4th Edition

When is it being released?

PHB in May, MM in June, and DMG in July.

why would they stagger releases like that?

[quote="ArchDevil"]why would they stagger releases like that?[/quote]

No idea, I thought it was dumb too.

Not surprising. It's what they did with the 3.0 core books.

I, for one, think this edition might be pretty good. 30-level progression, racial level ups (something I'm rather interested in)... There are a few things that bother me too, but with proper implimentation, it might not be that bad.

Time will tell.

[quote="Saber"]Not surprising. It's what they did with the 3.0 core books.

I, for one, think this edition might be pretty good. 30-level progression, racial level ups (something I'm rather interested in)... There are a few things that bother me too, but with proper implimentation, it might not be that bad.

Time will tell.[/quote]

OoOoOoO, I almost can't wait, though I wonder how much if any the main system will change. I'll probably wait a while to get it though, especially considering it its not exactly useful to be an early adopter if no one else is using it.

Saw a countdown timer going a while back, but I was only somewhat interested (and I hadn't heard what was new/changed).

I get boners thinking about it.

I will buy the PH when it comes out. As for the rest I will wait a while.

I would just be too curious to pass up the PH, I'd want to see what it was all about. After a few months, if people begin switching over to 4e I will likely buy the DMG as well. As for the MM, I have never owned one. I might get one this time, but probably not. I usually make up stats for my own encounters.

P.S. My birthday is in May. Just incase anyone was wondering what to get me :)

P.P.S Ooh! And I will be 21! Woot! I get to drink and play DnD at the same time! Eh, thats old news.

wow
you're a month older than me?
for the longest time I thought you were four years younger than me..

[img]http://smiliesftw.com/x/1.gif[/img]

Understand, I am 20 now, will be 21 in May.

I thought you were already 21?

[quote="Solace"]wow
you're a month older than me?
for the longest time I thought you were four years younger than me..
[/quote]

You're a month older than me? I thought you were more like a year older. :D

One thought.

I really hope that they improve the method for distributing experience points. I do like the charts they provide for 3e for figuring encounter levels and exp rewards for combat, but I do not like that the only official way to gain experience is through combat. I would like to see actual rules in place for gaining experience for overcoming puzzles, exceptional roleplaying, etc. Where there are currently a lack of rules for such, house rules do make up for it. I would like to see something implemented, however simple, for the more close minded DM to use.

If not, how about we come up with our own system? I am sure many of us have our own unique systems for distributing experience, but sharing them with one another might improve our gameplay.

I don't remember the numbers per say, and since I don't put anything to paper I cannot refference anything. But here is a rough outline of how I distribute experience outside of combat. If I remember correctly, it is set up such that every thirteen encounters of equal level to the party's level will give them enough experience to gain a level. As such, I handle situations outside of combat the exact same. I only usually give extra experience to players outside of combat to participating players. The reason is, there are usually the roleplayers and the combatants. In combat I award small bonuses to the players who do the most amazing feats, as such they are usually not the roleplayers. In turn, the combatants usually don't spend that much time roleplaying outside of combat, therefore it is the roleplayers time to shine. Any time a character would roleplay their strengths well enough to accomplish something in the parties favor, I give the party a sum of experience just the same as you would for combat (figuring the roleplaying encounter's "level" by what difficulties the party might face in the circumstance) and a small bonus to the participants who really helped move the situation along.

I also like how sessions can go on for an hour or two with no real encounter, as the party is just roleplaying their leizure time or is struggling to accomplish their goal. I don't like, however, how this time can seem like a waste to the players because they have nothing to show for their efforts. As such I will sometimes grant them 1/13th (again assuming that is the correct fraction) the required expereience to gain a level per hour of roleplay, where nothing is really gained otherwise. The reason for this is to promote that sort of playing when the campaign is in a sort of downtime.

How about everyone else?

