay, that's a fair enough point, if the anger is because GH is being swept under the rug and this is an example of such sweeping, I can see how the absence of any acknowledgement of GH and the not-entirely-precise phrasing of which settings were the first campaign settings could piss someone off. I lumped this crticism in with the general 4e-is-bad-because-it's-different style comments, and I see now how it could be its own thing.
Thanks tadkil and apologies Heathy. Go crinos and get your rage on.

![]() |

Speaking of Drinking Games and 4.0, I was talking to a friend the other day, and he suggested this for a drinking game of 4th Edition:
Every time you use a healing surge, take a drink.
I said, hells yah, I'd play a Maxed-Con Dwarven Paladin in that type of game anyday!

Luz RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |

I have written for Dave Arneson and have talked to him at length about the origin of the game. Blackmoor was technically the first setting to house the game. However, I think Greyhawk and Blackmoor were developed simultaneously and really need to be understood as parallel efforts to develop the original system.
In thi we are talking about the support materials developed with the old white box and consequent to Chainmail.
Thanks for clearing that one up, tadkill.I was gonna mention Blackmoor (not to stir the pot!) because I wanted to know if it was indeed a seperate campaign world from GH in the beginning (before it was amalgamated into GH in the 80s). Then it showed up in the expert rules and things got even more confusing.
I think an earlier poster put it right about this just being a marketing thing. FR and DL are going to be the campaign worlds WotC will push, so why mention GH? As a diehard GH fan I'm disappointed but not offended.

![]() |

I did not include Blackmoor because it was not published as a campaign setting by TSR. Otherwise it would indeed be the first published campaign.
The reason I mentioned it as an issue is because if the current designers are coming up with the sort of logic that allows them to either redact the history of the game to the point of ignoring two settings, or simply forgetting to check the publication dates, then it suggests a reasonable concern with what other elements of the history of the game, both in simple publication and in functional use they are redacting for their convenience in justifying design designs, publicity, or product quality, or are simply unaware of.
So either someone just lost all of their Grognard Cred, or someone is redacting for a reason. Neither is a good thing for the long term stability of the game or company.
And to be clear, if Paizo were suddenly to proclaim that Shackled City was always part of Golarion, and Age of Worms and Savage Tide designed for Golarion from the start, I would have the same serious issues with the direction they were going.

Infamous Jum |

In terms of the statement in question and others like it, its largely open to interpretation and depends almost entirely on your own point of view. It could be poorly worded, or it could be deliberate revisionist history.
As an example, look at the latest DDM Preview, specifically the Chain Golem, where we're told "One of the minis of the Dreamblade line, the Iron Thug, provided inspiration for this monster". Now, are they trying to say that Chain Golems are all new for 4th, something that they just now made up? Well, sure looks that way, but why in the hell would they need you to believe that? Are they trying to tell me that the Iron Thug figure wasn't just a castoff Chain Golem figure to begin with (seriously, look through the Dreamblade figs and tell me with a straight face that there aren't any figs that began life as art requests for DDM). Again, what illusion are they trying to project here, and to what end?
Personally I don't see anything malicious about either statement. I also don't think that its petty or a stretch for people to get upset over it, as contradictory as that may seem. People like to see their game company act like Regular Joe Excited About Games and not Corporate Owned Business Folks, regardless of the validity of either assessments. And thats assuming that there really is, or needs to be, a hard separation between the two, or that one end is assuredly better or worse than the other. Its just that, well, no one wants to see the hydraulics poking through the fur of the Chuck E. Cheese robot band. They just want to see furry animals playing the banjo. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
My last thought: I really appreciated the dedication to Gary Gygax. I may be mistaken, but I believe the books went to print well before Gary's passing. If thats correct, then they would have had to go to some effort to have it included in the product before printing and still have it ready in time for its release date. Either way, I thought it was a very thoughtful and respectful inclusion, and I think WotC should get some props for that.

