Dungeons and Dragons 4th ed. preview: Swamp Hobbits!

[Terrifel]

--or at least that's the part that stood out most for me after perusing the recently published "Wizards Presents: Races and Classes" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0786948019) at the bookstore today. I get the distinct impression that the game is doing all it can to shed its tabletop RPG roots and recast itself as something more palatable to online gaming tastes. As a Tolkien-reading dork from back before it was fashionable, it makes me a bit sad that D&D apparently no longer regards me as its primary sales target. From the look of the preview, the new game extends the anime-ization trend started in 3rd Edition. There's a strong Elder Scrolls vibe to the art and flavor text, at least to my eye. They spend a lot of time talking up the art design and consistent 'look' of the new system, as if it were a flashy computer game. I'm a great fan of fantasy illustration; but if it were all that critical to the success of D&D, the game would never have gotten off the ground to begin with.

Halflings are no longer Gypsies as in 3rd Edition; instead, they are now Cajuns. They live on riverboats, favoring swamps and marshlands. The logic here is that the race never really had a distinctive "home turf" like elves and dwarves before, and this change is meant to rectify that. What a good idea that is. Of course halflings don't have a home turf like elves and dwarves, because they were totally ripped off from Tolkien to begin with! There's no vast folkloric tradition of legendary bog midgets. 4th edition halflings retain their oddly elongated, breadbox-shaped heads, and now their ears are perfectly rectangular (?!), so the catastrophically inbred, stunted bayou dweller image is complete. I hope players running a halfling remember to do the accent.

Since the game is so eager to distance itself from Tolkien, elves are no longer shorter than humans, but tall and slender just as in Tolkien. Also, instead of one race with several subraces (wood, grey, etc), there are now three distinct races of elves: generic elves who live in the forest, eladrin or "high elves," who live on another plane of existence entirely, and drow. So that should clear that up.

(Why in the hell are drow so popular anyway? They live in the ground, hate everybody, and worship spiders. They're like a race of insane bag ladies or something, living over a subway vent and naming the neighborhood rats. I just don't get their appeal.)

One of the main problems with previous editions, we are told, is that the game never really established a clear character for humans. Just who are these "humans?" What are they like? What motivates them? 4th edition proposes that humans are inherently more corruptible than other races, which explains why they're always fighting among themselves. The preview doesn't really go into how this is expressed in game mechanics-- there's not much detail of this sort anywhere in the book. Dice are barely mentioned at all. Again, I am briefly sad.

Anyhoo. Gnomes are being recast with a darker edge. Dwarves remain dwarves, albeit without darkvision (?). Also included are tieflings (half-demons) and dragonborn (half-dragons). Personally I question the need for two half-monstrous player races with horns, but whatever. What exactly is the high-fantasy tradition that includes heroic warriors with barbed tails and reptile heads? Meanwhile, half-orcs appear to be out entirely. Alas.

The preview goes on at length about the need to balance player classes so that they are all able to participate equally in all stages of an adventure. I don't quite know what to say about that, as such number-crunching details always sort of took a back seat to the roleplaying part for me. I don't really remember unbalanced classes being that much of a problem during our gaming sessions.

This philosophy of 'balance' will apparently manifest itself in some odd ways. The designers cite dungeon traps as an example of an unbalanced play element, since only rogues are equipped to deal with them. This will supposedly change in 4th edition, so that dungeons will now have traps with multiple elements that challenge all members of a party. So a single trap might have a mechanical feature for the thief to disarm, and meanwhile monsters are released from trapdoors for the others to fight while that's happening, and so on. The unspoken corollary is that if you're missing any classes in your party you're all screwed, but thems the breaks, I guess.

Apparently the magic system is going to change radically. Wizards alone will have three types of spell effects available. There will be no formal "schools of magic:" instead, a wizard's abilities will depend on what type of magic item they wield-- the choices being orb, staff, or wand. The book mentions in passing that arcane necromancy has been intentionally weakened in the interests of 'balance.' Screw you, WotC.

I'm depressed. I'm pretty sure I spent more on 3rd edition than everything that went before, though I hardly got any use out of it. This new game is unfamiliar territory again, and I'm not even the intended audience anymore. The book also contains multiple ads for "D&D Insider," the online resource-- the designers go on and on about how the new system was designed with web support in mind. Apparently that's another 10 bucks per month. I don't see that happening.

Ah well, things change. I'm not in college anymore anyway. While I looked away, D&D passed me by. It was a good ride while it lasted. My dice and I have our memories.

[Revenant Threshold]

Well, hey, it's not over. That's the one big advantage that DnD has over online games - WoW might change the whole system overnight. But DnD could bring out the My Little Pony expansion and you still have your old books.

Drow are more popular because people want to be The Guy. Why be some random, common elf, when you can be The Only Good Drow from a Race of Evil. Also Drizzt.

I quite like the sound of the halfling changes. The magic thing sounds pretty crap, though.

[Hal Briston]

(Why in the hell are drow so popular anyway? They live in the ground, hate everybody, and worship spiders. They're like a race of insane bag ladies or something, living over a subway vent and naming the neighborhood rats. I just don't get their appeal.)That paragraph is Reason #217 of Why My SDMB Subscription Is So Damn Worth It.

[Just Some Guy]

$20 for a preview? A 96-page, soft cover preview?! Well right there is a problem. If they want it to expand then they need to think in terms of one book for the whole system at $20, not gouging would be customers like that. Talk about fanbase exploitation.

(Why in the hell are drow so popular anyway? They live in the ground, hate everybody, and worship spiders. They're like a race of insane bag ladies or something, living over a subway vent and naming the neighborhood rats. I just don't get their appeal.)
Drop the worship spiders part and you've got a large portion of the D&D player base. :D

[Windwalker]

One big reason Drow are popular is because they're munchkins. I believe Icewind Dale II used fairly accurate D&D 3.0 rules, so this is what I'm basing it on; they get an extra 2 ability points AND magic resistance all at the cost of some equivalent levels. Plus, being the odd ones out in the surface probably elicits some sort of understanding from the stereotypical socially-excluded D&D'er. Extra points for being bad-ass and winning over or getting revenge on those snobby surface-dwellers, by super heroic deeds or evil dastardly ones (respectively), and you got yourself a nice vicarious hit.

[Odesio]

The preview goes on at length about the need to balance player classes so that they are all able to participate equally in all stages of an adventure.


One of the bad things about a Fighter from 3.0 is that he was bloody well useless in any situation that didn't require him to break something or kill someone. That's just bad game design.



The unspoken corollary is that if you're missing any classes in your party you're all screwed, but thems the breaks, I guess.


That pretty much sounds like what we have now. Try running a game without a Cleric for example and see how far you get.


Apparently the magic system is going to change radically. Wizards alone will have three types of spell effects available.


I hate Vancian magic so this gets a resounding hurrah from me.


The book mentions in passing that arcane necromancy has been intentionally weakened in the interests of 'balance.' Screw you, WotC.


Too many complaints of high level Wizards being head and shoulders above other classes.



Ah well, things change. I'm not in college anymore anyway. While I looked away, D&D passed me by. It was a good ride while it lasted. My dice and I have our memories.

I understand. The same thing happened to me between 3.0 and 3.5.

Marc

[Jophiel]

One big reason Drow are popular is because they're munchkins. I believe Icewind Dale II used fairly accurate D&D 3.0 rules, so this is what I'm basing it onThey were munchkins in 1st edition with the Unearthed Arcana as well so I doubt it's changed much. They were basically elves that could dual-wield without penalty, had the detection bonuses of both regular elves and those of dwarves and received a slew of innate spell effects. They had some daylight fighting penalties which, naturally, tended to go ignored whenever possible.

I haven't seriously looked at D&D since 1st ed AD&D (I have one or two 2nd ed sourcebooks) but half-dragons and box-headed halflings don't make it sound as though I've missed much.

[Odesio]

There's something you need to remember abotu D&D. If it lives underground then it's automatically a bad ass when compared to whatever surface cousins it has. This goes for dwarves and gnomes as well as elves.

Marc

[Lightray]

I'm thinking you took a really cursory read of that book. But, addressing points in no particular order:

"anime-ization" is not the term you're looking to for the art. That would be "dungeon-punk" -- which was the art-style of 3.0 & 3.5, and has been the style of D&D art for quite some time (8 years, now). The definition of "anime" is grist for an entire other thread, but I'd apply it to art like, say, Exalted's long before I'd describe D&D's like that.

Swamp-dwelling halflings are Tolkien, not contra-Tolkien. You just lost geek points on that one. Sméagol and Déagol were water-dwelling halflings who lived in a matriarchal society that subsisted on fishing and trapping (apparently). So on that point, they're going back to Tolkien roots.

But, I'd really dispute that Tolkien-reading dorks have been the main focus of sales for D&D for a long, long time. As anyone who has tried to shoehorn Middle-Earth into any D&D framework should know. The fit is just wretched.

Anyway. Too bad drow are so hot and popular -- 'cause they're not going to be in the PHB. They're going to be in the Forgotten Realms books, which will be released at some indeterminate time in the future year (or later, maybe). There'll be partial rules for drow and gnomes in the MM, apparently, but they're not going to be as fully-supported as the other PC races. No doubt dual-scimitar wielders everywhere are weeping bitter tears over that.

The tieflings and dragonborn -- as that book explains -- are not half-demons and half-dragons. That was in 3.0/3.5. The high-fantasy tradition that includes heroic warriors with barbed tails and reptile heads would be... well, hell, just pick up some pulp fantasy. Lieber-reading dorks and Howard-reading dorks have, IMO, been a more targeted fanbase of D&D far moreso than the Tolkien-reading dorks. And Conan just doesn't seem right without atavistic reptile-people around.

Unbalanced classes? Oh, yes. Play a low-level wizard with any other class, or any other class with a high-level wizard in the party -- or clerics. Druids. Serious re-design was needed. And multi-classing needed fixing in a major way. It sucked.

And you complain about arcane necromancy being intentionally weakened... uh, it also sucked. They tried fixing it several times with new prestige and base classes (e.g., dread necromancer). It still sucked. Divine necromancy was where it was at. So they really didn't need to weaken arcane necromancy; it was already pants.

They are apparently weakening all the "summon other combatant" types, though -- of which necromancers are certainly a subset. Personally, I found those types of characters a big drag on time during combat (and overpowered at high levels when they're summoning up things that can grant wishes and the like). But, eh. They'll show up in later releases, just as the enchantment/charm types of characters will.

But, hey. They won't be sending ninja to take away your 3.X D&D books. I can tell you this with confidence, as I still have mine. And my AD&D books. And my Basic Set D&D books. I even have my Deities and Demigods with the two forbidden pantheons, and my Gods, Demigods & Heroes -- all perfectly well usable now. Just like I could drive a classic car if I wanted; although I prefer something a little more modern.

[Critical1]

I had a Drow magic user theif way back in the day, as in before drizzt, he was chaotic evil and pretty much would have happily killed Drizzit with a knife in the back.

havent played in ages though.

[Johnny Angel]

Ideas about game design are advancing all the time, so I'm interested in what they come up with. But I'm afraid that in the meantime they're taking too much glee in taking the axe to sacred cows. That they took gnomes out of the core book and put tieflings in suggests to me that they're already off the rails, and this is coming from a guy who made space in his campaign setting for Muppets.

It was only recently that I realized that the previews they were promising to come out with would be actual books that they would actually charge money for. Wow. It'll cost me a double-saw to read their rationalizations without any actual playable rules content. Does that come with a kick in the balls, or must I administer that myself?

I also love how one of their great improvements is to remove problematic rules like magic item pricing and character levels for monsters and replace them with absolutely nothing. Hey, geniuses! I don't have to buy a new edition not to have any guidelines for how powerful a magic item is. I can just ignore the guidelines I've got! Here's their advanced method, not prone to the errors of the previous methods: just sort of guestimate. Jesus Mary Fucking H Christ, I can see why these guys are professional game designers. It never even occurred to my dumb amateur ass to just make up some fucking numbers and hope it all works out.

As I said, I'm interested to see what the new D&D is going to be like, but at this point I have very little interest in switching.

[Terrifel]

I'm thinking you took a really cursory read of that book. Well... yeah? An in-depth review would have required me to actually BUY the thing. I have been known to spend money on D&D in my day, but I'm not so far gone that I'm going to pay WotC 20 bucks for the privilege of owning an advertisement for their future products. I believe that advertising is traditionally supposed to work the other way around? THEY are supposed to pay for their ads, not ME. They get their money back later when I am enticed to purchase their exciting new product. Which ain't about to happen. "anime-ization" is not the term you're looking to for the art. That would be "dungeon-punk" -- which was the art-style of 3.0 & 3.5, and has been the style of D&D art for quite some time (8 years, now). The definition of "anime" is grist for an entire other thread, but I'd apply it to art like, say, Exalted's long before I'd describe D&D's like that.If you say so. The multiply layered costumes and ostentatiously non-medieval European-styled attire say "anime" to me, though the influence is not as directly referenced as with Exalted. Swamp-dwelling halflings are Tolkien, not contra-Tolkien. You just lost geek points on that one. Sméagol and Déagol were water-dwelling halflings who lived in a matriarchal society that subsisted on fishing and trapping (apparently). So on that point, they're going back to Tolkien roots.Don't you patronize me. If you want to go that route, then they never LEFT Tolkien roots did they? 1st and 2nd ed. halflings were Shire hobbits, and 3rd and 3.5 were early Third Age migratory hobbits. So why bother to take them out of the Shire in the first place? Why screw with the archetype of reluctantly curious adventurer?

How has D&D distanced itself from the other iconic Tolkien races? Elves are still Tolkien elves, close to nature, except for the REALLY magic elves who live in Valinor-- excuse me, Feyland; they're even MORE Tolkienesque now that the height restriction has been addressed. Dwarves still live in the mountains, children of the god of craft, stouthearted workers of the mine and forge.