Muddy,

Being a primarily online DM, I've found (In my own experience anyways) That RP tends to be leaps and bounds over table top. (Face to face, makes some people nervous and/or shy) But I have often faced the same problem. Some of my players aren't combat oriented/entertained. And as such My encounters per session are often fewer then most common games. Personally I use a timer for games. Depending on the level of the adventurer, and the intended length of the format. After a session, RP experience (And puzzle solving, which should be RP'd in my games anyhow.) Is awarded on a base scale of 'x' amount per hour. Extra awards are often given too. (Any excellent maneuvers, or very 'IC' actions.) My easiest method was to award about anywhere from 1%-10% of the needed experience to level, (Based on the Highest character's level.) multiplied by the group number. then spread evenly, then an extra % or two tossed in for the bonus'. Though in truth. I actually would time actual roleplay, rounded up to the nearest quarter hour. Since games tend to take varied time amounts. This however does get a little awkward if I have players that come and go at different times. ( Happens online. )

Just my thoughts.

-X

So, if i was RPing with myself, would that count?

[quote="Dunlop"]So, if i was RPing with myself, would that count?[/quote]

Code: So, if i was playing with myself, would that count?

Does it usually?

I'm told you could go blind though.

[quote="Dunlop"]So, if i was RPing with myself, would that count?[/quote]
BEST GAME EVARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
where's karlth to enjoy this moment with me?

actually, i was playing two characters that needed to interact, muddy.but this brings up a slightly off topic yet relevant point:

i dont think you know any girls. i think these "hot" chicks are burly dudes or forum members that you attach pictures to. if you like, i can provide you with a picture in which to admire during "Muddy's Special Time". i appreciate your public compliment, but i can't do the long distance thing right now.

FYI, we're gunna need some proof of these parties, ex-es, and "moderate" girls that sweat the Mud-ster.

Muddy's just getting dominated from everyone!

4e is coming out in June, all three of 'em together. :) Originally they were gonna do a staggered release, but they changed it for some reason. If you look at the WOTC website the column on the right tells us that all three core rulebooks are being released in what in currently 'next month', by about two days!

I can hardly wait.

Are you guys all gonna go to 4e? Or are there are few lingering 3.5ers here? I'm just curious as to what all the opinions on it are.

I'm probably not gonna make the upgrade. It's just not the kind of tabletop game I'm looking for. If I do end up sticking with 3.5E, I'll probably draw a couple of rules from there as house rules though.

I heard that the online/computer parts of 4.0 will have a monthly charge.

Am I weird for prefering 2.0 rules? Or 3.0 translations of 2.0 rules?

Oh hi! I'm Squirll, been a DM for a long time. This is the first program i've found to look really promising. Triaxe did for a while... but it didn't deliver.

What I found with 3.5 was that caster classes were very unpopular due to the need to keep track of everything the whole time. Not only that but there's always the problem of wondering what the mage does once her spells are all gone for the day.

4e seems to fix a lot of the messy things I didn't like, that's half the reason I started posting on OPNPW again, I'm very much inspired! I've called my old RL group and ordered the core books with 'em, we should be getting started this month if they turn up in time.

But you're right Squirll, "DnDInsider" will cost a monthly fee somewhere between the cost of a subscription to an MMO and a magazine. Speculations say roughly $15 and less in Pounds. But the core rulebooks at least are perfectly capable of standing alone. DnDInsider appears to be a very well done version of OPnPW. Personally if I need to play online, I'll probably be sticking to what's free though ;).

I'm psyched!

[quote="Reddan"]What I found with 3.5 was that caster classes were very unpopular due to the need to keep track of everything the whole time. Not only that but there's always the problem of wondering what the mage does once her spells are all gone for the day.[/quote]

In my experience it's been the opposite, at least among experienced or regular D&D players. Caster classes were popular because they were overpowered. 4e seems to be making much more of an effort to balance the classes and there's also more of an emphasis on classes having specific roles to fill in the party. I'm not sure whether I like or dislike some of the changes but hopefully I'll get to find out soon.

I simply disagree with what they did to the caster classes. Most of the problems they were citing really only applied to one class (the wizard), as sorcerers, bards, clerics, and druids really never run into the problem of "I'm out of spells and have nothing to do". That problem never ever came up in any game I've played in though except at level 1, so I can't really relate to the "improvement" of always being able to do something as a wizard.