Antioch |

I can't find any enchantment spells, polymorphs, or summoning spells. Did I miss them, or are they really not there? I mean, those spells have been around since 1st ed. Why would I want to play D&D without those? I know those kinds of spells can add complexity, and maybe aren't "convenient" for the DM (or the players if used by an NPC), but that's all part of the fun.
I dig the rituals, and how the cleric doesn't have to spend all his time healing others.
I miss the gnome. I know he's in the MM, but he ought to be in the PHB too. I loved running gnome illusionists.
You missed them. The cleric has about six or so summoning spells, there is at least three charm effect in the wizard's section, and the warlock has three polymorph effects.

KnightErrantJR |

As an example, look at the latest DDM Preview, specifically the Chain Golem, where we're told "One of the minis of the Dreamblade line, the Iron Thug, provided inspiration for this monster". Now, are they trying to say that Chain Golems are all new for 4th, something that they just now made up? Well, sure looks that way, but why in the hell would they need you to believe that? Are they trying to tell me that the Iron Thug figure wasn't just a castoff Chain Golem figure to begin with (seriously, look through the Dreamblade figs and tell me with a straight face that there aren't any figs that began life as art requests for DDM). Again, what illusion are they trying to project here, and to what end?
When I read that preview, I immediately flipped through my Monster Manual II, thinking that I had gone insane . . . but there it was, in 3rd (not even 3.5) edition.
There was a similar statement made about the Cyclops never having stats in 3.5 as well, which was strange since it was in my Shining South FR book.
I don't think that there is anything malicious going on, but honestly, it does make you wonder why they make some of these statements without even glancing through their own books.

![]() |

Okay, that's a fair enough point, if the anger is because GH is being swept under the rug and this is an example of such sweeping, I can see how the absence of any acknowledgement of GH and the not-entirely-precise phrasing of which settings were the first campaign settings could piss someone off. I lumped this crticism in with the general 4e-is-bad-because-it's-different style comments, and I see now how it could be its own thing.Thanks tadkil and apologies Heathy. Go crinos and get your rage on.
No Problem. There's been so much nastiness on all sides of this debate it is really easy to go to "guns on" with every issue.

![]() |

I did not include Blackmoor because it was not published as a campaign setting by TSR. Otherwise it would indeed be the first published campaign.
The reason I mentioned it as an issue is because if the current designers are coming up with the sort of logic that allows them to either redact the history of the game to the point of ignoring two settings, or simply forgetting to check the publication dates, then it suggests a reasonable concern with what other elements of the history of the game, both in simple publication and in functional use they are redacting for their convenience in justifying design designs, publicity, or product quality, or are simply unaware of.
So either someone just lost all of their Grognard Cred, or someone is redacting for a reason. Neither is a good thing for the long term stability of the game or company.
And to be clear, if Paizo were suddenly to proclaim that Shackled City was always part of Golarion, and Age of Worms and Savage Tide designed for Golarion from the start, I would have the same serious issues with the direction they were going.
As the resident expert on Greyhawk lore, I would expect you to lead with that. If you didn't know, Sam can quote chapter adn verse on Greyhawk history and was a great resource for all of us writing in the Sheldomar back when LG was king.
But I understand your core point and appreciate it.
The identity of the game and its history seem to be quite malleable in the hands of the current design team. What that means, however, is open to speculation.

![]() |

Infamous Jum wrote:
As an example, look at the latest DDM Preview, specifically the Chain Golem, where we're told "One of the minis of the Dreamblade line, the Iron Thug, provided inspiration for this monster". Now, are they trying to say that Chain Golems are all new for 4th, something that they just now made up? Well, sure looks that way, but why in the hell would they need you to believe that? Are they trying to tell me that the Iron Thug figure wasn't just a castoff Chain Golem figure to begin with (seriously, look through the Dreamblade figs and tell me with a straight face that there aren't any figs that began life as art requests for DDM). Again, what illusion are they trying to project here, and to what end?When I read that preview, I immediately flipped through my Monster Manual II, thinking that I had gone insane . . . but there it was, in 3rd (not even 3.5) edition.
There was a similar statement made about the Cyclops never having stats in 3.5 as well, which was strange since it was in my Shining South FR book.
I don't think that there is anything malicious going on, but honestly, it does make you wonder why they make some of these statements without even glancing through their own books.
The Greater Cyclops was also statted up in Deities and Demigods (3E)