Yet halflings have had to endure having their skulls being forcibly reshaped to resemble freak show pinheads; they've been driven out of their bucolic communities and recast as untrustworthy, schizophrenic Gypsies. Now they have to live in a swamp, forced to act out the role of faux-Kender kleptomaniac riverboat gamblers. This is like insisting that dwarves are really clean-shaven, island-dwelling teetotalers, or elves are comically graceless, paunchy city-dwellers. Halflings get no respect, I tell you. They get no respect.
The tieflings and dragonborn -- as that book explains -- are not half-demons and half-dragons. That was in 3.0/3.5. Well, they're humanoids with draconic and demonic features. The detail that they're no longer directly descended from human/monstrous couplings is beside my point. I expect that the change was made to provide an excuse for unified communities to produce the sexy demonically/draconically themed weapons and armor. And you complain about arcane necromancy being intentionally weakened... uh, it also sucked. They tried fixing it several times with new prestige and base classes (e.g., dread necromancer). It still sucked. Divine necromancy was where it was at. So they really didn't need to weaken arcane necromancy; it was already pants.I am AWARE of that. And yet they did it ANYWAY! They went and made arcane necromancy EVEN MORE PANTS! WHY?! WHY?! CLERICS ALREADY GET EVERYTHING! WHY?!

Look, all I want is an arcane necromancer that doesn't make me sad. Necromancers are supposed to tamper in Gods domain, not worship and pay homage to them! In my opinion, 2nd edition was on the right track-- divine worshippers of evil gods aren't necromancers, they're death priests. I just want the freedom to toy with the forces of life and death. Is that really too much to ask?

[Bryan Ekers]

I understand "Swamp Hobbit" was Francis Marion's nickname when he played D&D in high school.



Anyway, the last time I gave TSR money was for a 2nd-edition Monster Manual.

[smiling bandit]

The ironic thing is that while I think the new changes are crap, I like the impulse. It's just that WotC's execution bites the big one.

They can't make up their minds what they want on anything at all. Is DnD going to be "generic fantasy rules" for playing all sorts of settings? WIll it be specifically for traditional settings they paid TSR for and immediately dumped? Will it be for some custom settings they themselves made, but never properly supported, and it wasn't really different anyhow? (Yes, that's Eberron, which I hate with the fury of the fires of a thousand suns.)

They don't know.

There rules now suggest a very specific setting, but it's not one that anyone, to my knowledge, has ever played. Meanwhile, they seem to be trying to stuff all existing official settings into their new straightjacket, despite this not making the slightest sense.

If they'd just make an effin' decision and live with it, all would be well. But they don't, and they'll waffle and wiggle and waver back and forth until it becomes another muddle. They've got a bloated staff, and they keep trying to stuff - not just crunchy bits, but BAD crunchy bits - into every book they release, until the tide of prestige classes threatens overhwelm the planet (Good God! Faerun alone had a couple hundred offical PrC's and the implication of thousands more!)

That pretty much sounds like what we have now. Try running a game without a Cleric for example and see how far you get.

Actually, it works out pretty well. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get by without one. The problem is that everyone treats them like a heal-bot, which is actually their least effective role.

But if everyone takes the right stuff, well, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is cheap enough that any party should be able to afford a dozen, it's efficient enough that people can and will make them, and it pretty much takes care of the entire healing situation. Oh sure, you might want one or two high-level (for whatever level you are) healing thingies to back you up, but this strategy is very good at ensuring things don't get that bad int he first place.

Try it sometime.

[E-Sabbath]

Quick reply: I always liked visualizing 3E halflings as the ultimate urban sort. Small, vicious, and fast talking. This... not so handy. Frankly, I'd rather gypsy halflings on the road than gypsy halflings on the river. The carts are more interesting.

[Lightray]

Ideas about game design are advancing all the time, so I'm interested in what they come up with. But I'm afraid that in the meantime they're taking too much glee in taking the axe to sacred cows. That they took gnomes out of the core book and put tieflings in suggests to me that they're already off the rails, and this is coming from a guy who made space in his campaign setting for Muppets.
They didn't take gnomes out of the first book out of glee over axing sacred cows (of which, there are many to be axed, IMO). They did it because they didn't know what to do with the damn little things. They either turn up as elves-lite or dwarves-lite or steampunk mechanics like WoW. So they're waiting 'till they figure out what to do with them. Sounds kinda like they'll be Feywild connected, somehow.

I also love how one of their great improvements is to remove problematic rules like magic item pricing and character levels for monsters and replace them with absolutely nothing. Hey, geniuses! I don't have to buy a new edition not to have any guidelines for how powerful a magic item is. I can just ignore the guidelines I've got! Here's their advanced method, not prone to the errors of the previous methods: just sort of guestimate. Jesus Mary Fucking H Christ, I can see why these guys are professional game designers. It never even occurred to my dumb amateur ass to just make up some fucking numbers and hope it all works out.
Eh? All the vague previews are blurring together with all the hysteric assumptions being made all over the Internets... but I thought sure they had some guidelines planned...

EnWorld says there'll be no rules for DM's making up magic items (which, really, is nothing new aside from scroll or wand guidelines). But there's this Design & Development article on Magic Item Levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203&authentic=true), so there'll be some guidelines even if they didn't make it into Races & Classes.

Well, they're humanoids with draconic and demonic features. The detail that they're no longer directly descended from human/monstrous couplings is beside my point. I expect that the change was made to provide an excuse for unified communities to produce the sexy demonically/draconically themed weapons and armor.
I suspect the change was made because the designers are for some reason squicky about assumptions of rape (as with the half-orc), and seem to think that no human would willingly pair off with an Evil creature like an evil dragon or a demon.

But, I'd rather the emo tieflings than the emo drow.

I am AWARE of that. And yet they did it ANYWAY! They went and made arcane necromancy EVEN MORE PANTS! WHY?! WHY?! CLERICS ALREADY GET EVERYTHING! WHY?!

Look, all I want is an arcane necromancer that doesn't make me sad. Necromancers are supposed to tamper in Gods domain, not worship and pay homage to them! In my opinion, 2nd edition was on the right track-- divine worshippers of evil gods aren't necromancers, they're death priests. I just want the freedom to toy with the forces of life and death. Is that really too much to ask?
Clerics also are not going to be getting the necromancy schtick. Necromancers are being planned for future release, once they figure out how to make it work. As with other classes such as bards and illusionists, apparently.

In the end, though, it's all just pre-release hype from WotC. We haven't seen anything substantive on what 4e will be like. Some people are buying into the hype, and either rejoycing or raging as they deem fit. It's months yet before the thing'll be out. No need to panic about the sky falling until then. And even then, if we don't like it... we won't be buying it, and WotC will be out some cash while we still play 3.X or AD&D or whatever.

[Odesio]

I understand "Swamp Hobbit" was Francis Marion's nickname when he played D&D in high school.


That was pretty funny in a geeky historical kind of way.

Marc

[Johnny Angel]

They didn't take gnomes out of the first book out of glee over axing sacred cows (of which, there are many to be axed, IMO). They did it because they didn't know what to do with the damn little things. They either turn up as elves-lite or dwarves-lite or steampunk mechanics like WoW. So they're waiting 'till they figure out what to do with them. Sounds kinda like they'll be Feywild connected, somehow.
There is no historical or even literary precedent for gnomes the way that D&D presents them except for D&D, but it did set up certain expectations that they're now trashing.

Eh? All the vague previews are blurring together with all the hysteric assumptions being made all over the Internets.
Ala Andy Collins:

"We tried to fool ourselves into the fact that there was a hard pricing, but we started recognizing that with MIC, that we should look at them more holistically. There will not be magic item creation rules for DM’s as we realize that as professional game designers we don’t even get it right every time. We’re going to give you lots and lots of examples and suggest that you build it, test it, etc. "

[Odesio]

I realize that this is anecdotal but I cannot recall seeing anyone playing a gnome character since the end of the Thief/Illusionist multiclass from many years ago. On the other hand it seems as though you can't swing a dead cat in a D&D campaign without hitting a half-orc so I'm a little surprised they won't be included in the initial release of the next edition.

I don't mind Tieflings being a base race but I would have preferred it if they weren't an entire civilization of their own. Those Dragon-Kin I can do without but those lizardy non-human types are popular in some computer RPGs and MMORPGs.

I'm not going to be buying 4E when it comes out. As part of my new years resolution I promised not to buy any type of games in 2008.

Marc

[DocCathode]

Ah well, I'll always have 2.0

[Bosstone]

I realize that this is anecdotal but I cannot recall seeing anyone playing a gnome character since the end of the Thief/Illusionist multiclass from many years ago.What's fun about gnomes is that since so few people are willing to play them, the few that do are inspired. I've played at a table with a gnome wizard, and the guy was entertaining as hell. I've also toyed with the idea of making a gnome Knight and calling him Sir Didymus, complete with riding dog Ambrosius, but I haven't had the chance to use him yet.

As for magic item creation: the Magic Item Compendium is supposed to be a fairly complete preview of the direction they're taking magic items and magic item creation, and it certainly isn't just "make up your own shit" with no guidelines. It's simply that the hard mathematical formulas they tried to apply to value in 3.0 just didn't make sense a lot of the time.

[Bryan Ekers]

I've also toyed with the idea of making a gnome Knight and calling him Sir Didymus, complete with riding dog Ambrosius, but I haven't had the chance to use him yet.
I understand your reason for holding him back. I know I wouldn't send out a knight on a dog like that.

[What Exit?]

Terrifel, your Op and description of the ongoing and bizarre changes D&D makes with each new money grab edition, reinforces my belief I made the correct decision to stick with AD&D 1st Edition and just ref it with my own rule changes to fit either my own world or the early 4th age Middle Earth World where most of my campaigns have been.

Good review, I love the rat lady piece, seems like a good character for Futurama.

Mellon,
Jim

[Othar the Tooth Collector]

I made a campaign setting that had all the standard AD&D races, but changed around their origins to make it a sort of SF/fantasy hybrid. The origin story as the races knew it was that their creator god originally populated their world with three intelligent species, the dragons (who ruled the mountains and the air), elves (who ruled the seas), and the gnomes (who ruled the lands). The three species had wars, the dragons drove the gnomes underground, and the gnomes used magic to create new races to fight the dragons for them - their first attempts were the various goblinoid races (who were genetically unstable and whose fast population growth quickly led them to get out of control). Their second attempt was the dwarves. The dragons created the sahuagin by combining elf with shark DNA, and this drove the elves out of the seas and into the rivers and lakes, where a subspecies colonized the swamps and forests with the help of a slave race they made by combining elven genes with animals, the orcs. The dragons created fast-breeding mini-dragons to fight the gnomes, but never got around to using them as the gnomes were wiped out in their wars with the goblinoids, and these kobolds had their own civilization on the isolated continent that the dragons were originally breeding them. Halflings came from another plane after these wars were pretty much over, and a few hundred years before the campaign setting took place introduced humans as a slave race.

There was a twist with halflings, their extraplanar origins gave them limited teleportation powers but most of them could only blink a short distance if they were in extreme distress (they could not give natural birth and halfling infants teleported out of their mothers wombs when the contractions started). They were also mostly evil. They lied and said they created humans by combining halfling DNA with that of great apes. The other races suspect that the halflings abducted and used elven and dwarven DNA to create humans as humans are the only species that can cross-breed with elves, orcs, and dwarves, but in reality the humans were a population that had been in suspended animation for hundreds of thousands of years, and the elves and gnomes were two species of hominids that had descended from humans who had colonized other worlds in their distant past. Dragons were aliens, and the world was originally colonized by the three cooperatively, and the animosity began after a catastrophe caused them all to lose their technology and revert to a more primitive way of life.

I was pretty proud of it.

[Garula]

Pretty neat setting, Othar. I hope that most of that information was hidden to the players until they discovered it during the campaign. Preferably with plenty of misinformation thrown in.

I have mixed feelings about 4th edition. Frankly, I never cared much about the campaign setting as given, so I'm not too shaken up about the changes being discussed here. Unless I like the changes, I see no reason why I can't use the new rules with the old setting. I Think that rather than becoming swamp dwelling, the far bigger blasphemy is that halflings are now supposed to wear shoes. On the mechanics side, I like the idea of making feats a more integral part of character development, and the changes to the magic system seem solid. What I strongly dislike is the new skill system, universal stat increases at every level up, and the overall increase in power level. I also don't care for the new path system replacing prestige classes. Further, one of my favorite characters was an Artificer, so I'm kind of bummed that they're doing away with hard guidelines for item creation. Sure, it was far from perfect, (1000gp for an item that can heal an unlimited amount of HP? Cool!) but I had a lot of fun making myself into, basically, a modron version of Batman.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'll wait and see. Of *course* the new edition is a moneygrab. Wizards of the Coast is, despite their denials, an organization of people who are trying to get your money to line their own pockets. There's a name for people like that: they're a business! OOOOOOOO!

Really, I can't understand people who accuse WOTC of trying to earn money to pay their workers, like it's a bad thing. If they were cornering the market on wheat, I'd understand the outrage. But they're making a luxury entertainment product that you don't have to buy. They're trying to do it for a living, so they don't have to get jobs as transcriptionists or programmers or fry cooks or whatever. Good for them!

As for the changes, we'll see. Some of the changes look interesting to me; some of them make me say, "meh." Until I see the whole game, I don't feel qualified to make a judgment. I certainly won't be purchasing a preview product, but I have nothing against its buyers or its sellers.

Daniel

[Terrifel]

I suspect the change was made because the designers are for some reason squicky about assumptions of rape (as with the half-orc), and seem to think that no human would willingly pair off with an Evil creature like an evil dragon or a demon.Well, phooey. Like there aren't dozens of ways to address half-orcism without rape? "You are a magically created race that mingles the traits of orcs and men. Your ancestors were fashioned in a clay pit by an evil wizard played by Christopher Lee." There. Done.

And don't tell me there aren't any guys out there who'd willingly go for fanged, heavy-browed women. I've seen Klingon weddings. But, I'd rather the emo tieflings than the emo drow. Well, at least drow characters had the fact that their race was pretty much universally evil to play against. The tiefling race concept seems to want to have it both ways. "Oh, we are an outcast race, scorned and mistrusted due to our ancestry and appearance." But they apparently all choose to dress in ridiculously demonic-looking attire with spikes and flames and whatnot, so it's hard to feel much sympathy. The "outcast loner" bit really worked better when any given tiefling was in fact an outcast loner, and didn't have the option of hiking over to the local town's Little Pandemonium and purchasing custom-fitted hellforged armor at the local J. Orcus outlet.Clerics also are not going to be getting the necromancy schtick. Necromancers are being planned for future release, once they figure out how to make it work. As with other classes such as bards and illusionists, apparently.Oh, well in that case... er... um. Yeah, I can see the importance of that qualifier: "--as soon as they figure out how to make it work." And the first step toward that goal, of course, is to weaken all the available arcane necromancy spells. :smack: :smack: :smack: So what will they have to have to work with? Are they going to have their own entirely separate magic system, or what? Oh lord, I can already feel the pain from here.