A more valid concern of the wizard is "what spells should I prepare today, what do I do if I prepare the wrong spells". This question meant that the low-level wizards had to either be weaker sorcerers (picking kill spells) or do some research before 'diving into the dungeon' (boring). The solution it seems in 4E is to remove the wizard class and replace it with the sorcerer. In fact, the solution seems to be to remove all of the classes and replace them with various types of sorcerers. (They also substantially shrank the spell list, making it substantially easier to pick spells, especially since most of them are various flavors of kill spells)

Casters don't get spells anymore per-se, they get "abilities". A wizard's magic missile, a fighter's cleave, a ranger's twin strike, and a paladin's holy strike are all in the same category of at-will abilities. Yawn. I don't really know much about rituals, but seeing as those are feat based instead of class based I don't think they will change anything.

I'm also not pleased with the multiclass feats... I don't find the idea of a fighter casting magic missile at will at the cost of one feat very palatable, but I won't judge that till we actually try 4E.

One thing that I do very much approve of though is cantrips being at will. I'm very willing to try that out in 3.5E.

Yeah, I'm gonna second pretty much everything Acid said. 4E, from what I've seen, removes a [u]lot[/u] of the resource management from D&D, which is actually a part of the game I enjoy(ed).

That, and every class seems to be similar to each other, the only difference being the effect of your at-will ability. No longer are fighters the characters who are able to consistently deal 'average' damage, with the spellcasters capable of whipping out the big guns 'every once in a while'. Now, everyone is capable of pretty much the exact same thing.

[i]Note: The following is only perception/opinion, based on limited information. I have no experiences (yet) to back any of this up.[/i]

Plus, with the addition of 'per encounter' abilities, abilities that are, by nature, more powerful than the at-will abilities, each encounter will likely follow the same 'flow'; the party fires out their per encounter 'combo', and then coasts through the rest of the encounter, finishing with their at-will powers... Also, thanks to healing surges (and so many of them available per day), the party will never enter a combat at anything less than 100% (minus, perhaps, 1-2hp and a daily power or two). All of which is very reminiscent of MMO tactics.

-------

In regards to the problem with Wizards in 3.5e, I like the idea of 'at-will' cantrips... And I came up with an idea to change wizards around a little, fixing the problem of 'kill vs. utility' wizard. I can't come up with a coherent way to describe it, so instead, I'll just provide an example.

At 1st level, a wizard gets (3) 0th lvl spells and (1) 1st lvl spell. To keep things simple, we'll assume he doesn't have bonus 1st lvl spells. So, he prepares the following spells:
0 - Detect Magic, Light, Ray of Frost
1 - Magic Missile
He can use his three prepared 0th level spells at-will, all day long, subject to certain 'cantrip rules' (for example, no more than 1 Light spell active at a time). He can also cast Magic Missile, but only once.

But let's say that the party ambushes an acolyte, and learns of a possible undead threat. Also, the party finds a book that no one can read. With my idea, the wizard could spend 15 minutes, sit down with his book, and 'adjust' his spells prepared. Say he hasn't cast Magic Missile yet, and he decides to swap out Magic Missile for Comprehend Languages. Also, he decides to switch Ray of Frost for Disrupt Undead:
0 - Detect Magic, Disrupt Undead, Light
1 - Comprehend Languages
Now he can no longer cast Ray of Frost at will, but instead can cast Disrupt Undead. Also, he casts Comprehend Languages, using his 1st level slot. Now he's out of 1st level spells, but he still has his 0th level spells to fall back on.

So, now, the Wizard gets full use of the 'at-will' cantrips thing, and he's not forced into being just a kill wizard. If he has spells left, and the party learns some information that could allow the wizard to 'better prepare', he can adjust his spells prepared for the day, allowing the wizard to take advantage of his utility spells. Slightly more powerful, yes, but as a trade off, maybe dump the Summon Familiar class ability? That is, if you think this idea is 'too powerful'.

Clerics and Druids would select their 0th level spells as normal, and they'd be at-will. Bards and Sorcerers would get all of their cantrips known as at-will (the benefit for not being able to change their selected cantrips on a day to day basis). No other class could adjust their spells prepared like a wizard could, though.

Just a thought.

