4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

Concur.

I hate to say this, because it reminds entirely too much of "They Changed It Now It Sucks" arguments that I have ruthlessly mocked in earlier Edition Wars, but the problem is that they have engineered D&D to function much, much more like an MMO than either prior editions of the game or other modern RPGs.

I like the way they've handled races, and I do like the way they've given every class meaningful "resource" powers and useful at-will powers... but the inability to effectively multiclass and the way that fairly universal powers and combat maneuvers have been relegated to class-exclusive powers means that characters will have very little of the potential versatility of 3.X characters.

I wouldn't say it's a complete bust, though. It would be relatively trivial to take the 4e powers and many of the system refinements (which really are nice)-- like the use of healing surges and the level-based improvements-- and adapt them into a 3.X/SWSE style game. Book of Nine Swords and the skill trick system from Complete Scoundrel already give us a bit of a template, and the level charts from 4e could be repurposed.

If I weren't currently obsessed with HARP and using it for just about every game, I'd probably be working on doing that right now.

Hm. The programmer in me says if they followed an MMO that throughly it might be programmable. Alternatively if we got every person on site to tackle a single piece (one feat - 5 levels of a pr. class) we might be able to pull it off that way. After all - that encyclopedia of ours got 1000 posts in under a week... I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy to do some comparative statistics to see which way may be the best and under what guidelines. The perfectionist Guvner in me would love to lay down Planescape 4th before the ink even dries.

I suspect the love or hate of the system will be a matter of play style and ease of transition. I've seen it even with less controversial systems such as Gurps. (I love it, Shemmy thinks it's horrible but I'll point out he slept through the game and didn't make it past a poorly planned character creation, and I know another set of players who honestly said "Only four stats? That can't be nearly complicated enough for what we need." )

Regardless of the overall response to it, I've always found it easy to separate a setting from its system, and there will be a large need to fill the Planescape flavor and niche in the new edition. I don't want to leave anyone in the dark regardless of their system choice.

There was rumor that there had been arm twisting to get a mention of Sigil in there. Did it make it?

Wow. That's.... wow.

That's about as grudging as you can get.

So far the only thing I've seen that I dont like is the hit point scale. It looks as if combat would take ages. I already hate how long combat takes as it is. And yes, that feature is reminiscent of an MMORPG, which is unpleasing to me, and sort of fails to grasp why such systems exist in MMORPGs (namely, scalability and balancing of PvP combat, which is a non issue in a game that is strictly PvM).

I also find it slightly ironic that people are complaining about the static nature of classes. D&D is a class based system. There are a plethora of far superior classless systems out there, some of them generic and adaptable to fantasy settings, or a fantasy setting in its own right. Fluidity has never been part of D&D's appeal. It's hard to begrudge D&D one of the very mechanics that has made it so iconic. I actually see some appeal in more restrictive class dynamics. It prevents one player from hogging all the GM attention (like a wizard/thief can), makes it so no character is an island (fight/cleric comes to mind) and forces player interdependence, which are some of the greatest virtues of class based systems. It makes the game social by design, which for those of us who have played since the 80's know, is really D&Ds greatest appeal. A bunch of nerds and misfits getting together to play around in their imaginations as an vehicle for hanging out and joking around. People get so caught up in mechnical nuances that they often forget what made roleplaying fun in the first place. I can't speak for everyone, but I can definitely respect that concept.

The Harpy doesn't really look pretty. She actually looks fairly masculine compared to the last version. Though it's nice to see they made her kid safe by giving her a dress and a metal bra. :roll:

It could be similar to Fallout 3 from Bethesda and they're just choosing to ignore certain things to make it less controversial, and more appealing to those who are easily offended.

Then again Fallout 1 and 2 were made by totally different people over a decade ago so it's not that similar.

The European versions of Fallout 1 and 2 both had the children removed. They still stole from you, they still talked, they still had one in a quest. But you just were unable to interact with them. So needless to say that quest was unsolvable.

Bethesda however are probably just going to make them invincible in all versions or not allow you to have weapons in any of the areas where they appear.

Then again they might consider that allowing children to be killed in the game would take people's minds off of what a complete travesty of the Fallout series the game is, in which case it would be a matter of whether that was worth the controversy it would cause.