[Othar the Tooth Collector]

Pretty neat setting, Othar. I hope that most of that information was hidden to the players until they discovered it during the campaign. Preferably with plenty of misinformation thrown in.


Yes, the players had limited access to background information. The theology was that there was a creator god who made the world and the three original races and two gods, one of chaos (Sil) and one of law (Ab). All the other gods were members of the intelligent races who were elevated to godhood by either Ab or Sil, who were engaged in a kind of cold war against each other for followers and for the ability to shape history. There were good and evil gods under both sides, and often the chaotic god of X would be what we would consider good while the lawful version was evil, and vice versa. The races knew all knew that the dwarves were created by gnomes, orcs by elves, kobolds by dragons, etc., but only the dragons knew they weren't created on that world and they weren't sharing the info. The creator god was actually the original global consciousness that inhabited a supercomputer in an adjacent subdimension that was intended to manage the colony, and it intentionally deleted large chunks of it's own memory to protect the colony from knowledge of their origins, and this led to it fracturing into Ab and Sil. Ab and Sil's pantheons were living minds that were uploaded into that computer.

All that anybody knew about the halflings was that they came from another "plane", but they were actually refugees from a vast war in the rest of the galaxy and they made a deal with Ab and Sil when they came to the world to not pass on that knowledge in exchange for being allowed to live there. All but a few halflings had no knowledge of how humans truly came to exist on their world and believed the official line that they are simply halflings modified to be bigger and stronger. The world has a conspiracy theory about the origin of humans that I mentioned in the original post, that the halflings actually created humans from elves, dwarves, orcs, and goblins and are keeping this secret because this would almost certainly lead to the dwarves and elves aligning against the halflings in a war of extermination (creating new races out of a different intelligent race is seen as an extremely evil act, and the dragons are loathed by everyone for using elven and gnome DNA to create the sahuagin and kobolds). The halflings actually secretly promote this theory to mask the truth, that they discovered an ancient structure far underground that had archaic homo sapiens preserved in a stasis field. When they woke up the original humans, they kept the first generations isolated on an island and would take their infants away so they would not hear from their parents their true origins, then exterminated the original humans once they had a sustainable population of slaves.

The gods have mixed feelings about humans, and none of them have been elevated into godhood (for fear they would be able to deduce their true origins if they had godlike intelligence). There are myths that the arrival of humans is a sign of the end times and that they will destroy the world, planted by the gods as a precaution in case they find it necessary to destroy them.

In my campaign, the group broke up before they could discover the truth. They had just got to the island where the first few generations of humans were bred but hadn't deciphered any of their writings yet.

[smiling bandit]

I'll wait and see. Of *course* the new edition is a moneygrab. Wizards of the Coast is, despite their denials, an organization of people who are trying to get your money to line their own pockets. There's a name for people like that: they're a business! OOOOOOOO!

It's complicated. WotC bought up TSR, and when they did so, they pretty much screwed everyone. Not that TSR was a gem; it had its own issues with incompetent management. But WotC should have known better. For example, they slashed old but solid settings. Birthright, Mystara, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and especially Planescape. In several cases, there seemed to almost be a hair of Sour Grapes about it, and they went a little out of their way to screw players of those settings by introducing rules which made it irritating to convert them. Some of this stuff got a little bit of support (Greyhawk, Dragonlance) and a couple others got fan-projects. Still, little to no support.

This PO'd a lot of people. It's hard to find those books anymore becasue they're not in print. Not supporting them is the kiss of death, and makes it extremely hard if not impossible to make a game of it. And what support they did get was pretty thin stuff.

Second, WotC has a bad habit of making rules so generic they're meaningless, and then other rules so specific they're useless. They toss in feats and Prestige Classes willy-nilly. OGL stuff is actually much better and arguably more balanced! They quite often fail to even check their own published material. I think by now they've got three prestige classes just for Loviatar, a minor god with a small following in Forgotten Realms! All the classes are similar and none terribly interesting. Point = none. They kept tossing in useless crap into every book they make to pad the page count. I can go into any TSR book and find pages upon pages of intersting and useful material. I go into WotC books and see pretty art and formatting, along with a little bit of material here and there.

Third, WotC has a nasty habit of releasing half-done stuff as new books. 3.5? :rolleyes: It wasn't done, had no real guidance. Sean K. Reynolds heard that the writers basically had no guidance at all from the management. They were just given a deadline and told to do something. With the result that they tossed something together. And some of it was decent and some of it sucked.

Likewise, WotC apparently thinks we're going to buy giant but really bad series of books or something. In order to keep their profits up, they charge high and make long lists of books with little-to-no use in most campaigns. You're paying for artwork and color printing, not useful material. And they make such bad books. I dont' mind paying for quality product, but they're stuff is just ridiculous. I don't need a book full of generic "fire stuff," and then another for generic "cold stuff"!

Then, when their sales dropped like rocks they dont know what's going on and try to respond with volume rather than content. They were incapable of seeing they cannibalized their own sales base.

Fourth, They have no idea what they're doing with their settings. They honestly seem afraid of actually changing things up, then make a mad rush to try and switch things around, which rather diorients their player base. They first hit superficial changes, but can't seem to make any deeper ones which would actually help. To be blunt, they writing staff seems to have no idea what they're doing from one day to the next.

On a relate note, I've noticed a LOT of turnover at WotC. This somewhat makes me think the problem may be that they're not keeping people around, and that may be causing a lot of the mess.

Fifth, they keep releasing this kind of crap. Obviously, they're not forcing us to buy it, but the insult inherent in the offer is there. It's a book which offers you precisely DICK, and they want to charge you $20 bucks for it. It also suggests they're so desperate they've decided to whore out their design documents, and is rather pathetic and ignoble.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It's complicated.I wrote out a long snarky post full of line-by-line refutations. I hate that kind of post. Suffice it to say that I think you're way off base, seeming to think WOTC has a duty to make the kinds of materials you like, and really unaware of the business basis for their decisions. Suffice it to say that I think I'm much more educated on this topic than you.

Daniel

[DocCathode]

For good reason: they were money sinks. Yeah, they were awesome, but they were money sinks. Remember: WOTC is a business. THey're not a charity or a nonprofit arts group. If you want ars gratia artis, start your own gaming nonprofit.

What if I want Ars Magica gratis?

[Lightray]

Oh, well in that case... er... um. Yeah, I can see the importance of that qualifier: "--as soon as they figure out how to make it work." And the first step toward that goal, of course, is to weaken all the available arcane necromancy spells. :smack: :smack: :smack: So what will they have to have to work with? Are they going to have their own entirely separate magic system, or what? Oh lord, I can already feel the pain from here.
We've been told that the Book of Nine Swords is a good indication of what 4e will look like, and that spells and such will be vastly simplified. I suspect that spells are going to look a lot like the B9S maneuvers look -- and also divided into "at will", "per encounter", "per day", etc. abilities. So not only no entirely separate magic system, but maybe not a magic system separate from other systems, at all.

And they're not weakening the available arcane necromancy spells -- it's just that wizards (and warlocks, etc.) won't have access to many necromancy spells. So they won't be in the first books, at all. When they later come out with a necromancer class, there'll be necromancy spells in those books.

I wrote out a long snarky post full of line-by-line refutations. I hate that kind of post. Suffice it to say that I think you're way off base, seeming to think WOTC has a duty to make the kinds of materials you like, and really unaware of the business basis for their decisions. Suffice it to say that I think I'm much more educated on this topic than you.
Eh, the easy refutation is "TSR lost money on every campaign setting book they put out" (at least, at the end of the TSR era). Including... Birthright, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and especially Planescape.

WotC is not only not obliged to support those, but would seem to be pretty darn stupid if they picked up money-losers again. Moreover, farming out their intellectual property to others really did nothing much for their business, either. I don't think they really know what to do with all those settings, really.

Nonetheless, they are in business, and expecting them to go back to stuff that lost money is rather silly. What they've found that makes money is... books with lots of Prestige Classes, even if they duplicate PrCs already published elsewhere.

And, yes, their book sales have declined. Because, seriously, what else is 3.5 missing. The damn thing is just about done. They've covered enough ground. Time for something new.

Ironically, for the complaint of WotC not changing up their settings enough... Forgotten Realms is due to get a complete overhaul and a jump forward on timeline in 4e. That would seem to address smiling bandit's complaint on that account. Their doing so has Internet FR fans howling for blood.

There'll always be someone who hates whatever decision they make.

What if I want Ars Magica gratis?
You're over a year too late, then. Atlas Games was giving away free Ars Magica 4th edition (pdf) up until their 5th edition came out.

I already had two copies, so it was of no use to me, and so I didn't download it.

[Miller]

Ironically, for the complaint of WotC not changing up their settings enough... Forgotten Realms is due to get a complete overhaul and a jump forward on timeline in 4e. That would seem to address smiling bandit's complaint on that account. Their doing so has Internet FR fans howling for blood.

He knows. He's one of them. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=447736)

[Lightray]

For everyone's edification, here's what Mike Mearls posted over at RPG.net as the things people complained about that 4e is supposed to fix:

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.

The original post is here (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8303276&postcount=98), buried in a thread gone seriously whacko, and with only a post or two more by Mearls (including one earlier with the noted weird analogy). Although I cross-posted this information since it bears on what changes they're covering in Races & Classes, let's keep their flame-fest over there, please.

Also, the online Dragon has a new article up about changes coming to the Forgotten Realms...

[Terrifel]

I wrote out a long snarky post full of line-by-line refutations. I hate that kind of post. Suffice it to say that I think you're way off base, seeming to think WOTC has a duty to make the kinds of materials you like, and really unaware of the business basis for their decisions. Suffice it to say that I think I'm much more educated on this topic than you.

DanielThat's an interesting perspective. What is the business basis for WotC's decisions, if not to make the kinds of materials players like? I am intrigued by your "no customer feedback" business model.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

That's an interesting perspective. What is the business basis for WotC's decisions, if not to make the kinds of materials players like? I am intrigued by your "no customer feedback" business model.
Given that I've spent several years as a moderator on the largest unofficial D&D fan site, it's untrue that I support a "no customer feedback" model. Rather, I believe that the ultimate customer feedback for a luxury product is the consumer's dollar. Given WOTC's tremendous success at revitalizing the D&D brand and increasing its market saturation, I'd say the feedback has been very positive.

They've made some recent changes that I don't like. I've stopped purchasing products. That's some significant feedback. If I weren't so lazy, I'd send an email to Mike Mearls et al., after reading everything I could find on the reasons for the changes I don't like, describing in polite, measured tones what changes I don't like and suggesting alternatives to those changes. I would send only one email, and I would recognize that they're making the game for millions of people, not just for me, and I would therefore expect them to refuse to make any of the changes I'd like. That's how mass markets work.

Many of the complaints I see about 4e strike me as histrionic, irrrational, and uninformed. That's not what useful consumer feedback looks like.

Daniel

[smiling bandit]

I think you're missing my points. I don't mind them not wanting to publish certain products if they think they can't make money on it. What irritates me is that they won't sell them or make them available for other poeple to use, outside of Ravenloft.

Likewise, I explicitly noted their schizophrenic attitude toward setting changing. I'm not a fdan of their 4th edition setting changes, but they don't seem to comprehend that you can change something incrementally without a total overhaul. Nor are they the only developer with that problem.

I think it looks like they botched the design of 4th. I also think they identified the problems correctly. The two positions are not contradictory.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think you're missing my points. I don't mind them not wanting to publish certain products if they think they can't make money on it. What irritates me is that they won't sell them or make them available for other poeple to use, outside of Ravenloft.
Why do you think they should do this--that is, how do you see it as being in their best interest, and why do you think you understand their best interest better than they do?
Likewise, I explicitly noted their schizophrenic attitude toward setting changing. I'm not a fdan of their 4th edition setting changes, but they don't seem to comprehend that you can change something incrementally without a total overhaul. Nor are they the only developer with that problem.You sound as though you're unfamiliar with 3.5, which was an incremental change without being a total overhaul. This is a new edition, and like each previous edition, it will be a total overhaul. It might suck--generally the changes from 1st to 2nd are viewed as sucktastic (I really got my chops playing 2nd edition as soon as it came out, so I'm not qualified to judge)--but expecting it not to be a complete overhaul is odd.
I think it looks like they botched the design of 4th. I also think they identified the problems correctly. The two positions are not contradictory.
Sure. It's the idea that they're insulting you, or sabotaging your play, that is irrational. When you stick to pointing out specific changes that you don't like, that's fine.

Daniel

[Terrifel]

Given that I've spent several years as a moderator on the largest unofficial D&D fan site, it's untrue that I support a "no customer feedback" model. Rather, I believe that the ultimate customer feedback for a luxury product is the consumer's dollar. Given WOTC's tremendous success at revitalizing the D&D brand and increasing its market saturation, I'd say the feedback has been very positive.

They've made some recent changes that I don't like. I've stopped purchasing products. That's some significant feedback. If I weren't so lazy, I'd send an email to Mike Mearls et al., after reading everything I could find on the reasons for the changes I don't like, describing in polite, measured tones what changes I don't like and suggesting alternatives to those changes. I would send only one email, and I would recognize that they're making the game for millions of people, not just for me, and I would therefore expect them to refuse to make any of the changes I'd like. That's how mass markets work.

Many of the complaints I see about 4e strike me as histrionic, irrrational, and uninformed. That's not what useful consumer feedback looks like.

DanielPerhaps not, but responding to complaints with: "Guess what? They're a business! OOOOOOOO! If you don't like the game, don't buy it! Why do you think they have a duty to make the kind of game you like?" isn't very useful either, is it? You could drop the the same rebuttal to most threads in Cafe Society, and it'd be just as appropriate:

"Wow, Sucky Movie 2 really sucked. Why does Sucky Pictures keep making such sucky movies?"

"Guess what? They're a business! OOOOOOOO! If you don't like their movies, don't buy a ticket!" etc., etc. Repeat as needed in as many threads as possible. See how helpful that is?

I don't see that we're doing anything different here. We're talking up the parts of the game we like, and bitching about the parts we don't like. This will never, ever change. People will never stop complaining about D&D. I've quit buying it, and I'm still complaining about it. Don't be such a killjoy.