Muddy, to answer your question from before which i probably totally ignored, or chose not to answer for some reason, there does exist an XP bonus for special situations, it's called "ad hoc" in the DMG, which means for-this-instance-only. or you could do what I do, and calculate all the fight stuff, and give extra points for innovations that greatly helped the party, both combat-oriented and anything else. I've given out as much as 20k at once (though it was for a high level character, so not as substantial as it may sound) for one single action because it was so dramatic
[quote="Dunlop"]So, if i was RPing with myself, would that count?[/quote]
I think you got a lot of XP for this, that was awkward btw.

To fill you all in, Karlth was DMing a campaign, in which Joe had a characer Aramil, a rogue. I was DM'ing a campaign, in which Joe had a character Askarius, a half-vampire barbarian.

Joe loves to roleplay, and chooses characters not based on what's the best, but what sounds fun to play. Aramil is a pretentious uptight sneaky backstabber, and Askarius is a brute in every sense of the word, with anger management issues.

It so happened that for a certain event I had to cross worlds, because Karlth had a connection to both characters.

Dan is DM'ing Karlth's interaction with Aramil, and I'm DM'ing Karlth's interaction with Askarius, and then Askarius and Aramil can't help but meet eachother, and they have to talk. Being such different characters, Aramil and Askarius immediately started arguing, and insulting, and eventually fought. Askarius was a clear victor with ease, being able to sense blood, Aramil was unable to hide, or sneak and with few swift blows of his greataxe, Aramil was both decapitated and looted.

Joe has since retired Aramil as far as I know, and Askarius enjoys the inventory of Aramil's immense travels.

This was extremely trying for all of us, because here Joe is sitting on one side of the couch says something, and he moves to the other, pauses, gets in to character, responds, and continues this way.

We're all pissing ourselves with laughter because he sounds like a live action Me, Myself & Irene sketch, and he's trying to have a serious conversation, and ends up sacrificing one of his characters. Both were nearly epic at the time, and both stood to lose a lot.

Not only was it an extremely high level battle of wits, of technique, and of talent, it was an extremely amazing display of roleplaying and after that, I think we all concede that Joe is the best roleplayer out of all of us. He got lots of xp (i think lots) and lots of gold and lots of items for that.

It was kind of weird when he went to loot the corpse and just picked up his other character sheet and crossed off things he wanted for Askarius, and then stuffed it away.

oh, and yeah 4th edition has some really cool stuff but in general looks like it might suck

you know, AD&D still pretty much owns all of these games...

[quote="Solace"]This was extremely trying for all of us, because here Joe is sitting on one side of the couch says something, and he moves to the other, pauses, gets in to character, responds, and continues this way.[/quote]

Haha, that's great. Dunlop, I knew you were cool but I didn't know you were this cool.

I vaguely remember the leap over from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. I had been looking at it for some time, and to be honest the only thing that impressed me was the way skills worked. Did 2nd edition even have the concept of DC? I remember it you rolled and if you beat your skill score, you succeeded, which just sound silly to me. How did your stats play into it? What if you were doing something ridiculously hard, or ridiculously easy, whats the penalty or bonus? Saves (and a lot of other things like thief skills) worked similiar to this; they were not very intuitive if you were throwing something not exactly at their level. "Make a save vs. disintegration at -2"... lol wut?

Sure, there were a couple of scary things about 3e, like feats, and homogonized classes, but those are things that we probably take for granted today. I mean, do you freak out when I say "my character is a bard2/monk2/sorcerer5"? In 2e, your stats could be way different depending on what order you took those classes. *shudder* Feats? Yeah, I thought so.

That's pretty much how I feel right now about 4e. There are some things which just feel plain scary right now, like 'powers' and the concept of class roles (I don't typically play a fighter because I like defending my teammates). There are some parts of 4e I just plain like, like hitpoints for example. I'm not a fan of the "your hitpoints pretty much double at level 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc...", but the point at which you die is pretty much constant. I'm a fan of the 'bloodied' system; it's always been odd that you go from 100% to 0 hp an unstoppable fighting machine, then once you hit it you pass out. Getting 4 hits on a BBEG and getting no feedback at all on how much damage you did is silently frustrating too.