![]() |

Pete Apple wrote:Play 3.5E! Play PFRPG! Play 4E! Drink some beer, eat some fritos, have fun with your friends.No matter what you play, play it. :)
*passes out the Mountain Dew and Cheetohs*
We have been stopping midway lately and grilling. Scorched quadruped and gaming go together suprisingly well.

![]() |

James Hunnicutt wrote:I can't find any enchantment spells, polymorphs, or summoning spells. Did I miss them, or are they really not there?You missed them. The cleric has about six or so summoning spells, there is at least three charm effect in the wizard's section, and the warlock has three polymorph effects.
Thank you. They're so few and far between, they're easy to miss.
Re "Charm" spells available to a Wizard, I think there is exactly three:
Nothing until 13th level, when becomes available an encounter spell called "mesmeric hold" which does some damage and is like a hold person/hold monster for a single round.
Then 14 levels after that, at 27th level, an encounter spell is "confusion," which does some damage and lets you control one opponent and have him attack one of his allies, for one round.
At 29th level, an encounter spell is "legion's hold," which holds all your enemies in a 20 square burst until they make a save. That is pretty sweet, but it certainly should be since it's for 29th level characters.
(I note the 1st level "sleep" spell was an enchantment in 1-3 editions, but is not a "Charm" spell in 4e. But if we want to be charitable, there are 4 enchantment type spells for a Wiz.)
That's pretty sparse, and these "Charm" spells are not relevant to roleplaying since they last such a short amount of time: they're each a tactical combat spell. So I guess there is no room for an enchantress/enthraller type of wizard.
And by "polymorph," I was speaking in terms of what that word has meant heretofore. Making your skin tough like steel and gaining a +2 AC is, by my training, a transmutation. I see now that the warlock has some powers that have the word "polymorph" in them but are not anything like the spell "polymorph" of editions 1-3.
Correct me if I'm wrong: is there any spell/power anything like the 1-3 version of polymorph, where you can turn into a variety of other creatures? Or is "shadow form" it?
And to be clear, Wiz's don't get to "polymorph" or "transmutate" at all, right?

![]() |

My last thought: I really appreciated the dedication to Gary Gygax. I may be mistaken, but I believe the books went to print well before Gary's passing. If thats correct, then they would have had to go to some effort to have it included in the product before printing and still have it ready in time for its release date. Either way, I thought it was a very thoughtful and respectful inclusion, and...
They had not gone to press, but it was still a thoughtful note that took effort.

![]() |

If it makes a difference, I would say that Greyhawk is more than a campaign setting - it is D&D. The two were inseperable prior to the publication of other campaign settings. Greyhawk is like earth, it's not just a planet, it's our home planet and it is only with the existence of other planets that you can define it as such. The way the offending section is written, it describes briefly the history of D&D. First, D&D was created (which includes Greyhawk, even if not expressly stated), then independent campaign settings.
Could they have credited Greyhawk in their recounting of the creation of D&D? Sure. Could they have been more specific and said FR and DL were the first independent campaign settings? Sure, that would have been more accurate. However, if I ask you what was the first planet discovered, is it wrong to say something other than Earth in the context of that question?
I had considered that point of view, but take a look at the Pathfinder RPG: Golarion is obviously the first campaign setting for Pathfinder. I see the situations as similar.