Maybe you've been moderating on a D&D fan site too long, if criticism of the game gets under your skin so badly. Seriously, I'm pretty sure WotC doesn't want you to have an aneurysm on their account.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

aneurysm
:dubious:

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

:dubious:
Lemme elaborate.

First, no aneurysm. That's the sort of histrionic, uninformed, and irrational stuff I've grown used to dealing with from many folks who hate 4e. Not all: many.

Second, the comment about the moneygrab wasn't made in response to the OP: it was made in response to someone who called the new edition a money grab. That's histrionic and irrational, but at least it's informed: pretty much every business's product is a money grab, to the extent that this one is.

Daniel

[Terrifel]

Lemme elaborate.

First, no aneurysm. That's the sort of histrionic, uninformed, and irrational stuff I've grown used to dealing with from many folks who hate 4e. Not all: many.

Second, the comment about the moneygrab wasn't made in response to the OP: it was made in response to someone who called the new edition a money grab. That's histrionic and irrational, but at least it's informed: pretty much every business's product is a money grab, to the extent that this one is.

DanielI don't hate 4e! I simply have not been persuaded to buy 4e. When the game comes out, and everybody else tells me that 4e is brilliant and wonderful and a panacea to all earthly ills, then... well, I still won't buy 4e, because by that time 5e will be in the works, and so on.

I don't think anyone here has argued that WotC shouldn't make money off their product. I think people want to spend money on D&D, but

Crap. Work calls--- I continue this thought later.

[MrDibble]

I understand your reason for holding him back. I know I wouldn't send out a knight on a dog like that.
Bravo, sir, well played - didn't want that so go unremarked.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't think anyone here has argued that WotC shouldn't make money off their product.
What Exit called it a money-grab, which is a really weird term for a product intended to make money. And Starving Artist has suggested that WOTC is trying to insult him and sabotage his gameplay. These are the kinds of criticisms that I don't think are reasonable; I don't think there was anything in the OP that I found objectionable, even though I don't agree with every one of the points.

Daniel

[Merijeek]

Then, when their sales dropped like rocks they dont know what's going on and try to respond with volume rather than content. They were incapable of seeing they cannibalized their own sales base.


While I generally do my best to disagree with you on everything, the "Dungeon Survival Guide" is a perfect example. It's a $20 book that, near as I can tell, looks at currently published WotC adventures and says, "For this adventure, if you're a fighter, you'll want to be packing a [fill in item or feat here]."

Crap like that should be a giveaway pamphlet.

I know it gets said every time, but I really think that unless WotC fools enough people into giving them a $10-$15 monthly fee they've cut their own throats.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

Continuing on my previous post...

Remember, back in the days of 2nd edition when TSR released the 'class kits'? I'm not talking about the kit books, I'm talking about the plastic box-type things that contained a little blurb on running a thief, a single thief miniature, a "player's screen" and a bunch of other silly junk like that?

That's when I knew TSR was truly f'zucked.

-Joe

[Johnny Angel]

Remember, back in the days of 2nd edition when TSR released the 'class kits'? I'm not talking about the kit books, I'm talking about the plastic box-type things that contained a little blurb on running a thief, a single thief miniature, a "player's screen" and a bunch of other silly junk like that?
I remember the lunchboxes. Actually, I would love to own them now. But at the time I couldn't see paying for them just on the grounds that they were stupid.

This controversy over business practices manifests itself in a pretty predictable arc. Somebody complains about the company money grubbing, and then someone comes along and points out that businesses are required to make money. That's true, and it's also true that you don't have to pay into a business that you feel is not doing right by you. But let's not run to the strange conclusion that maximizing profits is the only relevant moral obligation a business has, or that withholding money is the only legitimate protest. There is a moral dimension to the apparent tendency of WotC to use the loyalty of its user base as leverage against them.

I remember the howls of protest over the first announcement of 4th edition, because it was clear that it was already a fairly well developed project by the time it was announced, and that meant that WotC reps had in fact been lying to D&D fans about the fact that they were already working on 4th edition. WotC can't exactly win here because as soon as they announce 4.0 they kill the 3.5 market. The fans also lose because they're investing in the meantime in a system which is quickly bound for obsolescence. So, everyone pretty much has to eat that one all around -- WotC had to lie and eat the wrath of the fans, hoping they can smooth it out in the long run, and the fans had to eat the betrayal and waste of their own money. Once the announcement was made, they still had 3.5 materials coming out, and I'll bet the sales for those were troubled, but at least one supplement was a 3.5 rules compendium, which at least has the attraction that it caps off the buyer's collection. But now they still have to stay afloat, and they have no crunch to sell that's ready for market, so they're selling a book that talks about what that crunch would look like when it comes. It is in effect an ad that they're asking you to pay for, but what else can they do in the meantime?

[smiling bandit]

Why do you think they should do this--that is, how do you see it as being in their best interest, and why do you think you understand their best interest better than they do?

Because it ain't getting them any money, and they have no interest in the settings anyway. Sure, they weren't big sellers solo, but add them up and you have a lot of players. Plus, TSR itself wasn't making much $$ towards the end, and WotC might have been able to do better.

They COULD have sold off those properties, or even offered them as OGL. Or even split the difference and gotten free fan writers. By offering some support, theyd have had more variety and more defined settings to sell to. And while you say those setting books didn't make any cash for TSR, I haven't heard that a lot of WotC later material did either. D20 virtually stopped selling after a while.

You sound as though you're unfamiliar with 3.5, which was an incremental change without being a total overhaul. This is a new edition, and like each previous edition, it will be a total overhaul. It might suck--generally the changes from 1st to 2nd are viewed as sucktastic (I really got my chops playing 2nd edition as soon as it came out, so I'm not qualified to judge)--but expecting it not to be a complete overhaul is odd.

OK bud, by this point you're just willfully refusing to comprehend.

Settings can and should change over time. But look at Forgotten Realms. The problem is that they don't really do this. They mostly kept everything the exact same, or dropped in a handful of changes in places where few, if any, people played. And then they never supported the changes with any new material.

I don't particularly have problems with the level of changes in 3.5, which si a totally different issue. What bothers me about it is that it simply wasn't a finished product, and not one with a serious design behind it. Look, these nitwits were so moronic, they failed to update the damned book from the 3.0 errata.

Moreover, they made a number of changes which are mathematically incorrect. For example, Keen no longer stacking with Improved Crit. In a number of other cases, they limited spells not because it made the game more interesting or more "balanced," but because people actually used them to do things which were interesting and inventive - and which didn't fit in with their "kill the monsters, grab the treasure, move to the next room" concept.

[Bryan Ekers]

Bravo, sir, well played - didn't want that so go unremarked.
Actually, I read that in Reader's Digest twenty years ago and was just saving it until now.

[Terrifel]

What Exit called it a money-grab, which is a really weird term for a product intended to make money. And Starving Artist has suggested that WOTC is trying to insult him and sabotage his gameplay. These are the kinds of criticisms that I don't think are reasonable; I don't think there was anything in the OP that I found objectionable, even though I don't agree with every one of the points.

DanielI think the key to the "money-grab" objection is simply that What Exit? already paid for his D&D core rulebooks. If you don't like a game supplement or a setting, you can simply not buy it, and continue to buy the ones that appeal to you. But a whole new edition demands another purchase if you wish to use any other new product. If the company kept producing old edition material alongside the new edition, no one would complain of a "money-grab." But a new edition is like digital TV: you bought the old set on the understanding that the medium was sound, and then the company decides that your service isn't worth it anymore. The current business model appears to guarantee that longtime players will have support for their investment nullified after an unspecified time. At least when you buy other perishables, you are provided with an expiration date.


However, What Exit? claims to have stood fast by 1st edition all these years, so surely that earns some points for adhering to your "complain by not buying" policy. I don't see where Starving Artist made any comments against WotC-- was this in other threads?

Perhaps such attitudes are unreasonable, but then: Gaming isn't reasonable. There is nothing remotely reasonable about meeting with the same group of people every Saturday night for years and staying up til 6:30 AM pretending to be elves. It's a social ritual, one that can last for years or decades. D&D encourages people to get together, establish friendships and participate in an intricate shared escapist fantasy. So why is it so baffling that people who invest time, emotion and money in this recreation react badly when the game suddenly changes under their feet?

[Terrifel]

Actually, I read that in Reader's Digest twenty years ago and was just saving it until now.I am in awe of whatever else must be stockpiled inside your head... waiting.

[kidchameleon]

As a member of the gaming industry, I've noticed that few fans are aware of what the masses really like. I can't say what WotC sees, but we pay attention to the rabid fans on the internet and at cons, but they don't make up the majority of sales. That loyal contingent is good for continually expanding the customer base, but the products they want frequently don't appeal to folks who aren't as immersed in the game. Plus everybody has their own favorite pet, many of which are very obscure. I just go where the sales guys find the money at.

[Lightray]

Because it ain't getting them any money, and they have no interest in the settings anyway. Sure, they weren't big sellers solo, but add them up and you have a lot of players. Plus, TSR itself wasn't making much $$ towards the end, and WotC might have been able to do better.

They COULD have sold off those properties, or even offered them as OGL. Or even split the difference and gotten free fan writers. By offering some support, theyd have had more variety and more defined settings to sell to. And while you say those setting books didn't make any cash for TSR, I haven't heard that a lot of WotC later material did either. D20 virtually stopped selling after a while.
WotC licensed several of their old settings -- Ravenloft, Dragonlance, and gave "official" status to websites for others such as Dark Sun.

Their goal, in so doing, was to make $. Plus, fans would have been able to enjoy new products in those settings. Their plan was to make $ by selling more core books -- PHB, DMG, MMs.

Although WotC has been very tight-lipped about the results, it apparently did not work for them. They do not appear to have made any $ from licensing out those settings -- or, at least, not enough $ for them to justify giving away control of their intellectual property.

See, that's the thing they think is valuable -- their intellectual property. It's the reason why IP is excluded from the SRD -- no mention of mind flayers, beholders, etc., and spells and such that reference IP are name-changed (e.g., all the Bigby's Hand spells are no longer hands of Bigby, since he's IP).

Even if their IP is idle -- as with, say, Birthright -- it is still valuable as an asset to WotC. And quite a few of their IP aren't idle -- Dragonlance, for example, makes $ hand over fist for its novellizations. Licensing that out weakens their control over the IP, and threatens that cash flow or asset value. Not worth it.

There's also the suspicion that by licensing out their old settings, WotC only created competition for the setting books they were trying to sell. That's something that did in TSR -- they kept making new settings (which don't make as much money, anyway, in comparison to core books), and those setting books competed with each other and further diluted their sales. They fragmented their own market!

Additionally, the licenses just haven't seen much success. Ravensloft licensed products sort of petered out. Dragonlance soldiered on, but with complaints that it did or did not follow whatever novel canon fans liked or despised. The web stuff like Dark Sun was embroiled in criticisms of their updated rules.

I can't imagine, were I a WotC staffer, ever wanting to license out old properties -- the only result seems to be more fan whinging and complaints, more work and hassle for not so much $, and potential detriment to the IP value which WotC holds.

[What Exit?]

What Exit called it a money-grab, which is a really weird term for a product intended to make money. And Starving Artist has suggested that WOTC is trying to insult him and sabotage his gameplay. These are the kinds of criticisms that I don't think are reasonable; I don't think there was anything in the OP that I found objectionable, even though I don't agree with every one of the points.

Daniel
Daniel, I made a little joke, I do that a lot. My jokes have some truth in them, but "Money Grab" with a line through it should have been intended as the slightly snarky joke it obviously was. I did not rant, I did not bitch about the changes. I have not played often enough for well over a decade to really care. Honestly, the only thing that got me to post to this thread was an Op with the words “Swamp Hobbits” by Terrifel who I always enjoy reading and talking to.

I think I have maybe two second edition books and nothing after. I am reasonable sure, I will never buy another book on D&D unless I find some more 1st Edition books in a used bookstore.

BTW: Money grab is exactly what it is. They are attempting to make a profit and they feel their best business model to continually reinvent itself to encourage larger sales. They don’t need to apologize for it and they should not need a defender. Think of me as like a music aficionado that complains about all the later music formats after vinyl and while you’re at it get off my lawn. ;)

Jim

[Terrifel]

Honestly, the only thing that got me to post to this thread was an Op with the words “Swamp Hobbits” by Terrifel who I always enjoy reading and talking to. :) Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad to hear it, and I apologize for presuming to speak for you earlier. I will definitely try to work the phrase "Swamp Hobbits" into my conversations more often.

Also, when I eventually complete my exciting 1st edition module, Descent into the Depths of the 191st Street Station, I will send you a complimentary copy. I feel that my new race of subterranean chaotic evil rat-worshipping bag ladies has a lot of potential. I'm tentatively calling them the Frau.

[smiling bandit]

WotC licensed several of their old settings -- Ravenloft, Dragonlance, and gave "official" status to websites for others such as Dark Sun.

Their goal, in so doing, was to make $. Plus, fans would have been able to enjoy new products in those settings. Their plan was to make $ by selling more core books -- PHB, DMG, MMs.

Well, they may have thought so, but they were never going to make $$ with that kind of half-hearted approach. I think their mistake was that they didn't work out a deal with established groups (mostly). Instead, they got a lot of people who really weren't experienced.

Secondly, they mostly brought out base books, ubt not much supporting material thereafter. RPG's is a marathon, not a sprint.

Even if their IP is idle -- as with, say, Birthright -- it is still valuable as an asset to WotC. And quite a few of their IP aren't idle -- Dragonlance, for example, makes $ hand over fist for its novellizations. Licensing that out weakens their control over the IP, and threatens that cash flow or asset value. Not worth it.

Actually, I don't think it is a valuable asset. I think it's a fake asset. That is, they valued it at so much moolah, but they have no hope of actually getting that value out of it.

There's also the suspicion that by licensing out their old settings, WotC only created competition for the setting books they were trying to sell. That's something that did in TSR -- they kept making new settings (which don't make as much money, anyway, in comparison to core books), and those setting books competed with each other and further diluted their sales. They fragmented their own market!

That I doubt, though I've heard the argument. It's an excuse, IMHO, for them putting out poorly developed setting books.

Additionally, the licenses just haven't seen much success. Ravensloft licensed products sort of petered out. Dragonlance soldiered on, but with complaints that it did or did not follow whatever novel canon fans liked or despised. The web stuff like Dark Sun was embroiled in criticisms of their updated rules.