I've also taken a look at ritual casting, I'm both tickled and displeased by it. For those who don't know, ritual casting is a feat you take which lets you cast rituals, those 'non-fighting' spells they took out in 3.5E like gentle repose, alarm, and leomund's tiny hut. These spells are vaguely cast in a simliar manner to the epic level spells in 3.5E (They take about 10 minutes to cast, and have expensive reagents, and require a skill check). I like the idea of not having to waste spell slots on gentle repose to still get the benefit of it... but anyway.

Whether or not I'll like 4e I can't say. I'll wait till I have some actual game experience before passing that judgement. What I can say though with some level of certainty is that I probably will not be dropping 3.5E. One of the things that pretty much sealed the deal for me for dropping 2e was the possibility of converting anything from it into 3e. THAC0 and AC were preserved (and made easier to work with), there were tables for stat normalization, etc... converting an adventure from 3.5E to 4e does not look possible. It's just a different paradigm of gaming that likely will never get bridged. Whether or not it's funner, I can't say, but I can say that it won't be replacing 3.5E.

Saber, I had the same idea about the at will cantrips, the problem is that about half of the cantrips the classes have access to would be some level of unintentionally powerful if they were castable at will. Daze, Detect Magic, Message, Create Water, Cure Minor Wounds, Virtue (assuming it stacks, I don't actually remember), Guidance to some degree, yeah. Some of this is debatable, of course, I would like to test these rules in a throwaway game though before actually trying them out for serious. One of the alternate thoughts I had to doing that was to just make most of the cantrips last 24 hours (resistance, prestidigitation, mage hand, virtue)... might make scrolls of cantrips a bit powerful still though, so I don't know.

Cure Minor Wounds would be the only really serious issue (which is easily remedied by either removing it or making it not heal any damage, but just automatically stabilize a character); the others can be fixed with a spell by spell 'rule' or modification. Daze still allows a save, Message... Would be an issue, sorta. Not sure what to do there. Make it slightly more powerful, and convert it into a 1st lvl? Create Water could just not be permanent unless consumed, and any subsequent castings while the previous water is 'in effect' would make the previous water turn back to dust. Virtue doesn't stack, just like all temp HP. Guidance is fine, as it takes a standard action to cast.

you know what's one thing I never understood about D&D and could never grasp?

Why exercising, training, and reading doesn't contribute to your XP, but winning a fight does, when in reality it's almost the opposite.

Probably the second most important reason I stopped playing 3e, that and I hated rolling for everything, felt like it takes away from the roleplaying..

Thats an easy question to answer. D&D doesn't give XP for training, reading, and exercising because none of those count as real experience. You don't get any "XP" for doing any of that junk in real life either. Here's a couple of life examples I can give.

Fencing practice: practicing footwork, lunges, jumps, and all that junk is all just preparation for the -real- training, actually fencing.

Pilot training (or driver training): you can read all the crap you want, go in the simulator as much as you want, but until you sit in the chair and take control yourself, you aren't getting better at driving.

The only thing training, reading, and exercise do is prepare you for the experience. They don't substitute it.

Now then, the reason all that junk doesn't train your stats is a bit more vague: 'cause it would be unbalanced'.

Probably one of the most annoying things in 2e that caused me to burn out was the rampant metagaming that resulted in skills being mostly useless and charisma being a dump stat. You could have a charisma of 3 and talk your way into a dragon's pants, and on the flip side you could have a charisma of 25 and not be able to charm a peasant into accepting your secondhand pitchfork +2 for 20 silver. DMs were encouraged way too hard to place emphasis on the player over the character, it got so bad from my eyes that at one point a friend's DM ruled that you can't use any NWPs that you had unless you as a player actually knew how to do them as well. At that point, whats the point of rolling a character?

[quote="Acid_Trees"]Pilot training (or driver training): you can read all the crap you want, go in the simulator as much as you want, but until you sit in the chair and take control yourself, you aren't getting better at driving.

The only thing training, reading, and exercise do is prepare you for the experience. They don't substitute it.[/quote]I'd have to disagree. There are tons of things you can learn from books and exercise that you won't learn as quickly from just jumping in. That's especially true when you're just learning something new.