![]() |

I finally took a look at the 4e books.
I have yet to play it (we're going to try it out tomorrow), and honestly am excited to try things out, but the value of the PHB book...I don't know. It looked like 1)there was a lot of white space, and 2)seems that they used a rather large font for the printing. The format they used (the power blocks, spells, etc) seem too large and wasteful.
The MM was a little better, but I really think that the writers could have really packed a lot more into the books..seriously. Anyone know what the word count in the book is?
When I look at a recent book I got (DH Purge the Unclean) it is no comparison. Margins are minimal, the type is small, and the text is packed with information, and as always the WH40K art is incredible and evocative.
I hope the game is good, because I would feel ripped off if I purchased the book. Anyone know why it is so...blank?

David Marks |

...That's pretty sparse, and these "Charm" spells are not relevant to roleplaying since they last such a short amount of time: they're each a tactical combat spell. So I guess there is no room for an enchantress/enthraller type of wizard.
And by "polymorph," I was speaking in terms of what that word has meant heretofore. Making your skin tough like steel and gaining a +2 AC is, by my training, a transmutation. I see now that the warlock has some powers that have the word "polymorph" in them but are not anything like the spell "polymorph" of editions 1-3.
Correct me if I'm wrong: is there any spell/power anything like the 1-3 version of polymorph, where you can turn into a variety of other creatures? Or is "shadow form" it?
And to be...
Designers have said some schools of effects have been moved from the Wizard class to future releases. Among these are Enchantment (which will now be more of the domain of Psions) as well as Conjuration, Necromancy, and Illusions. In the Dragon table of contents for this month, I *think* there was an article mentioned for Illusion flavored Wizards, but I'd have to go check to be sure.
As for Polymorphs, I'd expect them to continue in the vein they were going when 3.5 ended; that is, each form you can shift to being its own individual spell. I know they've said Druids will likely return with a focus on Wildshaping, so perhaps that is where a lot of the Polymorph goodness will end up in 4E.
Cheers! :)
Edit:
Class Acts: Wizard
By Rodney Thompson
If you're in the market for more illusionist-style wizard powers, look no further.

Craig Clark |

The reason I mentioned it as an issue is because if the current designers are coming up with the sort of logic that allows them to either redact the history of the game to the point of ignoring two settings, or simply forgetting to check the publication dates, then it suggests a reasonable concern with what other elements of the history of the game...
Their target audience is first time players. Why on earth would they put "Hollywood" type product placement adds for Greyhawk and Blackmoor or Mystara in their brand new book? They don't even sell those 'brands' any more!
There is a reason it was Manzorian and 'Free City' in Age of Worms, marketing guys don't like it when you prop up dead product lines.
Although I am not a subscriber for the magazine Games for Windows, I am guessing there aren't a lot of Windows XP tips in that periodical anymore...I am thinking they pimp a lot of Vista now, just a guess though.

Bleach |
Bleach wrote:re: Racial penalties
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Optimizers will ALWAYS pick the race that has a beanie to the benefit, be it 3E or 4E. By eliminating the penalty to a race, you increase the number of options that non-optimizers will take.
I always find the ones that take say half-orc sorceror package for example, take it for the explicit reason to prove that the combination is a valid choice.
Again, I'm unclear as to why having penalties is a good thing.
In 3E, a half-orc can never have that 18 Int to start, no matter what.
In 4E, a dwarf (or other races) can never have that 20 Int to start, no matter what.If you want to focus the entire value of optimization on a difference of 2 in an ability, an ability modifier of +1, then there is no functional difference in just eliminating penalties. As long as the bonuses exist, even a non-optimizer is going to face being behind the power curve.
That means citing greater opportunity for race-class combinations is not a particularly valid argument. The same disparity exists, just one point higher. All WotC has done has made their amps go to 11.
As to why having penalties is a good thing, why have any modifiers? In what way do they distinguish between the races, other than optimizing them for particular classes, and thus reducing the perceived or projected value of another race taking that class?
Overall, its a fix for a non-existent problem.
Er no, this is blatantly wrong from a game design perspective.
A +1 bonus _IS_ a benefit and a draw for optimizers but for non-optimizers, this doesn't matter as much. The other racial benefits that the other races have can be attractive enough for players to choose the non-optimal choice.
However, a -2 to the stat doesn't mean that the players are looking at a -1 to their character's effectiveness. It's a -2 to the choice they have which by and large is too much given how much stats play a part especially in the game.
Even for a non-optimizer, a penalty of -2 can be quickly compared to the power of feats and such. Furthermore, in game, there _ISN'T_ a noticeable difference between say a human wizard and a grey elf whereas the effect of comparison between a half-orc and a grey elf _IS_ noticeable even to the novice player.
Stat penaties SHRINK the available choices at character creation. Now, if this is a good or bad thing, is another matter.