I can't imagine, were I a WotC staffer, ever wanting to license out old properties -- the only result seems to be more fan whinging and complaints, more work and hassle for not so much $, and potential detriment to the IP value which WotC holds.

Well, I thought said licensed products were pretty bad, worse than even WotC's material.

[E-Sabbath]

Actually, the current version of the Dungeon Survival Guide, Dungeonscape, was a fairly nice GM's tool. Some minor utilities, mostly brought over from the 3.0 Arms and Equipment guide, sure, but I rather liked some of the perspective it brought. Dungeons have grown out of fashion in 3e... mostly things seem to involve fighting PCs as NPCs rather than monsters.

[Lobohan]

I've been a player for decades now and the same rants came around when it went to 2.0 and 3.0 and 3.5. The same money grab histrionics and flailing of arms.

3.0 came out in 2000 and 3.5 in 2003. It's been five years. Do you think that with the millions of games that have happened in those five years that maybe, just maybe been able to suss out improvements in the product?

People are upset that you have to spend $150 every five years on a hobby that gives thousands of hours of fun in that time? That's insane. How much do you spend on Starbucks every year? Roleplaying is among the cheapest most fulfilling hobbies around. Find me anything except hiking that is as fun and as cheap.

The classes are broken in 3.x. I'm sorry if your favorite character is a combat powerhouse now. It isn't good game design to have one character oodles better than everyone else, while another is useless most of the time and on his best day is as tough as the cleric. The combat system is lightyears beyond 2.0, but it kept too much of the old stuff to appease the "no-changes, evar!" crowd.

The proposed differences in 4.0 are very exciting to me. As a GM, I want the players to be able to have action movie style heroics and not be mired down in a long useless combat. Do you like resolving fireball damage against 17 mixed enemies on a battlefield? If so, why?

In no order:
Saving throws now being static numbers, will speed combat significantly. This is a good thing.

Fighters being "sticky", meaning they can deny movement across the battlefield. They can protect an ally so that if an foe ignores the fighter and attacks his charge, the fighter can smack him. That's good design. It' incorporates the "Agro" principle of MMORPGs and puts it in an elegant and refined system that doesn't make anyone do anything they don't want to. They fighter doesn't have some silly ability to make others attack him, he just makes it cost something to attack anyone else. That's beautiful.

The ability for all classes to take a "second wind" that will hea" themselves. That's awesome. It's heroic. John McClaine did it, and now you, Thorgar Ironshanks can do the same. Pick yourself up and save the princess, they haven't defeated you yet!

The view that everyone is supposed to be good in a fight. Everyone has a job. There are different ways to do it.

I love the simplified skill system as used in the new Star Wars game. It lets characters get to the business of adventuring and not obsess over whether so and so is a cross class skill.

Unified Base Attack Bonuses and Saves and Defenses. In the current incarnation, everyone is pretty much the same at first level and the differences get out of whack at higher levels. Every tried to play a 35th level character? It doesn't work. Now the classes, races, and decisions the player makes crafting the character define the differences. And 15 levels from now they will have the same relative abilities, they'll just be tougher on an absolute scale. That's awesome!

Special Abilities are changed to At Will, Per Encounter and Per Day. Simple and elegant.

There are a lot more, but I have to get back to work.

Look, if you hate a role-playing decision they've made, fine. But you can change that. No one can tell a GM how to run his world. But as far as a pre-packaged system goes, 4th is looking very promising.

And to the dude playing 1st edition... how the heck did you find a group? :D

[MrDibble]

Another thread that makes me glad I play homebrew now. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably still buy product, 'cos I like the art and stuff (that's why I own boxes of Planescape stuff, too), but use them for gaming? Not a chance.

kidchameleon, do you think it's people like me who skew the sales guys' angle away from the fans?

[Quartz]

You sound as though you're unfamiliar with 3.5, which was an incremental change without being a total overhaul. This is a new edition, and like each previous edition, it will be a total overhaul. It might suck--generally the changes from 1st to 2nd are viewed as sucktastic (I really got my chops playing 2nd edition as soon as it came out, so I'm not qualified to judge)--but expecting it not to be a complete overhaul is odd.

1e and 3e were radical products. Complete changes. I saw 2e as a complete overhaul of all the tweaks for 1e with gobs of new stuff thrown in (e.g. the Bard) and I'm hoping for the same with 4e with respect to 3e.

[sturmhauke]

I will reserve final judgment until I can look at the damn book. I really cannot understand why people are all up in arms about it one way or the other when there's nothing concrete to look at. Although I will say that a friend of mine has the Book of Nine Swords (the one that's supposed to be a sort of 4th Ed. preview for 3.5), and there is some pretty cool stuff in there.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

OK bud, by this point you're just willfully refusing to comprehend.
:D I love it someone, astonished by my refusal to submit before the awesome power of their argument, decides that the only possible explanation is willfulness! Yes, of course that's it.

What Exit, fair enough; I'll get off your lawn, and I won't take your joke seriously next time. Terrifel, I for some reason always get Starving Artist and Smiling Bandit confused; I meant the latter. Sorry for the confusion! I, however, see no moral element whatsoever to WOTC's actions: they're selling a luxury product, and people can buy it or not as fits their whim.

Daniel

[Terrifel]

One thing I just noticed!

Earlier in the thread, Lightray suggested that my use of the term "anime-ization" regarding the evolving art direction of D&D was a mischaracterization. In my defense, I would like to point out that the sword the guy is holding on the cover of the Races and Classes preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0786948019) has a blade that appears to be about nine inches wide. How is that anything but a Japanese cartoon blade? That's not a sword; it's a spatula. A glowing, runic battle spatula.

[What Exit?]

And to the dude playing 1st edition... how the heck did you find a group? :D
One guy is my oldest friend, I have known him since 1977. Not too long after I started playing with the original small format 3 book D&D set. He plays a lot more than I do and will buy 4th edition. The other regular player is also our age and has been playing on and off with us for 20+ years. I would like one more player, but I don't hang out with gamers anymore.

Left Hand of Dorkness : Cool.

Jim

[Merijeek]

Actually, the current version of the Dungeon Survival Guide, Dungeonscape, was a fairly nice GM's tool. Some minor utilities, mostly brought over from the 3.0 Arms and Equipment guide, sure, but I rather liked some of the perspective it brought. Dungeons have grown out of fashion in 3e... mostly things seem to involve fighting PCs as NPCs rather than monsters.

Nope, I'm talking about this piece o' crap. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/97807869)

-Joe

[Merijeek]

1e and 3e were radical products. Complete changes. I saw 2e as a complete overhaul of all the tweaks for 1e with gobs of new stuff thrown in (e.g. the Bard) and I'm hoping for the same with 4e with respect to 3e.

In that case, bad news, homey. Not only could our playtesting fighter cast spells (essentially), but our Cleric couldn't heal.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

The classes are broken in 3.x.

Again, all I can go by is, you know, playtesting, but the Ranger in our six person group could have taken all five of the rest of us pretty easily.

-Joe

[smiling bandit]

:D I love it someone, astonished by my refusal to submit before the awesome power of their argument, decides that the only possible explanation is willfulness! Yes, of course that's it.

Or it could be that you're simply not using whatever reading comprehension God gave you and aren't even responding to the points. I'd call it a strawman, but it didn't even rise to that level. I don't mean this in some emo "you just don't understand!!!11" level. I mean you literally did not understand.

[Ludovic]

Again, all I can go by is, you know, playtesting, but the Ranger in our six person group could have taken all five of the rest of us pretty easily.

-JoeNow if any class should be given more "well-rounded" super-duper-i-can-do-anything-a-little-bit spellcasting abilities, it should be the Ranger. Now if -- IF -- they HAVE to be a spellcaster, at least give them some, you know, spellcasting abilities. Either that or buff their survivability (their attacks are okay.) Cause a dual-class Fighter-Cleric is better at everything a 3.x Ranger does that doesn't involve tracking someone or happening to run into one of the 1-5 things you really really hate and hope the DM puts you up against :confused:

But taking on everyone in a 6 person group....can you say overboard with the rebalancing?

[CandidGamera]

I don't care for the MMO-ization of D&D. I don't like the adoption of the aggro mechanic, I don't like the downplaying of magical items, I don't like the homogenization of classes with all the self-heals and pseudo-spellcasting abilities. I don't like the adoption of the dragonborn and tiefling as core races because they scored better with some focus group. I don't like the loss of wide swaths of the spell variety of the system - necromancy, enchantment, etc. I *really* don't like what they're doing to FR. I don't like the general cosmology changes. I don't like the game seems to be acquiring a specific flavor and losing the generic fantasy feel.

There are some positives - I like that the Vancian magic system is being downplayed and supplemented. (It's not quite gone, but .. nearly.) I like the idea of a streamlined skill system.

And that's about it, really. I intend to buy the 4e core books so I can give the system as a whole a fair shake. But what I've read so far doesn't sound fun, and doesn't sound adaptable to my home-brewed campaign setting.

Then again, I've never run into most of the problems that they're claiming 3e had, either.

[Ludovic]

I don't like the game seems to be acquiring a specific flavor and losing the generic fantasy feel.
Ironically, that's one of the few things I like about 1.0 (I call the explosion of stuff around the Unearthed Arcana era 1.5) It had a specific flavor. Now, the flavor was what we would call "generic fantasy" but the feel was very specific to the archetypical fantasy setting. Although it was going more generic as time went on, 3.x made a clear break and you could easily adapt it to any fantasy setting you wanted, not the ages-old archetypical D+D one. Which is okay by me, as you could still adapt it to the specific old-school D+D feel.

But I too don't like the specific flavor it's developing into: if I wanted to play a MMO-flavored game, I'd play an MMO. I don't like the aggro concept: I like the combat system as it is: if you're involved in so much combat that you waste significant gaming time with slow game mechanics, you might as WELL be playing an MMO because you're rollplaying instead of roleplaying.

The difference with MMO's is that you lose the wonder of everything when everything is so widespread and copied. Dozens of races and classes means that nothing is special. Craploads of +3-5 items means there's no room for sagas, no room for an epic feel, and no sense of adventure left in an adventure.

[Johnny Angel]

I mentioned this in a previous D&D thread, but I think the problem with magic items is not that your character has too many of them, but that if the wealth-by-level is taking optimal configurations into account, then you're kind of screwed with a less-than-optimal configuration. Why keep that Bag of Tricks when you need the money to buy the biggest Gauntlets of Strength you can get? Instead of a bunch of interesting magic items, you end up with genric magic items that serve to boost your most essential combat stats. I'm interested to see how 4th edition handles this.

The complaint about iterative attacks slowing down combat is puzzling to me, possibly just because of the way it's talked about. I get the impression that they think players hate having to make attacks more often. Surely the real issue is that by applying a cumulative -5 to each subsequent attack the iterative attacks quickly become excercises in futility at those levels in which iterative attacks start really kicking in.

[What Exit?]

I mentioned this in a previous D&D thread, but I think the problem with magic items is not that your character has too many of them, but that if the wealth-by-level is taking optimal configurations into account, then you're kind of screwed with a less-than-optimal configuration. Why keep that Bag of Tricks when you need the money to buy the biggest Gauntlets of Strength you can get? Instead of a bunch of interesting magic items, you end up with genric magic items that serve to boost your most essential combat stats. I'm interested to see how 4th edition handles this.
I'm confused by this part of your post. If that is a perceived problem, then it is up to the Ref to inflate the cost of items like Gauntlets. We are still talking about D&D with Paper & Pencil and a DM, aren't we?

What rules indicate that magic items need to be available for sale or that the prices listed in the book are anything more than a rough guide?

Jim

[flight]

Fighters being "sticky", meaning they can deny movement across the battlefield. They can protect an ally so that if an foe ignores the fighter and attacks his charge, the fighter can smack him. That's good design. It' incorporates the "Agro" principle of MMORPGs and puts it in an elegant and refined system that doesn't make anyone do anything they don't want to. They fighter doesn't have some silly ability to make others attack him, he just makes it cost something to attack anyone else. That's beautiful.
It's also called "Devoted Defender" and was a prestige class in 3.0. Apparently it is an ugly duckling that just became a swan, because they thought it unimportant enough that they didn't bother to port it over to 3.5 (or the feats that gave him the abilities you describe).

[Johnny Angel]

I'm confused by this part of your post. If that is a perceived problem, then it is up to the Ref to inflate the cost of items like Gauntlets. We are still talking about D&D with Paper & Pencil and a DM, aren't we?
Given that you're still on 1st edition, and so presumably hammered out your own house rules 20 years ago, you may have forgotten that designing, implementing and playtesting rules changes requires time. You can take some shortcuts by simply not worrying about whether such changes are arbitrary or heavy-handed, but it still takes time to make sure the information about the changes is available to your players since it will differ from what's available from their own ready reference sources.

What rules indicate that magic items need to be available for sale or that the prices listed in the book are anything more than a rough guide?
The 3.0-3.5 DMGs have an elaborate system for calculating the GP value of a magic item, and this value also serves as a measure of relative power. PCs and NPCs are allotted a certain GP value in wealth according to level out of which they buy their equipment, and that GP value in equipment is treated as part of the overall power level of the character. Availability of magic items is determined by a rating given for each town of the maximum GP value of gear purchasable there, which is in itself a function of size category.

If your question is really why I can't just ignore the rules, then the answer obviously is that I can. But then I don't get to take advantage of the entire system that was elaborately designed and implemented on several levels of game mechanics to make my life easier. In many ways it is a model of advanced thinking in RPG design, an attempt to make disparate elements of game power comparable, and it more or less works except where it doesn't. Certainly hand-waving and intuitive (a.k.a. arbitrary) decision making works, too, except where it doesn't, but I find it a poor substitute for having an integrated system. Third Edition gives you tools for determining a level-appropriate amount of wealth and magic.

Admirable as that project was, it has ultimately been a failure because it removes a couple sources of fun. Magic items are no longer very special. Perhaps more importantly, the awareness that the whole thing is systematized makes the aquisition of wealth and magic items a non-game. You can still enjoy roleplaying the looting process, but you know that whatever you get is going to add up to approximately what a table in the DMG said you had coming to you. Some people may prefer to play the game so that desire for wealth is really just a roleplaying choice, but I find the roleplaying is that much sweeter if both the player and the character can't wait to see what's in the chest.