Unfortunately, D&D is very focussed on the innate education characters get from simply having a class and using it, but in reality, you almost always have to train beforehand and put that training to use in order to improve yourself. At the same time, people don't follow strict class-structures in real life either. In my games, if a player of mine wants to read books in order to improve themselves, I'll allow it and even give them a bit of XP. That's also because I appreciate players who think of things outside of the immediate quest and lewtz.

so wait....
so reading does not increase my wisdom, and working out doesn't increase my strength? Fuck, i've been doing it all wrong in REAL LIFE. I'll just start fighting people that look weaker than me, but I hope they're not wizards in disguise...I could get owned.

Wisdom from books? Hah, only if they're magical. You'd think [b]Intelligence[/b] would be from books, but you're wrong. You gain [i]Knowledge[/i] from books, which if we recall, are skills.

Also, from lifting weights and running, you get better at, you guessed it, lifting weights and running. D&D has no way to govern attribute training outside of leveling (hell, most PnP games don't) aside from aforementioned magical books. Which is fine by me.

As a somewhat related aside, a 20th level Cleric of Kord (or, rather, one with the Strength domain), can easily have a strength of 55 (1 higher than the god of strength himself) for 1 round. Do you have any idea what a 55 Strength can do? In no way should D&D ever be judged for it's realism (which, by the way, totally goes 100% out the window at about 8th-9th level). See [url=http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12393614]this link[/url] for a much better illustration than I can provide.

EDIT: And, do you REALLY want to roleplay going to the gym every day for months upon months on end? Doesn't sound like a whole lot of excitement to me...

well, there's both sides to the argument.

A lot of people would like to say "I go to the gym and workout"

and hope after a month, they gain strength.

Obviously, not very fair.

Also, says who you don't gain wisdom and insight by reading books?

Reading is like gaining life experiences through other peoples' eyes, and provides more insight than living your own as is.

Anywho, D&D is the way it is, and like Tim Buckley says, it's not like our old edition books burst into flames...

I'm still going to read the PHB at least very thoroughly, I only know what I know from what people tell me, and the front cover. One day I'll read it...just probably not anytime soon

[quote="Our Patron Saint Acid_Trees"]Now then, the reason all that junk doesn't train your stats is a bit more vague: 'cause it would be unbalanced'. [/quote]

Yeah, you have been doing it all wrong this whole time Solace. Saber is somewhat correct though in saying that weight training and running only makes you better at weight training and running, although it does make you stronger in real life (that would be the point of doing those). I do hope you haven't been reading books to get smarter though, those books are typically 300-page shams that read "A fool and his money are soon parted". Smarts come from using your noodle until you don't think you can think anymore, and then just to show your brain who's boss, you use it some more.

As for skills, having someone or something (like a mentor, or a manual) hold your hand when you try something out for the first time when you do something can be great for learning, especially if its something that can kill you if you fail. Don't assume, though, that the experience of the event comes from the mentor.

Okay, as for 4e, since we actually played a couple of combats a couple of days ago, I'm gonna share my feelings. We had a group of three players soundly trash both combats. The first one was adjusted for our group size, the second one was designed for a group of 5. I played a wizard, so these thoughts are primarily from that angle. Also, we only played two combats at level 1, so this isn't exactly the word of an expert.

In terms of improvement they made to the wizard, the hit point inflation really helps out. Pretty much all of his attacks and damage are int based, which means that a high int translates directly into more power (instead of a slightly higher DC). In addition, int is now also intertwined with dex in the role of AC and reflex saves, meaning that focusing on int also gives the wizard some compensation for not being able to wear armor (and my reflex defense was higher than my will defense).

Now, every class in 4e has two possible roles. Some are more pronounced and separated than others. For instance, the warlord can choose to either be "an inspiring warlord" where they buff their allies like crazy, or they can be "a tactical warlord" where their attacks move enemies and allies around or prevent AoO-free movement. It's not really possible to choose 'both' roles for the first 10 levels, as your most powerful abilities can only be one or the other. For the wizard, you have a choice between being "a control wizard" and "a war wizard". Lemee tell you right now, a combat will support one type over the other, and if you're the wrong type, the battle will be very lazy for you.