Krauser_Levyl |

The thing is, it does not do that.
You see when no one has a penalty, optimization will now be determined by bonuses.
If a race does not have a default bonus to one of the key ability scores of a class, it will still wind up being suboptimal to that class. Once can see that in all the class write ups having a list of suggested classes for that race.
As with too many things of 4E, a "problem" has not been solved, merely shifted somewhere else with fancy accounting.
It's very simple to see why "having a penalty" is not the same as "not having a bonus". The reason is that, on 3.5E, we have three degrees of effectiveness.
Suppose that we have a XXX class which depends on ability score YYY. Then, in the mindset of a player:
- A race with +2 on YYY is good at class XXX
- A race with no bonuses or penalties on YYY is average at class XXX
- A race with -2 on YYY is bad at class XXX
In the other hand, on 4E will have only 2 degrees:
- A race with +2 on YYY is good at class XXX
- A race with no bonuses or penalties on YYY is average at class XXX
The "psychological" impact of this was brilliantly stated by Bleach. An optimizer will always pick up the first race, period. But even a non-optimizer, while certainly wouldn't bother on picking an "average" race, would think twice on picking a "bad" race.
The solution for that is to have only two degrees of effectiveness: "good" and "average".
IMO - if racial penalties are eliminated and only racial bonuses are given, you really diminish a lot of character and flavor of that particular race.
Theorically, yes. But what seems to occur is that these penalties don't always get to improve the "flavor" when the actual mechanics take place.
Take the orcs as a good example. 3.5E orcs have a -2 penalty on Charisma. Great, orcs are rude, agressive, and will not make great diplomats.
However, this also means that orcs are bad at intimidating people. I don't think that an average orc has less potential of being "scary" than an average human.
What about the steretypical orc war leader? The one that incites his fellow orcs to rage only with his maddening war cries? Where you can see the "-2 penalty" on charisma on him? Of course, you can say: "Well, an orc can have up to 16 Charisma. He is that orc with 16 Charisma". However, the -2 penalty implies that orcs having such kind of leader is unlikely, or that thse leaders aren't as effective as human or elf's best leaders. This may be the case on 3.5E, but I don't think saying this improves the "flavor" of the race at all.
The same can be told about dwarves. Yeah, dwarves are gruff and reserved. But maybe they are gruff and reserved because, well, they are gruff and reserved - not because there is something inherently lacking on them. When a dwarf warlords commands his comrades to battle, he will let his "gruffness" at home and become an extraordinary leader. Similarly, when a dwarf is sent to seel iron and mithril to a nearby human community, he can become a master negotiator to better serve the interests of his clan.
The things is, while racial penalties can be used as a tool to force a player to roleplay a particular behavior, I don't think it's a good tool. Each ability score has a broad meaning, thus has consequences far larger than making a race feel "gruff and reserved".

![]() |

In the other hand, on 4E will have only 2 degrees:- A race with +2 on YYY is good at class XXX
- A race with no bonuses or penalties on YYY is average at class XXX
.
Actually, if there are only two choices, then the average falls in between the two choices. Thus the race with the bonus is good at class XXX and the race without the bonus defaults to bad at class XXX. Relatively speaking of course.