[smiling bandit]

It's also called "Devoted Defender" and was a prestige class in 3.0. Apparently it is an ugly duckling that just became a swan, because they thought it unimportant enough that they didn't bother to port it over to 3.5 (or the feats that gave him the abilities you describe).

I loved that class, too. It was actually quite a good one, and very useful for keeping the mage alive. It was a good one for a Fighter to take post-level 10 or so, when he already had every raw feat he needed. Sadly, in DnD, your worth seems to largely dependant on your ability to kill, and the Devoted Defender doesn't do that.

[Quartz]

In that case, bad news, homey. Not only could our playtesting fighter cast spells (essentially), but our Cleric couldn't heal.

Both entirely doable under 3E.

[kidchameleon]

kidchameleon, do you think it's people like me who skew the sales guys' angle away from the fans?

Well, I write for BattleTech, a wargame that never truely had a second edition, so it's bit different, but from what I gather it is the casual gamer that drives the industry. Not the guys who buy everything nor the other folks who just buy the main rulebook. The causal gamer seems to buy a few rulebooks and some suppliments.

[Merijeek]

Both entirely doable under 3E.

Not the point, but I'm sure you knew that.

-Joe

[Terrifel]

Well, I write for BattleTech, a wargame that never truely had a second edition, so it's bit different, but from what I gather it is the casual gamer that drives the industry. Not the guys who buy everything nor the other folks who just buy the main rulebook. The causal gamer seems to buy a few rulebooks and some suppliments.If I recall aright, BattleTech's been going for a good long while. What is the difference between a game like that and D&D, that later editions never became financially necessary?

[E-Sabbath]

Well, basically, Battletech has had several editions.

A: Battlelords.

B: Battletech Box

C: Rules Compendium

D: The new WizKids Compendium.

Basically, they publish a bunch of stuff, then combine it into the main rule book and republish. The rules aren't revised, but they are made more comprehensive.
There's also less material.

Also, the company went under.

[Merijeek]

Also, the company went under.

I assume you're just referring to FASA?

-Joe

[Lightray]

Earlier in the thread, Lightray suggested that my use of the term "anime-ization" regarding the evolving art direction of D&D was a mischaracterization. In my defense, I would like to point out that the sword the guy is holding on the cover of the Races and Classes preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/0786948019) has a blade that appears to be about nine inches wide. How is that anything but a Japanese cartoon blade? That's not a sword; it's a spatula. A glowing, runic battle spatula.
Okay, now the surfboard-sized blades I'll conceed is an anime-ish.

However, in the interest of being mullish (since everyone else is having so much fun doing so), I'll point out that without having the book in our hands, we don't know that isn't a spatula. They're making up the tiefling backstory, and maybe the tiefling Double-Headed Spiked Spatula is their signature weapon. Sort of like the dwarvish urgrosh or valenar double-scimitar. Hey, they're infernal -- they probably get to ignore physics, too.

:p ;)

[kidchameleon]

Well, basically, Battletech has had several editions.

A: Battlelords.

B: Battletech Box

C: Rules Compendium

D: The new WizKids Compendium.

Basically, they publish a bunch of stuff, then combine it into the main rule book and republish. The rules aren't revised, but they are made more comprehensive.
There's also less material.

Also, the company went under.

It started off with BattleDroids (a boxed set), then Lucas sued and the name was changed. The Rules of Warfare, Rules Compendium and Master Rules followed as rules were added and tweaked. FASA folded and WizKids purchased the rights, handed the line to Fantasy Productions (FanPro) who revised the Master Rules. Later they started something of a new revision that changed the layout of the rules with some more tweaks under the name Total Warfare. This line was picked up by Catalyst Game Labs.

I wasn't around for the FASA days, but from what I understand the ShadowRun and BattleTech lines were profitable. They were as well under FanPro, but there were business issues. So to say that the changes to the rulebook weren't a financial neccessity would probably be incorrect, but the basic gameplay has never needed a total revision. I think there is a difference between the scope of a wargame and a roleplaying game. The associated MechWarrior RPG has undergone two revisions, with a third in the works. I have no idea if the revisions are neccessary because of lack of appeal of an RPG to a mostly wargame crowd or due to a poor system.

We've had low turnover despite three different companies. I'm not sure what's up with D&D/WotC. I do know they mainly have full time employees while we are mostly free lancers working for a few full time developers.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Or it could be that you're simply not using whatever reading comprehension God gave you and aren't even responding to the points. I'd call it a strawman, but it didn't even rise to that level. I don't mean this in some emo "you just don't understand!!!11" level. I mean you literally did not understand.
Emos don't mean it in that way, either, but you know how it sounds to the rest of the world.

Daniel

[Terrifel]

Okay, now the surfboard-sized blades I'll conceed is an anime-ish.

However, in the interest of being mullish (since everyone else is having so much fun doing so), I'll point out that without having the book in our hands, we don't know that isn't a spatula. They're making up the tiefling backstory, and maybe the tiefling Double-Headed Spiked Spatula is their signature weapon. Sort of like the dwarvish urgrosh or valenar double-scimitar. Hey, they're infernal -- they probably get to ignore physics, too.

:p ;)Good point. I suppose that their infernal ancestry would make them naturally proficient fry cooks.

Now I'll never be able to rest until my character owns an Unholy Flaming Burst Spatula of Savory Charbroiling.

[kidchameleon]

Good point. I suppose that their infernal ancestry would make them naturally proficient fry cooks.

Dragonborns might just make the best omlettes ever.

[Lightray]

Yikes, dragonborn women lay eggs and have mammaries! Remind me not to eat breakfast at their houses...

[CandidGamera]

Good point. I suppose that their infernal ancestry would make them naturally proficient fry cooks.

Now I'll never be able to rest until my character owns an Unholy Flaming Burst Spatula of Savory Charbroiling.


I once had a player who played a tiefling sorceress - slash - cook. Too odd.

[sturmhauke]

I once had a player who played a tiefling sorceress - slash - cook. Too odd.
Was a fireball spell her preferred cooking method?

[E-Sabbath]

Thank you, Battledroids. And yes, I did mean FASA going under. I never said Battletech wasn't profitable. What I was saying is that there were repeated published editions of the main rules, each with reasons for purchase, despite the lack of changed rules within them.

Joe: Huh. Never noticed that at the Strategist. Yep, that's crap.

[Maeglin]

For my part, I do like the mmo-ization, I do like the dungeon-punk flavor, and I very much like the "pseudo-spellcasting" that we seem to be headed towards. I greatly applaud the overhaul of Vancian magic. I won't shed a tear for no logner having to manage my character's resources over the course of a day instead of an encounter. I look forward to faster paced and even more tactical combat. I agree that Tome of Battle is an excellent model, so I look forward to anything further in this vein.

[Merijeek]

For my part, I do like the mmo-ization, I do like the dungeon-punk flavor, and I very much like the "pseudo-spellcasting" that we seem to be headed towards. I greatly applaud the overhaul of Vancian magic. I won't shed a tear for no logner having to manage my character's resources over the course of a day instead of an encounter. I look forward to faster paced and even more tactical combat. I agree that Tome of Battle is an excellent model, so I look forward to anything further in this vein.

And that's why the Ranger kicked so much ass. He had a lot of abilities that were "1/encounter".

So, after the 2nd or third encounter everyone knew the correct sequence of "powers" to use in each and every fight. To determine what to do in a fight you can just pretty much make a checklist and work your way down. Now, in the old magic system (or feat system, since all classes have "powers") it might not be a good idea to start casting your highest level spells and just work your way down - but in the 4E system, I'd love to have someone explain to me why you wouldn't.

-Joe

[hotflungwok]

I got a quick look at the ad, and thats all it is, and it's just sad.

A LGS put most of their 3.5 on 1/2 off, so I'm going to be shoring up my collection before it's all gone.

[Maeglin]

And that's why the Ranger kicked so much ass. He had a lot of abilities that were "1/encounter".

So, after the 2nd or third encounter everyone knew the correct sequence of "powers" to use in each and every fight. To determine what to do in a fight you can just pretty much make a checklist and work your way down. Now, in the old magic system (or feat system, since all classes have "powers") it might not be a good idea to start casting your highest level spells and just work your way down - but in the 4E system, I'd love to have someone explain to me why you wouldn't.

-Joe

From your remarks, it would seem to me that either the encounters were not very interesting to begin with, they were pitched at the wrong level of challenge, or they were not very well run. There is no reason, regardless of game design, for encounters to be routine rehashing of the same thing over and over.

But to your point, if I am playing a nuker, then by jove, I want to drop novas all the time. I don't want to save my signature abilities all day on the off chance that I might need it. This sort of thing creates the kind of RAW abuse that makes DMs nuts.

[Merijeek]

From your remarks, it would seem to me that either the encounters were not very interesting to begin with, they were pitched at the wrong level of challenge, or they were not very well run. There is no reason, regardless of game design, for encounters to be routine rehashing of the same thing over and over.

But to your point, if I am playing a nuker, then by jove, I want to drop novas all the time. I don't want to save my signature abilities all day on the off chance that I might need it. This sort of thing creates the kind of RAW abuse that makes DMs nuts.

So...you want your checklist to consist of "Superspell #1" and that's it? No thanks, that's what MMOs are for.

I played 3.0, and then my group moved to 3.5. I didn't buy the new books. It wasn't because I didn't have the money, it's just that I knew a 4.0 was coming, eventually, and I could just borrow books when it really mattered.

After playtesting 4E, I immediately ordered a set of 3.5 books. That's how bad I thought it was. If it sounds neat to you, good for you. The world seems to be moving in your direction.

But I thought it sucked, and so did the rest of my group.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

I got a quick look at the ad, and thats all it is, and it's just sad.

A LGS put most of their 3.5 on 1/2 off, so I'm going to be shoring up my collection before it's all gone.

A LGS?

-Joe

[Lightray]

LGS = "Local Game Store", methinks.

... and that reminds me, to pick up Dungeonscape and maybe the Magic Item Compendium.

[E-Sabbath]

Good choices, those. Check for the Factotum. Cityscape isn't bad either.

[E-Sabbath]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the first 4E character sheets have hit the web. Nice and filled out, with spells, abilities, and examples.
http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets

Also, the first monster, and some magic items, at http://www.enworld.org/

[Bosstone]

Well, that's enlightening. I'm not sure I agree with all the choices, but it appears they are succeeding at streamlining the gameplay. The healing surge mechanic is a little dubious (Cleric: "Okay, I've healed you as much as I'm going to today, but the elf here can have more HP goodness") although it does increase the Paladin's Lay on Hands value.

Some of it looks like they sacrificed game balance for simplification: diagonals costing 1 square, for example, is going to open up certain instances whereby you can get a noticeable speed increase with judicious use of diagonals. There's a reason diagonals cost 1.5 in 3.5E, after all.

It certainly seems playable, but some of it seems simplified for simplified's sake. A shame they haven't mentioned the grappling rules yet, I'd like to see what those are. And if they say there will be no grappling in 4E? That's going to hurt their credibility where I'm concerned. The rules were complex, yes, but it's a natural action to be able to do, and it's more than a little odd to go "No, you are no longer physically able to grab someone and pin them to the floor."

[E-Sabbath]

Some rules stuff, from the enworld link.


The following is from Xath, one of EN World's moderators, and one of EN World's press representatives at D&D Experience:

While I havn't been able to get my hands on one of the coveted 4e preview rulebooks, I've been able to glean a few things about complex combat maneuvers from playtesting. Thanks to my 8am 4e preview group for having their characters pull some of these stunts!

The big ones we looked into were Trip, Grapple, Disarm, Bull Rush, and Full Defense. On the way, we also discovered a few conditions.

Trip & Disarm - Trip and Disarm are no longer normal combat maneuvers. In order to attempt either, you're going to need some sort of power or class ability.

Bull Rush - To initiate a bull rush, you need to make a Strength Check vs. the target's Fortitude Defense. This does not provoke an Opportunity Attack (formerly AoO). If you succeed, you may push the target 1 space. The margin of success doesn't matter, and 1 space is the maximum that a target can be moved with Bull Rush (without taking special abilities).

Push, Pull, & Slide - These are the methods by which you move a target in 4e. You can push a target forward, diagonally forward or to the side. You can pull a target towards you, diagonally towards you, or to the side. And you can slide a target in any direction.

Grapple - You can attempt a grapple check with anything that is within 1 size category of you. To initiate, you make a Strength Check vs. Reflex Defense. This also doesn't provoke an Opportunity Attack. If you fail, nothing happens. If you succeed, you cause your target to be "Immobilized" for one round. The target can escape his immobilized condition using an Acrobatics or Athletics check. You may move the target 1 square by succeeding on an additional grapple check in the following round.

Immobilized - Deciding to immobilize a target is essentially like a PC deciding that he would like to spend his combat rounds as a Tanglefoot bag. An immobilized target can still attack normally, but cannot move. Foes around an immobilized target receive Combat Advantage against him.

Combat Advantage - You get a +2 to hit the target. Flanking a target allows you to have Combat Advantage against a target, as do most physical afflictions (such as being immobilized or prone). Being on fire, however, does not grant foes combat advantage.

Stunned - If you are stunned, you can't take any actions for a round, but you no longer drop all of your held items.

Slowed - The movement of a slowed character drops to 2, and this applies to all movement types except for teleportation.

Charging - Charging in combat grants a +1 to hit, and no penalty to AC.

Full Defense - You don't take any actions, but you get a +2 to all defense scores until the start of your next turn. As far as we can tell, there's no rule yet for fighting defensively.

[E-Sabbath]

They... took the metallic dragons out of the monster manual.

[Ludovic]

They... took the metallic dragons out of the monster manual. :eek: Although maybe they have been planning this for quite some time, because AFAIK they haven't released a colossal metallic dragon "miniature" even though they've been out for around 2 years. Although the red dragon and black dragon are worth nearly every penny for their aesthetic value alone versus the small, expensive, and poorly painted regular minis, I was waiting for them to release some good dragons for me to buy :mad:

[E-Sabbath]

Fifteen bucks a month for D&D Insider, going down to 10 bucks a month if you pay for a full year. What the hell is worth that?

Also, 16th level wizard spells do like 4d6 damage. Yeah, spells are by level now.

[sturmhauke]

Where are you getting this information? That spell thing is either flat out wrong, or they have really gone off the deep end.

[Johnny Angel]

I didn't find enough worthwhile content to inspire me to subscribe to either Dungeon or Dragon for far less money. I'll be interested to see how many suckers they get to buy into this. Sure, the online D&D tools sound great, but I can do chargen with a spreadsheet, and I can do online gaming with OpenRPG. It's not as fancy, but at least I can play more than standard-issue D&D. Plus, if it is set to allow you to add content from the book you bought, does that mean each book has a unique number which when used diminishes the resale value of your book? And can you add custom items at all, when any system by which you could do so would allow you to get the effect of buying the book in which an item appears without buying it?

[Lightray]

Where are you getting this information? That spell thing is either flat out wrong, or they have really gone off the deep end.
There is some spoiled info here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220481), but that of course does not match what E-Sabbath seems to be sneering at.

Spells will apparently be listed by the level at which you can start using them, instead of having a spell level altogether unrelated to character/caster level. Rather as though, instead of "2nd level spell" it becomes "spell usable by 3rd level wizards."

Some examples from there: thunderlance is usable each encounter by wiz 13+, causes a 5 (square?) blast, inflicts 4d6 + Int mod and pushes the victims 4 squares, but apparently does nothing if the attack is unsuccessful. blast of cold is usable daily by wiz 15+, is a blast 5, causes 6d6 + Int mod and immobilizes victims, and even on a save does half damage and slows victims.

Really interesting that fly seems to be an at-will for wizards 16+ -- same for greater invisibility. hmm.

[Balance]

The built-in specifics about the races bug me a bit. I'll decide which races to have, and I'll plant them wherever I want, thank you. I build my own worlds, for the most part, and material that doesn't contribute to that is useless to me and will be ignored.

I have to admit that a lot of the changes to the magic system look kind of appealing. The spell level crap has bothered me for years, and the will/encounter/daily setup looks like it might be easier to balance than the (frankly ludicrous) Vancian system. The at-will abilities could offer roleplaying scope as well--at one point, cantrips were basically at-will, and they added a lot of flavor to wizardly roleplay.

On the other hand--Magic Missile isn't autohit?! ;)

[Ludovic]

But since you no longer have to target something with hit points you could theoretically attack....well, you know.

[Bosstone]

But since you no longer have to target something with hit points you could theoretically attack....well, you know.The shadows?!

Yeah, Magic Missile may not be to-hit, but you can also use it whenever you could otherwise make a basic ranged attack. IOW: no more crossbow-mages. I kinda like that.

[sturmhauke]

Spells will apparently be listed by the level at which you can start using them, instead of having a spell level altogether unrelated to character/caster level. Rather as though, instead of "2nd level spell" it becomes "spell usable by 3rd level wizards."

Some examples from there: thunderlance is usable each encounter by wiz 13+, causes a 5 (square?) blast, inflicts 4d6 + Int mod and pushes the victims 4 squares, but apparently does nothing if the attack is unsuccessful. blast of cold is usable daily by wiz 15+, is a blast 5, causes 6d6 + Int mod and immobilizes victims, and even on a save does half damage and slows victims.
This would seem to suggest that a 10th level wizard will not be able to spam the battlefield with 3 10d6 fireballs, or even 1 10d6 fireball. I agree that the Vancian system of memorization preparation ( :rolleyes: ) sucks, but I'm skeptical of this new method.

[Merijeek]

Since I intend to avoid 4E until the Inquisition comes for me, I've got to ask...have they actually said what "encounter" and "day" mean?

-Joe

[Balance]

I don't know if they've defined them officially, Merijeek, but I can imagine how I'd use them if I were to run a campaign with the system. I would define a "day" as a period set off by by some predefined amount of rest/sleep (probably no less than four hours). An "encounter" would be similar--a single fight or set-piece (like a trapped room) with a period of at least a few minutes of rest or low activity (like walking) before or after it.

For example, a trapped room in which one of the traps causes enemies to teleport in and attack the party would be considered a single encounter. If the trap triggers an alarm, and the enemies set up an ambush a 10-minute walk down the corridor, the trap-room and the ambush would be two separate encounters.

[Lightray]

I think "encounter" was more-or-less defined with the D&D Experience handout -- check the link E-Sabbath posted above for character sheets. Apparently a ~5 minute rest period is enough to reset "per encounter" abilities (and... something about hit points, maybe?).

"Per day" stuff wasn't mentioned; presumably the demo scenarios didn't last long enough for that reset to occur, so they didn't detail it.

[Kamino Neko]

They... took the metallic dragons out of the monster manual.

One of the guys in my gaming group is following 4e (he's the only one of the lot of us who likes most of the changes he's mentioned*), and he reported differently.

They've removed 2 of them from the initial MM - Bronze and Brass, I think...2/3 of the 'wait, which was that?' trifecta at the bottom of the Metallic stack, in any case - but replaced them with two new ones - Iron and...Adamantine? The flavour text has also apparently been adjusted, so they read more as good Dragons, not scaly Celestials.

* I think the changes to Wizards look interesting, but most of it isn't striking me as necessary, and most of the new flavour text is stuff I'd specifically be altering. Or, as in the case of Dragons, already matches the way I use them. [Edit - I like the devaluing of Alignment as a game mechanic, too, but I already mostly ignore it, so it drops into both the first and last category. Heh]

[E-Sabbath]

I got the 'removed the metallic dragons' from the guy at AICN, who claims to have been playtesting and DMing 4E.

[Terrifel]

Oh interesting, this thread popped up again in a totally different forum. How about that?

In the meanwhile, Wizards released its second preview brochure, Worlds and Monsters, which I also glanced at. My brief perusal did not appreciably stir the fires of interest in 4th Edition D&D. I'm thrilled that the game designers are so confident in their upcoming product, that they feel justified in publishing self-congratulatory literature about how they've made everything so much better now. Frankly I found the tone a bit off-putting. "You know how the older editions weren't particularly fun to play? We've fixed that!"

Also, the "Worlds" they feature in the preview honestly seem... not very exciting, at all. "Feywild--" because it's fey, AND wild! "Shadowfell--" because it's shadowy, AND fell! "Underdark--" because... hm. I forget why it's called that. Yet somehow the Elemental Chaos avoided being named "Elementalchaotic." I personally can't get too jazzed up about adventuring across the "Feywild" or "Shadowfell," which sound all too much like rejected levels from Thief: The Dark Project.

The designers make a big deal about dumping the "Great Wheel" planar arrangement from 3rd Edition, as if this had been some huge obstacle to gameplay. Maybe, to them, it was; maybe that's where you finally arrive at if you make a living at game design. "God DAMN IT! I can do NOTHING with this! NOTHING! How the HELL am I supposed to DM a game that has separate planes for EVERY ELEMENT?"

Personally, I admit that I'm used to the concept of tapping into discrete planes to channel elemental power. It's simpler. You want fire magic? Here is a plane with nothing in it but magic fiery things. But now, an elemental mage not only has to forge a bond with another plane, but with a specifically desired zone of an ever-shifting landscape? This seems like a cure worse than the disease. The whole point of separate elemental planes is that they're in opposition to each other! This antithetical nature is rather subverted by having them all exist on the same plane. Anyway, isn't that the situation on the Material Plane already?

One other aspect of the new design that I found rather distressing: ongoing Shadowcreep. For some reason, every new edition of D&D has more and more Shadow in it. Now, I think all reasonable people can agree that Shadow has one essential purpose in D&D: it is there for Hiding In. But now it's getting to the point where Shadow is taking over. This is unacceptable. 3rd Edition introduced the "Shadow Plane," and later "Shadow Magic." Now 4th Edition suggests that Shadow magic is somehow preeminent over honest necromancy, and I don't need to tell anyone how bass-ackwards that is. Now there's supposedly a "Shadowfell" plane but not a Negative Energy Plane? Screw you 4th Edition! You'll take my Negative Energy when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Shadows are not scary. You'll note that mythologies around the world all have innumerable vivid and compelling tales of the undead: how to placate them, how to drive them away, how to send them to their final rest. There is no remotely comparable body of myth dealing with shadows, because nobody is afraid of them. Fear of shadow is the essential characteristic of cowards and infants. Therefore, let us have no more talk of Shadow ever again, anywhere.

[Bosstone]

The cosmology change is what really burns my ass about 4E. It just doesn't seem that interesting, whereas the Great Wheel had that certain ring of...well, greatness to it. Luckily, that should be the easiest thing to fix in a homebrew game.

[smiling bandit]

Screw you 4th Edition! You'll take my Negative Energy when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

*Ahem*

"Cold, *undead* fingers."

Shadows are not scary. You'll note that mythologies around the world all have innumerable vivid and compelling tales of the undead: how to placate them, how to drive them away, how to send them to their final rest. There is no remotely comparable body of myth dealing with shadows, because nobody is afraid of them. Fear of shadow is the essential characteristic of cowards and infants. Therefore, let us have no more talk of Shadow ever again, anywhere.

Sadly, I think it's another sign of the anime-zation of the game.

[Balance]

Sadly, I think it's another sign of the anime-zation of the game.
I would class this more as MMO-ization, I think. MMOs love the "looming shadow" thing, and "Shadowfell" sounds like they just stole a zone name directly from World of Warcraft.

I have no intention of using their cosmology, if I should ever use the system. That kind of crap belongs in a setting, not the core rules, and should have no effect at all on gameplay unless you choose to use that setting. I have my own multiverse, and I'll run it my way.

[Lightray]

I quite agree with all their reasons for dumping the Great Wheel cosmology, and the Inner Planes.

While the Inner Planes were an interesting metaphysic, they weren't actually conducive to adventuring there. It's a plane of Fire, and everything there is On Fire. Either adventurers there have complete protection from the fire, and so it is effectively like any other place they adventure in (albeit, with different SFX). Or, they're not protected from fire, and they roast (rather unfun). Likewise, the other elemental planes -- Air was relatively hospitable, but you're screwed without fly; Earth... well, it's all solid, and where it's not solid, it's just like the Underdark; Water, is just like underwater adventures. Really an idea that needed re-imaging.

("Underdark", by the way, dates back to Forgotten Realms, AFAIK. Don't go blaming that one on 4.0 out of ignorance.)

The Great Wheel, again, was a great metaphysic, but too detailed. Even in Planescape where it made a great setting, there were just too many outer planes for each of them to be distinct. E.g., the Abyss and the Nine Hells were distinct, each with their own concept and flavor. Hades was basically "Evil, but not the Abyss or the Hells." Which left two or four vaguely in-between outer planes of Evilness that had no schtick to call their own. Pandemonium was... not quite as Chaosy as Limbo, not quite as evil as the Abyss; ah, yes, clear as mud.

The outer planes of Good were even more bland and distinguishless. And neither the Law nor Chaos axis had any sort of coherence at all (as, at least, the Blood War did for the Evils, and the vague cooperativeness of the Goods did). The Great Wheel seriously needed pruning to no more than eight, maybe down to four, outer planes.

And plopping the gods down onto Outer Planes willy-nilly ended up with some seriously odd results if you wanted to use pantheons like the Olympians or Asgardians. If you're a CE worshipper of Ares, would you go to the Abyss (or Pandemonium or etc.) 'cause that's your alignment? or to Olympus, 'cause that's where Ares is along with his pantheon?

Shadows are not scary. You'll note that mythologies around the world all have innumerable vivid and compelling tales of the undead: how to placate them, how to drive them away, how to send them to their final rest. There is no remotely comparable body of myth dealing with shadows, because nobody is afraid of them. Fear of shadow is the essential characteristic of cowards and infants. Therefore, let us have no more talk of Shadow ever again, anywhere.
But this: not opinion; just wrong. There are many mythologies around the world that have innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows. As well as many works of literature. Where do you think the shadow (monster) came from? Or the shadow spells that've been around since AD&D (illusionist-only, at the time).

Hell. Do yourself a favor and go pick up The Charwoman's Shadow by Lord Dunsany. And The King of Elfland's Daughter, too. I don't know what kind of twee D&D you were hoping for, but adding the Feywild that's more like the latter, even while dumping the Great Wheel, can only be an improvement. It is physically and metaphysically impossible that something more like Dunsany is a bad thing in any way. I mean, damn.

[Terrifel]

But this: not opinion; just wrong. There are many mythologies around the world that have innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows. As well as many works of literature. Where do you think the shadow (monster) came from? Or the shadow spells that've been around since AD&D (illusionist-only, at the time).Yeah, those illusionist spells were goddamn terrifying, all right. I can't even count the number of times I've heard kids beg to dress up for Halloween as a shadow-casting illusionist.

Feel free to illustrate my wrongness by citing any of these innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows... oh wait, you can't! Because nobody's ever heard of any! Hmm, let's see, what famous horror novels and movies about scary shadows come to mind offhand? That would be... why yes, there are none! Not even the pulp hero the Shadow tried to scare people with his shadow. In fact he was invisible, so he didn't even have a shadow! This fact cannot be overstated: the Shadow had no shadow.

By contrast, let us consider the undead... have we heard of any myths, legends, books or movies that feature the undead? Hmm... hmmm. Say, there may be just a few mightn't there? Are there any stories in global mythology that feature ghosts? Could be... I'm not saying that there are as many stories about ghosts as there are about shadows, you understand... Do we know of any myths or legends about people coming back from the dead? Have any novels or movies about vampires or zombies been produced, to anyone's knowledge? Gosh, compared to the vast pile of literature and cinema about shadows, there may not even be any competition. But there may have been one or two such efforts. Their names escape me at the moment. Perhaps someone else could help me out here.

Perhaps I exaggerated just a trifle regarding the mention of shadows in mythology. No doubt there are a few shameful traditions here and there that reflect a fear of shadows, much as other traditions reflect a fear of tomatoes. Still, it is undeniable that the most commonly known shadow in fantasy literature is Peter Pan's.

Hell. Do yourself a favor and go pick up The Charwoman's Shadow by Lord Dunsany. And The King of Elfland's Daughter, too. I don't know what kind of twee D&D you were hoping for, but adding the Feywild that's more like the latter, even while dumping the Great Wheel, can only be an improvement. It is physically and metaphysically impossible that something more like Dunsany is a bad thing in any way. I mean, damn.Well crap, that's the answer right there, isn't it? They could have just called it "Elfland!" That's a much more resonant name than "Feywild."* Is Dunsany still under copyright? Huzzah! Let us away to the plane of Elfland! There to treat with the Eladrin King! And thence to Shadowfell to battle the Raven Queen! And onward to Underdark to fight the Spider Queen! And hence to Feydark to elf the Wild King! And fell to Shadowdark to land the Underqueen!

*Sadly, I'm not even kidding. As planar names go, "Feywild" is feysad. At least "Elfland" has literary roots.

[Lightray]

Feel free to illustrate my wrongness by citing any of these innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows... oh wait, you can't! Because nobody's ever heard of any! Hmm, let's see, what famous horror novels and movies about scary shadows come to mind offhand? That would be... why yes, there are none! Not even the pulp hero the Shadow tried to scare people with his shadow. In fact he was invisible, so he didn't even have a shadow! This fact cannot be overstated: the Shadow had no shadow.
I already illustrated your wrongness by citing one of the innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows.

But, hey, I've got Frazer at hand, let's see:
"In the island of Wtar there are magicians who can make a man ill by stabbing his shadow with a pike or hacking it with a sword."
"In the Babar Islands the demons get power over a man's soul by holding fast to his shadow, or by striking and wounding it."
"There are stones in Melanesia on which, if a man's shadow falls, the demon of the stone can draw out his soul."
"The Mangaians tell of a mighty warrior, Tukaitawa, whose strength waxed and waned with the length of his shadow..."
"The ancients believed that in Arabia if a hyaena trod on a man's shadow it deprived him of the power of speech and motion..."
That's only a few chosen from a couple pages of The Golden Bough.

But, wait! You're going to come up with some other goofy reason to reject those examples so you can keep on flogging your dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair prejudices. How about some more examples?

"Shades" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_%28mythology%29) in mythology, are generally equated with the souls of the dead. Greeks held shades to be the souls of the dead -- creepy shadows that wanted to drink warm blood. Egyptians held the shadow to be one of your souls, occasionally used for various whackiness with spells and such.

Not enough? There's more! Shadow People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_people) are creepy horror archetypes that still get as much play as do the Grays and their alien abductions and anal probings.

Frankly, I don't remember (and can't be arsed to go look up for you) the number of legends that have sorcerers or vampires or whatnot stealing people's shadows or doing nasty things to people's shadows.

You may only be familiar with Peter Pan's shadow as an example, but the rest of the world might just be a tad bit more well-read than you from your library of one Disney movie and maybe the Shadow and some vampire and zombie movies.

*Sadly, I'm not even kidding. As planar names go, "Feywild" is feysad. At least "Elfland" has literary roots.
They wanted a name they could copyright, because they're running a business here -- so "Elfland" was right out. Also: to scoff at "Feywild" after lamenting the loss of the "Negative Energy Plane" is back into the bag-of-hair there.

[Terrifel]

I already illustrated your wrongness by citing one of the innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows.You did? Oh sorry, I overlooked that part. I assume you are referring to The Charwoman's Shadow by Dunsany? Oh my god, it's not just any shadow either! It's a charwoman's shadow! That's extra terrifying, isn't it? Let's see if Wikipedia has a plot summary... why yes it does! An old charwoman without a shadow works for the magician. The magician persuades him to trade his shadow for the knowledge, and gives him a substitute, and the charwoman who works for the magician laments that. He then learns that his substitute shadow does not grow and shrink as it ought to.Oh my god. That is quite possibly the most horrifying premise I have ever read. I now see just how wrong I was about the potential scariness of shadows. Why the hell do myth and fantasy even bother with revenants and unquiet spirits, when they could instead be chilling the blood of listeners with tales of shadows that don't grow and shrink properly?


But, hey, I've got Frazer at hand, let's see:
"In the island of Wtar there are magicians who can make a man ill by stabbing his shadow with a pike or hacking it with a sword."
"In the Babar Islands the demons get power over a man's soul by holding fast to his shadow, or by striking and wounding it."
"There are stones in Melanesia on which, if a man's shadow falls, the demon of the stone can draw out his soul."
"The Mangaians tell of a mighty warrior, Tukaitawa, whose strength waxed and waned with the length of his shadow..."
"The ancients believed that in Arabia if a hyaena trod on a man's shadow it deprived him of the power of speech and motion..."
That's only a few chosen from a couple pages of The Golden Bough.

But, wait! You're going to come up with some other goofy reason to reject those examples so you can keep on flogging your dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair prejudices. No, I have changed my mind completely. These examples are infinitely more frightening than the living dead. How can mere flesh-eating abominations compete with the terror of a hyena stepping on my shadow, thereby depriving me of speech and motion? Why aren't there entire horror film franchises devoted to stories of people getting their shadows stepped on? How about some more examples?Oh god no, please, my heart can't take it."Shades" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_%28mythology%29) in mythology, are generally equated with the souls of the dead. Greeks held shades to be the souls of the dead -- creepy shadows that wanted to drink warm blood. Egyptians held the shadow to be one of your souls, occasionally used for various whackiness with spells and such.Which precisely illustrates my original point: did the Greeks consider the summoning of blood-drinking shades to be "shadow magic?" No! They understood that it was necromancy, the summoning of undead spirits. The Greeks knew their eggs about such matters.

Maybe the ancient Egyptians thought otherwise; but let us not lose sight of the fact that the ancient Egyptians were cat-worshipping freaks, whose judgment in such matters should not be trusted. Even so, when the fate of the soul was really in question, they sensibly had themselves mummified instead of dicking around with unreliable shadow-spells.

Not enough? There's more! Shadow People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_people) are creepy horror archetypes that still get as much play as do the Grays and their alien abductions and anal probings.Um... yeah. Sure they do. I think it's totally safe to say that pop culture references "Shadow People" about as much as Alien Grays.

Frankly, I don't remember (and can't be arsed to go look up for you) the number of legends that have sorcerers or vampires or whatnot stealing people's shadows or doing nasty things to people's shadows.Oh you needn't bother; after the vast number of examples you've already provided-- one novel, no movies, and several references in The Golden Bough about people falling over when their shadows are stepped on-- I am entirely persuaded that shadows are way more mythically resonant and intimidating than undead creatures.

Heck, vampires don't even cast a shadow in some traditions-- which logically means they're significantly less frightening than other creatures that do cast shadows. A truly scary vampire would probably have TWO shadows.

You may only be familiar with Peter Pan's shadow as an example, but the rest of the world might just be a tad bit more well-read than you from your library of one Disney movie and maybe the Shadow and some vampire and zombie movies.This is entirely possible. But even with my crippling illiteracy, I could probably name several hundred stories and films that feature the undead just from memory if I really bothered to try, and I bet you could too. Although I doubt that any of them could surpass The Charwoman's Shadow for sheer terror value. Just the thought of that shadow not shrinking properly is still giving me the wim wams. I may not sleep at all tonight. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to correct my error about how much scarier shadows are than the living dead.


They wanted a name they could copyright, because they're running a business here -- so "Elfland" was right out. Also: to scoff at "Feywild" after lamenting the loss of the "Negative Energy Plane" is back into the bag-of-hair there.Oh, bullhockey; nothing simpler than to add an extra vowel or two for copyright purposes-- "Elflande," or "Aelfland"-- it's a proud tradition of limp fantasy everywhere. Maybe even some extra punctuation? "A'elflaen'de!" You could probably even copyright "The Elflandish Plane." Notice how all these are still marginally more plausible-sounding than "Feywild?"

[Terrifel]

I suspect that my last post was needlessly sarcastic; especially insofar as it addresses the mythopoetic underpinnings of a fantasy cosmology as it applies to a game that I currently don't anticipate even playing. I apologize, Lightray.

[sturmhauke]

Feel free to illustrate my wrongness by citing any of these innumerable vivid and compelling tales of shadows... oh wait, you can't! Because nobody's ever heard of any!
I believe one or two Dopers may have heard of the book A Clash of Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clash_of_Kings) by George R. R. Martin, which is Book 2 of the obscure series A Song of Ice and Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire) (links contain spoil-riffic plot summaries). Here are two passages:

"I beg you in the name of the Mother," Catelyn began when a sudden gust of wind flung open the door of the tent. She thought she glimpsed movement, but when she turned her head, it was only the king's shadow shifting against the silken walls. She heard Renly begin a jest, his shadow moving, lifting its sword, black on green, candles guttering, shivering, something was queer, wrong, and then she saw Renly's sword still in its scabbard, sheathed still, but the shadowsword . . .

"Cold," said Renly in a small puzzled voice, a heartbeat before the steel of his gorget parted like cheesecloth beneath the shadow of a blade that was not there. He had time to make a small thick gasp before the blood came gushing out of his throat.

...The king stumbled into [Brienne's] arms, a sheet of blood creeping down the front of his armor, a dark red tide that drowned his green and gold. More candles guttered out. Renly tried to speak, but he was choking on his own blood.

[several chapters later]

Davos raised a hand to shield his eyes, and his breath caught in his throat. Melisandre had thrown back her cowl and shrugged out of the smothering robe. Beneath, she was naked, and huge with child. Swollen breasts hung heavy against her chest, and her belly bulged as if near to bursting. "Gods preserve us," he whispered, and heard her answering laugh, deep and throaty. Her eyes were hot coals, and the sweat that dappled her skin seemed to glow with a light of its own. Melisandre shone.

Panting, she squatted and spread her legs. Blood ran down her thighs, black as ink. Her cry might have been agony or ectasy or both. And Davos saw the crown of the child's head push its way out of her. Two arms wriggled free, grasping, black fingers coiling around Melisandre's straining thighs, pushing, until the whole of the shadow slid out into the world and rose taller than Davos, tall as the tunnel, towering above the boat. He had only an instant to look at it before it was gone, twisting between the bars of the portcullis and racing across the surface of the water, but that instant was long enough.
You're right, those aren't even mildly unsettling scenes. Kinda boring, actually.

[Terrifel]

You're right, those aren't even mildly unsettling scenes. Kinda boring, actually.Oh, for crying out loud; I know there are fantasy stories that feature shadows as antagonists! I was exaggerating my complaint, in an attempt at comic effect! Which obviously failed! This is exactly why I pointedly requested no further discussion of Shadow by anyone ever again. Why do you all refuse to honor this simple request?

Yes, I am fully aware that shadow magic has some legitimate fictional and mythic antecedents. Yes, I recall the beast from A Wizard of Earthsea. Yes, I realize that the pulp crimefighter known as the Shadow actually DID cast a shadow, but people just didn't notice it because of his ability to cloud men's minds. I'd have thought people would catch that right away as an indication I wasn't being entirely serious.

My point, shorn of all hyperbole, was simply that slapping "shadow-" in front of everything does not immediately lend itself toward particularly interesting or automatically frightening roleplay. 3rd Edition offered the opportunity to learn Shadow Magic, travel to the Shadow Plane and mix it up with Shadow creatures. Whoopie ding.

4th Edition's "Shadowfell," we are told, will be "a twisted copy of the Material Plane" just as the earlier Shadow Plane was described. I never even really understood how that was supposed to work. So there's another whole plane that is mostly identical to the Material Plane, but just happens to be occupied by weirdly twisted copies of things?

In the "Worlds and Monsters" preview, the designers boast that discarding the Great Wheel cosmology was a necessary step away from "needless symmetry;" yet their replacement for this is basically Mirror Earth where everybody wears goatees and carries agonizers. "You appear to be standing in the same place you were before, except everything is more evil. And shadowy. Oh and twisted. Suddenly you are attacked by a bobcat! But... it's a Shadow bobcat!"

At least the Negative Energy Plane had the benefit of simplicity. It's a plane that radiates anti-life magic, and this is how dead creatures are able to move around. That's really all that is necessary to know. It's not going out of its way to be ostentatiously spooky; it's just a source of raw, deadly power that is naturally antithetical to life. Personally I happen to think that's a more fundamentally disturbing notion than a vaguely purposeful "Shadow Realm" ruled by a "Raven Queen." It's a void that hates you-- very Nietzschean. The "Shadowfell" proposes to replace this with a weird, intricate justification for the undead that requires every creature to have at least two souls (maybe one of them lives in your shadow? Ah, it's all coming together now).

Yes, shadows CAN be scary; but as has been demonstrated already, you have to really go out of your way to find any examples in myth and fiction where they actually ARE scary. There are individual vampires with more cultural impact than the entire body of fiction and global myth concerning shadows. Every year we see another round of inexpensive zombie movies made-- yet movies about shadows would, if anything, be even cheaper to film than movies about zombies! No kid asks to dress up as a shadow for Halloween (I did, but that's just because I wanted to dress in a black leotard and spend the evening frantically miming the actions of other people).

To sum up: "When there is no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth." Scary!

"Okay, watch this... it's a bunny! Now... presto! A pigeon flapping its wings!" Not scary.

[smiling bandit]

Point == Terrifel.

Shadows just plain aren't very scary things, unless there's something out there in them. And in DnD, there's always something out there in them. Nor does it particularly twig my Cool-o-meter.

My opinion remains unchanged; there were good changes which could have been made in DnD 4. I just don't see them actually happening. Change for the sake of change. And selling books. They think they're going to sell miniatures on an on forever, but I don't see it.

[CandidGamera]

4e's cosmology and flavor do nothing for me in the abstract and are incompatible with the custom campaign worlds I want to run.

And Terrifel, I thought your posts were very funny.

You know what's better than "Feywild"? "Arvandor." Evocative. Not retarded. And it originated with D&D. The extraplanar mystic realm of the Elves.

I have little patience for change for change's sake, especially when the new result is less than the old.

[Lightray]

I suspect that my last post was needlessly sarcastic; especially insofar as it addresses the mythopoetic underpinnings of a fantasy cosmology as it applies to a game that I currently don't anticipate even playing. I apologize, Lightray.
It looks like I overreacted, myself. This week has been working my last nerve. My apologies, also.

(but, seriously, I recommend Lord Dunsany)

[sturmhauke]

Oh, for crying out loud; I know there are fantasy stories that feature shadows as antagonists! I was exaggerating my complaint, in an attempt at comic effect! Which obviously failed!
It didn't fail, I was just riposting in like manner.
This is exactly why I pointedly requested no further discussion of Shadow by anyone ever again. Why do you all refuse to honor this simple request?
Because I am a contrarian bastard. :D

[DocCathode]

It didn't fail, I was just riposting in like manner.

Because I am a contrarian bastard. :D

Are you saying you have a Ring Of Contrariness?

[sturmhauke]

Are you saying you have a Ring Of Contrariness?
Don't be ridiculous.

[Hoopy Frood]

Ya know? The spoiler box is like a shadow.

The text in here is spooky!









SPOOKY! I TELL YOU!