I was a control wizard, which means that I'm a very good reason for monsters to not bunch up. Naturally, our enemies were well spread out for the first fight. The most tactically efficient thing I could do was cast magic missile for the entire fight. The only noteworthy thing I could find about magic missile is its range, other than that it's about as exciting as firing a crossbow in 3.5E.

Despite being tactically disadvantaged, we pretty much steamrolled the combat. Part of it was good rolls, but part of it is the unbalancing factor of the daily powers and action points. I certainly didn't think much of it at the time, as daily powers are pretty much just larger rolls of your at-will powers. The fighter dealing 16 damage in one blow, the wizard doing about 8 damage to every enemy, or the warlord making the party pretty much invulnerable with healing and buffs, those sound powerful, but those are the at-will powers. With daily powers, the figher would be dealing 24 damage, the wizard would be doing 13 damage, and the warlord would still be buffing us. And yet, the daily powers tip the scales tremendously. They won't always be there though, which makes me curious as to how the game will balance that fact out. We shall see.

[quote="Amateur Novelist Acid_Trees"][quote="Our Patron Saint Acid_Trees"]Now then, the reason all that junk doesn't train your stats is a bit more vague: 'cause it would be unbalanced'. [/quote]

Yeah, you have been doing it all wrong this whole time Solace. Saber is somewhat correct though in saying that weight training and running only makes you better at weight training and running, although it does make you stronger in real life (that would be the point of doing those). I do hope you haven't been reading books to get smarter though, those books are typically 300-page shams that read "A fool and his money are soon parted". Smarts come from using your noodle until you don't think you can think anymore, and then just to show your brain who's boss, you use it some more.

As for skills, having someone or something (like a mentor, or a manual) hold your hand when you try something out for the first time when you do something can be great for learning, especially if its something that can kill you if you fail. Don't assume, though, that the experience of the event comes from the mentor.

Okay, as for 4e, since we actually played a couple of combats a couple of days ago, I'm gonna share my feelings. We had a group of three players soundly trash both combats. The first one was adjusted for our group size, the second one was designed for a group of 5. I played a wizard, so these thoughts are primarily from that angle. Also, we only played two combats at level 1, so this isn't exactly the word of an expert.

In terms of improvement they made to the wizard, the hit point inflation really helps out. Pretty much all of his attacks and damage are int based, which means that a high int translates directly into more power (instead of a slightly higher DC). In addition, int is now also intertwined with dex in the role of AC and reflex saves, meaning that focusing on int also gives the wizard some compensation for not being able to wear armor (and my reflex defense was higher than my will defense).

Now, every class in 4e has two possible roles. Some are more pronounced and separated than others. For instance, the warlord can choose to either be "an inspiring warlord" where they buff their allies like crazy, or they can be "a tactical warlord" where their attacks move enemies and allies around or prevent AoO-free movement. It's not really possible to choose 'both' roles for the first 10 levels, as your most powerful abilities can only be one or the other. For the wizard, you have a choice between being "a control wizard" and "a war wizard". Lemee tell you right now, a combat will support one type over the other, and if you're the wrong type, the battle will be very lazy for you.

I was a control wizard, which means that I'm a very good reason for monsters to not bunch up. Naturally, our enemies were well spread out for the first fight. The most tactically efficient thing I could do was cast magic missile for the entire fight. The only noteworthy thing I could find about magic missile is its range, other than that it's about as exciting as firing a crossbow in 3.5E.

Despite being tactically disadvantaged, we pretty much steamrolled the combat. Part of it was good rolls, but part of it is the unbalancing factor of the daily powers and action points. I certainly didn't think much of it at the time, as daily powers are pretty much just larger rolls of your at-will powers. The fighter dealing 16 damage in one blow, the wizard doing about 8 damage to every enemy, or the warlord making the party pretty much invulnerable with healing and buffs, those sound powerful, but those are the at-will powers. With daily powers, the figher would be dealing 24 damage, the wizard would be doing 13 damage, and the warlord would still be buffing us. And yet, the daily powers tip the scales tremendously. They won't always be there though, which makes me curious as to how the game will balance that fact out. We shall see.[/quote]

wow, that's a lot. Good read. I wonder what some of the other classes are like, I know they got rid of Bard, I want to know if they compensated somewhere, most likely a second option for something from the sounds of it.

I'm quite intrigued though, it sounds a lot more interesting than I initially thought. I'll be sure to flip to the Cleric page next time I'm in borders or bn

[quote="Acid_Trees"]...Saber is somewhat correct though in saying that weight training and running only makes you better at weight training and running, although it does make you stronger in real life (that would be the point of doing those)...[/quote]

What I meant by my statement was, lifting weights may help your ability to lift stuff (a factor of Strength), but it doesn't help you hit things more accurately with a sword, or make your punches any more painful (both of which are also tied to Strength).

but target practice should increase your accuracy, and while lifting weights shouldn't, it should increase the damage either way...

You're comparing apples to oranges..

No, what I'm saying that weight training, or running, or target practice, or, or, or, shouldn't increase a blanket area such as Strength.

I think that, the way D&D currently is, works perfectly fine for increasing stats; after every four levels, over the course of which you've been fighting monsters, carrying heavy shit, climbing, running, jumping, dodging, thinking, sleeping the events away, reflecting, learning, and above all, gaining life experience (you know, by actually doing things!)... This, over a period of time, trains your body, increasing your blanket stat known as Strength. You're now slightly more accurate (regardless of any weapon- or class-based training you may have had/have gained), your blows land a little harder, you can carry more stuff, and you're better at all of those athletic things, like climbing, jumping, etc.

Sitting in a gym, punching a bag, and lifting weights isn't gonna train you for all of that.

Lastly, I want to reiterate my original point, D&D is far from realistic; after all, have you ever watched one of those 'strongest man' competitions? They're huge, and [I believe] in the realm of 20 Strength... But I'd bet they're no better at landing a punch than some guy with 12-14 Strength who hangs out in a bar every so often and finds himself in a brawl or two each month.

[quote="Striker"][quote="Solace"]This was extremely trying for all of us, because here Joe is sitting on one side of the couch says something, and he moves to the other, pauses, gets in to character, responds, and continues this way.[/quote]

Haha, that's great. Dunlop, I knew you were cool but I didn't know you were this cool.[/quote]

yeah.... owned.

Karlth says that Muddy is a tool

Hey guys, I just got the 4e PHB and I've been reading over it, its all really cool. I have no idea what to compare it to seeing as I haven't ever actually played dungeons and dragons before, but a couple of my friends and i figured we'd give it a go. I was just wondering if there was anyone who would mind giving me a basic run through on how to create a character and how combat / skills / whatever works. The books helpful but I'm still pretty lost.

Slight problem I live in Australia. Late nights aren't a massive problem for me but if anyones time frame allows them for me not having to wait up until 4am that would be nice. Either that or if you guys know of a group like this one except for a more southern hemisphere/Oceanic audience that would also be nice and helpful.

Thanks in advance and sorry for being a noob :P

Wtf? :(  I haven't been around for god knows how long, and even still I get slants behind my back.  Thanks guys.  I feel the love.
 
I've read through the the 4e PHB and a little bit of the MM.  It seems like balance is skewed towards lower levels.  Start gaining levels and running into like-leveled encounters, it looks like things will continue to get harder.
 
The system looks pretty sound, but I haven't played it yet.  I like most of the changes made.  Most of the rules are combat oriented, which suits me fine.  I don't force dice rolls on my players during 90% of roleplaying.  I just hope it alleviates some of the bore factor that non combat players suffer during an hour long combat.

Er, Muddy, the posts about you were more than a year old...
 
Saber ran a 4e playtest a few months back and I wasn't alone in my feeling of "meh."  I don't hate it or anything, but I wasn't impressed.

I'm bringing back a month-old forum just to say:
 
Muddy, if you would just show the goddamn pics, people would love you again.

[quote]I'm bringing back a month-old forum just to say:
 
Muddy, if you would just show the goddamn pics, people would love you [b]again[/b].[/quote]
 
Wait a second, when did people love Muddy?
 
 
 
:P