I have a question about 4E though. Non-Combat skills. Are any of them any good? I remember reading somewhere that they actually improved the social skills compared to 3.5 and whatnot. What exactly did they do?

It is now standard to roll multiple skill checks, of multiple types, and by multiple characters as part of a non-combat encounter. That's it in a nutshell, really; but it seems ok to me. I mean, any more and it's not really a roleplaying game anymore.

At least some, probably most, experianced/good DMs already did this, but on the other hand, many less experianced/decent (waves) DMs never thought to.

Basically, skill challenges are just an option for a game-mechanical framework to resolve some encounters. Just like you don’t want the outcome of a battle resolved with a single roll, you may want some skill-based challenges to be overcome through more than a single skill check.

They can be structured such that successful use of a certain skill makes another feasible to use. For instance, an example skill challenge in the DMG is using Speak with Dead to learn sensitive information from a spirit that is reluctant to give it up.
A successful use of Insight against a moderate DC can be used to connect with the spirit on an emotional level, making it soften up enough to reveal that is was never given proper burial rites. You have then opened up the use of Religion with an easy DC to perform these rites according to the faith the subject had in life, and a successful use works toward your progress of gaining the critical information you need.

Another option is to have one skill set up better or worse conditions for another skill check. For instance, during a chase through a crowded city you can use Perception to more actively look for a shortcut, more unhindered path, or the like. If successful, rather than give direct progress towards your goal (escape), you receive a bonus on a following Athletics check to gain distance to your pursuers.

Skill results can also have other consequences than working you towards a goal on a success or against it on a failure. For instance, you might try an Acrobatics check during a chase like mentioned above to jump through a small opening or dive under a cart, but if you fail you may get seriously hurt in addition to receive a failure (shortening distance to your pursuers).

If you want to, you can include skill challenges in combat (working out a grand puzzle mechanism for a vault door while some PCs battle the alerted guards) or during a hazard (activating the teleportation circle in an ancient temple, while it collapses around you). The player is encouraged to be creative and try to employ any skill he/she thinks would be applicable, but of course it’s up to the DM whether it will work and to govern if the DC is easy, moderate, or hard.

Of course, experienced DMs have been doing many of these things before, but it’s set up in way that makes it fairly easy to handle for everybody (in my opinion). You can do more with skill challenges than what I listed above, but I think the post is long enough as is.

It's just examples; you can make skill challenges focusing heavily on social skills, too.

There’s one in the excerpt on skill challenges here.

Yep, there are definitely weak fields as well as stronger ones.

To take an example, I don't like how monsters have been simplified that much, but I do like how many fancy stunts martial characters now can pull off.

Rangers can pin foes to a wall with an arrow, rogues can weave around an attack to make it hit another another subject, a flail-wielding fighter can wrap the chain around a target and restrain it... Those are some of the parts that really appeal to me.

I think we called this "DMing" in previous editions...
On a slightly more serious note, its nice to see it in the actual rules.

Oh, apparently there is no "straight" evil alignment now. Evil is described the same way lawful evil was in previous editions. Okay, that's weird. If evil is the same as lawful evil, and they already have an alignment called lawful good, why don't they call it lawful evil? That's needlessly confusing. Having the four alignments be lawful good, chaotic good, lawful evil, and chaotic evil would at least make more intuitive sense.

Yes, but then they wouldn't be able to equate chaos with evil as has quite clearly been done. Also, if you play an evil character you disrupt the party and make everyone angry at you.

There do seem to be a lot of shout outs to older stuff everywhere. The MM has a brief mention of Tharizdun (though not by name) and there's other similar stuff worked in.

Much of the monster flavour that the designers were talking about seems to have been removed entirely in favour of squashing more creature varients in. Most monsters have less flavour than 3rd ed. And some have none whatsoever.

There also appears to be a new Slaad. And Slaad tadpoles.

No needless symmetry?

Come now Arytiss, taking things at more than face value is just being pessimistic... unless you are being optimistic... which is a good thing...

Kinda makes me think of those quick button press puzzles so damn popular in action games these days.

-420

"Gads! What is that massive hideous beast!? It doth wear antlers covered in fur and does have funny hangy downy thingies on it's throat! Let's kill it!!!"

What's the skill check to identify a gazebo?

[wonders who here gets the joke]

The Dread Gazebo. :mrgreen: