OM FING G! Not five yearsand now THIS! (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e)
Just five years ago they overhauled third edition and now their at it again! I KNEW something like this would happen after WotC took over, the new version will have, you guessed it,

1: More books to buy, the rules are now spread out over not just 3 core books but an estimated 9.
2: Fewer classes, from 11 to 8.
3: No chalenge rateings some new system involveing 'monster level' will be used.

I for one have no intention of purchaseing or even reading this! 3.5 works fine thanks, your not gona have me running to grab the latest expansion set, er, I mean "Core Rule Book". >:(

Meh, thats pretty much the same reaction everyone had when 3.0 came out to replace 2nd Ed. and don't forget how angry everyone was when the released 3.5. I think it is way too early to judge whether or not the books will be good or not. There will be 3 core books, not nine like you heard. The classes are getting an overhaul to make each one actually matter and to balance them out so people don't feel obligated to be a stereotypical archetype of their class. I remember Dnd 1st ed and ADnD, they were both playable and fun. 2nd ed changed things but it was still obviously dnd, and still fun. 3rd ed changed things, it was still dnd and it was still fun. I am pretty sure the pattern will continue.

seriously though, 3.5 was crap. I spent over $200 on 3.0 and then they put out 3.5. "EVERYTHING IS 95% THE SAME AND A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS ARE STILL THERE BUT FEEL FREE TO BUY IT AGAIN!!!!"

4.0 is going to be worth buying. Class balance, party structure, ease of play and ease of setup, more exciting and original low level play, high level play thats still as fun as mid level play and computer resources are all a focus of 4th ed, and all are really quite needed. To pull off the kind of changes they're trying to change, they cant just put out a new source book (theres too many anyway), they need a new edition. And so a new edition we have.

this "5 years thing" is a weak arguement- the game isnt advancing in accordance with some calander marked with equidistant dates designated for new editions. theres no schedule. New material comes when theres a need for it and when it's ready. There's a need for this edition, and it will come out when it's ready.

So whats the problem? Did you want to stick with an inferior system for a longer period of time? If you're insistent on it, then go ahead. Wizards isnt forcing you to upgrade. Keep playing 3.5 if you want to. If you dont want to then you're as good as admitting that 4.0 is worth it and your arguements against it are void.

I just hope like frick they don't nerf Paladins.

Oh wait, what am I saying? They'll release a supplement within three months that has a variant Paladin class that leads to a prestige class that gives my Paladin a 9d6+12 sneak attack bonus that automatically cripples them so they can't take their Dex bonus and always count as flat-footed for the purposes of any further sneak attacks.

That's why I don't like 3.5 that much. Supplements. You're playing Jack Paladin with your friend Mr. Rogue, and all of the sudden Evil Wizard Evilwizardington saunters over and takes a level in Arcane Trickster and two levels in Spellsword, and next round he's wearing plate mail and hurling 3 Maximised Fireballs every goddamn round for some silly reason.

"Oh, it's all legal, it's all in this supplement book I forgot to bring with me tonight. But I memorised their BAB, it's cool. What? Yeah, it's a +8 AC bonus. For being tricksy."

These gents have summed it up. You are more than entitled to your feelings, of course, but both 3E and 3.5 saw the exact same kind of rants.

Fact is I'm hearing some very cool things about 4E. Some basic assumptions about how the game works, and perhaps more importantly how classes and parties work, have been re-thought and addressed. In short, this probably won't be your older brother's D&D anymore.

I'll give it a chance anyway. You can't believe everything you hear, right?

I started playing 3.5 a year or so ago so i'l be damned if I'm buying any more books. I bought 6 of them and got the PDFs of the rest.

:?I wonder if anyone has noticed the irony of someone on a primarily GW game forum, complaining about another update requiring the spending of more money just to stay "up-to-date" with the game.....:?

haha, seems to be a big difference between spending £30 every 5 years and pfff I dunno £150 every 5 years

Let me try and rant on this with some structure. I'll try and represent what I think is the good that could come out of 4th edition.

To begin, if anybody has a right to complain about 4th I should be one of them. I personally loved 2nd edition the most (and well 1st edition was a blast too) because so little of the rules were scrutenized with... well rules. It seemed more open ended and home rulesy. I liked that there was, for the most part, only core classes. I also liked that all the races seemed reasonably balanced. The humans were of course penalized by not really having any bonuses (unless you count level restrictions which nobody used).

To that end, when 3.0 came out I think I had mixed feelings at first. I personally loved seeing the revival of the monk in an almost perfect homage to the 1st edition version. Some classes got extremely unbalanced though. Priests in general went from moderately above the curve to matchless. They could fight but in one way or another had pretty strict armor/weapon restrictions and their magic in general had a lower maximum level. Now they can basically do all of that, the druid moreso and it really leaves classes like paladin and ranger in the dust. Even if you go back and compare the customization systems it and the previous systems used there was a much better way. Prestiege classes got a bit out of hand. Their solution was less fixing the balance of the core as releasing a book every 5 seconds with another dozen prestiege classes. There is almost no chance for balance if you allow players to design characters with an endless list of these classes with ability that when combined become more unbalanced than the already were in the first place. At least the kit system had you be what you were going to be from the get-go and stripped you of certain core abilities to replace your new ones. That had much more balance than the current.

Not everything was bad about 3.0 though. The feat system was clever though even that gets out of whack. By the way, this is a good time to stress that anything can be solved by banning certain books or combonations in your adventure, nevertheless releasing such a range is a bit sloppy. But if you take the feats in the PHB and compare them across the board, the feats in the later books get more and more absurd. Oh yes I'll take lightning reflexes for +2 save bonus to one type of save instead of being able to shoot hadukens with my monk! They did consolidate a lot of the numbers and slayed the vile demon THAC0. That could have all been resolved in 2.5 though couldnt it?

All that out of the way, from what I can tell they are attempting with 4th edition is something thats been only recently tapped into. For starters race is going to be a BIG deal. I love it because it guarantees if not for purely roleplaying purposes than for playing style purposes you will see more diverse gaming tables now. Races will have their uniquenesses from the beginning but in addition to what class they choose. I think that is bloody brilliant and you've seen the surface of it in some of the race books that were released in the past year or two. Those optional rules have really been a big hit in our gaming circle, as I'm sure they have been in many. One of the big downfalls to the system is the casters have always scaled differently than non casters. And by mid to high level they are matchless. Well, book of nine swords was just a cleverly disguised test book for 4th edition and a lot of what your going to see for melee is coming from that book. The most important thing 4th is doing is absolutely solidifying each classes role. So a paladin isnt just a terrible cleric with a slightly better combat rating and a ranger isnt just a fighter who traded most of his feats for a little bit of druidic magic. In fact they say the new ranger will be much closer to the scout + what we already know about the ranger. I think anybody who plays a long term dnd campaign where leveling doesn't occur as quickly can respect that they are making sure there are no dead levels for any class. Spells are broken up into smoother curve. Rather than 9 bulky levels there are essentially levels for every class level. So spells are broken up into a much more exact placement.

I'll cut short for now, but I think that all the editions are viable for fun, it depends on what you were raised on in part. My DM friend, who has a virtual library of 3.5 and is at this point unwilling to change out for 4.0 agrees with me completely that its totally unbalanced but we also agree with this "I think the game designers made all of these options so that people that wanted a low power role playing campaign could have that and also so the rulemongers that powergame and min-max could have theirs. We know we play for character development and for fun and we can trust each other to not get carried away so why should that count against 3.5. We'll look at 4.0 but we have so much more content RIGHT NOW for 3.5 that I cant see doing it"

My $0.02: Seems far too early for anyone to be arguing about it. All new information about it has been vague and mostly fluff. I'll wait until it comes out, take a look, and then make a decision as to whether I want to switch over or not.

So as not to appear to be a total fence-sitter, I'll also add that when 3d and even 3.5 came out, I was optimistic and excited about what I'd heard, and I'm very glad that I switched over (and happen to think that most problems people have with it are their own fault, not the game), and felt the same way about the switch from AD&D to 2nd Ed. On the other hand, I grow a little more pessimistic about fourth every time I WotC tells us something about it. The fluff strikes me as poorly thought out, but hey, it's just fluff, and if there's a game where you can ignore that, it's D&D. I love the concept for the racial bonuses. The new saving throw system sounds intensely stupid. The new wizard system seems silly. The new armor class feels dumbed-down and over-simplified. The replaced CR system strikes me as cookie-cutter foolishness. The higher levels, more powerful characters (low level in particular), and especially 'everyone is equally good at combat' direction it's going gives me the impression that the game is being pushed towards a more hack-and-slash, simplistic, MMO style of game - which may be what some people want, but certainly isn't for me.

Again, this is 90% conjecture, and before ANYONE can say anything definitive about the game, we'll have to wait and see what it's actually like and how much we actually enjoy it.

I for one am glad they are getting rid of feats. When 3.0 first came out I thought they were a great idea, but with every new book they release they began to limit exactly what your character could do.

Take a situation like this...
"I want to roll of the ground to duck under the ogres legs and strike up at his croth to disable him!"
"Do you have the 'roll on the ground and hit somone in the nuts' feat?"
"Ummm, no, they have a feat for that?"
"Yeah, they just added it in this new book."

What happened to using your imagination!? In the old days if you wanted to do something unique you would just tell your DM and he would make something up.

Skills also seemed to hurt more than they helped.
"Ok, you are a fighter, you get only 2 skill points per level."
"Ok, well that doesn't seem like much."
"Yeah, as a fighter you don't know how to jump, swim, climb, how to see, or how to hear because you are too dumb and don't get enough skill points."
"But I wanted my character to be a smart nobleman who is skilled in diplomacy and in combat."
"Well, you can't. Diplomacy is a crossed class skill which means you will get even less."

Also they are trying to make sure every class is good, and you do not feel that you NEED to have the basic 4.

Take a typical first game conversation.
"I want to play a bard!"
"Don't play a bard, they are useless. We need a cleric"
"Ok, I will be a warrior-priest who can smite evil and put offensive buff on himself and his friends!"
"No we pretty much just want you to cast cure light wounds every round."
"Really? That sounds boring."
"Yeah, if you don't we will die cause no one else can really do it as well."

Who knows how it will actually work when they are done with it. It could be worse, and if it is then don't buy it. Look through the book in your local store first. All I know is that it is time for a change. And don't even get me started on skill feats.

I'm excited!

I've loved 3rd ed. and 3.5, it'll be exciting to get a new rule set. SAGA edition is awesome so I look forward to seeing that carried over to my fave RPG. And the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting aswel, looking forward to that, I'm planning my first campaign there right now! :)

Personally i hate what there doing. Reworking game mechanics is one thing but the new edition is just rewriting over 30 years of background for the sake of rewriting which means it's not really D&d now but an entirly new game that happens to share the same name. Also the staff at WOTC cant seem to make any comment about the new edition without insulting half there fan base.

I'm not yet sure, but I think they've removed the following:

- Bards
- Sorcerers
- Barbarians
- Monks
- Druids
- Maybe Rangers and Paladins (they haven't been mentioned)

and added two new core classes: the Warlock, who is basically the Warlock from WoW (demon summoning and curses) and the Warlord, who is supposed to be like a fighter, but with an Int bonus and a bunch of special "tactical" abilities. The last one is plain weird. I don't know why you'd remove something as iconic as a barbarian and replace it with something that's basically a fighter archetype.

Now, here's where it gets screwy. It's hard to get information because I'm not registered with WotC as their fanbase, and can't log into all the actual articles, but from the forums, I think they've removed Half-Orcs and given Half-Elves a significant boost. In addition, Elves are no longer arcanists - they're pure druid-ranger nature lovers - and to compensate for this, they've basically pulled a Blizzard and split Elves into "normal" Elves, which are like 3e Wood Elves and look a whole lot like Tolkien elves, and Eladrin, who I originally thought were going to replace Aasimar (yes, a Planetouched as a core race) but it turns out they're just elves from another dimension. They're basically Wood Elves and High Elves, or if you play Warcraft, Night Elves and Blood Elves. Different names for brunette and blonde.

So they have two Chaotic Good Elf races with a propensity to magic, only one is a druid and the other is a wizard. Which I think is honestly quite weird, because how can Wood Elves exist if Druids are cut like they're saying they might?

And get this - Eladrin are the big new core race, but the other one is Tiefling. Now this confuses me. The opposite of a Tiefling is an Aasimar. If I was WotC and I had any sense of narrative continuity, I would have dropped the elves-from-space Eladrin and just put Aasimar and Tiefling in as core races, then found a way to work the two new classes (Warlord and Warlock) to fit those contrasts, so that Aasimar suit Warlords and Tieflings suit Warlocks. But instead, the Lawful Good Aasimar have been shafted, and we have a Chaotic Good extraplanar race contrasting a Chaotic Evil extraplanar race. And anyone who's seen the alignment table knows that isn't an alignment contrast. What you want is Chaotic Evil v. Lawful Good, or Chaotic Good v. Lawful Evil.

WotC needs to know how to make the perfect imperfect evil twin.

Some things I've seen that I like: They're dropping the idea of subraces completely. This is wonderful news. A little diversity is a good thing, but with 18 elven subraces published, enough is enough. A race is a race. Subraces should just be different interpretations of the core race: it allows for more creative freedom in a weird backwards way. If you say "I want to play a wizard elf," you don't have to go buy the Unearthed Arcana sourcebook and learn the rules for Gray Elves. You just play an Elf.

But this seems to be inherently contradicted by the Eladrin, who it seems are essentially an Elf subrace. If they drop the Eladrin=Elf relationship, or at least sideline it, I'll be pleased because frankly, fantasy has enough flavours of elf.

Some things I don't like: No Monks? No Sorcerers? Barbarians gone? Bards?!?!?

What the hell is Rich Burlew going to do when 4e comes out? There goes half of the Order of the Stick! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Stick) Who the hell is Elan going to be if he isn't a Bard?

Also, multiclassing appears to be totally out. Either they're removing it, or they're rehauling it completely: one article talks about his "10th-level Warlord" (they're really pushing the Warlord thing, it's getting mentions everwhere) casting wizard spells because of his multiclassing. But if he has 10 levels in Warlord, where'd he put the Wizard levels? They might come up with some wacky hybrid system where you pick abilities from the other class and mix-and-match...

AC and basic combat mechanics are getting renovated. Attacks of opportunity might be going, but also stay in a new fashion: from one battle report, it seems you might be able to take "reactive" attacks, so that when someone attacks you, you get to attack them back once or possibly twice. The number of attacks you get is now affected by what weapon you wield, as a 1st level fighter debates over taking a warhammer or a longsword; with the longsword, the playtester says, he has more attacks, so he chooses it over the warhammer (curiously, his reasoning is that he has too low Constitution for a warhammer).

And halflings might be renamed "hobbits." That's all I've got right now.

our small group never stopped playing 2nd edition. we thummbed our noses at 3rd. why don't you people who like 3rd play 3rd? if you have the core books, rules, and a good gaming group why change? don't play 4th if it looks to suck so bad?

our small group never stopped playing 2nd edition. we thummbed our noses at 3rd. why don't you people who like 3rd play 3rd? if you have the core books, rules, and a good gaming group why change? don't play 4th if it looks to suck so bad?

Meh...We dropped D&D 2nd Edition years ago and went to Middle Earth Role-Playing (MERP) which was overly simple but good, which led us to Rolemaster which can be overly complex, and ultimately to the new Iron Crown product line HARP (High Adventure Role-Playing). Coincidentally they just release a new product named Rolemaster Express which is a very lite and bare-minimum approach to Rolemaster, and it's getting good initial praise.

HARP is one of the best pen & paper RPG's I've ever played. Here are the highlights that I like from HARP:

- The rules are simple
- There are very few result charts to reference
- Supports 'Armor by the piece' rules so you can wear a steel breast-plate with leather greaves, etc.
- Great spellcasting system
- Allows for mixed races in the rules of character creation
- Allows GMs to differentiate sub-strains of the same race with Cultures
- Has at least 3 off the shelf game worlds available (Gryphon World, Shadow World and The Echoes of Heaven)

Besides, Iron Crown Enterprises is a great small company with fantastic customer support and a very loyal and active fanbase. They have quarterly e-zine updates to HARP, Rolemaster, Spacemaster, etc., if you're looking for adventure ideas, new professions, cultures, etc.

Don't think you're locked into D&D when you have options. :-)

I'm not yet sure, but I think they've removed the following:
- Bards
- Sorcerers
- Barbarians
- Monks
- Druids
- Maybe Rangers and Paladins (they haven't been mentioned)


Time for some rumor control.

Last time I heard bards were still in.

Sorcerers are gone because they fundamentally changed the way wizards cast spells. If anything the "wizard" is gone and the renamed the "sorcerer" the "wizard." I don't know exactly how spells are working now, but they have changed the spells per day and memorization. They way it has been said to work now is, 'if you know the spell, you know the spell, and you can use it whenever you want.' The new spell-casting system is something they have been keeping under wraps.

Monks and Barbarians are gone because they changed how the "Fighter" works. Monks and Barbarians are now types of fighter (they all fight don't they?). If you want to be a monk, when you gain a level you take more unarmed abilities, rage if you want to be a barbarian, finesse skills for duelists, etc. Heck, now you can probably even mix and match.

I expect that the druid is the same way with cleric. They will be the same class but have different focuses when they gain levels.

Have you looked at the world of warcraft d20 RPG? That is how they define the classes. If you haven't looked at it I highly recommend that you do. It is what DnD 3.5 should have been.

Rangers and paladins are still alive. I don't think they could get away with getting rid of those two iconic classes.

Honestly, I think the warlord is a cool concept for a character class, and is needed. A general of an army might not be a good fighter, but he knows how to lead his troops. With a warlord around all of your allies benefit from special perks given to them by the auras he has. Like exta 5 foot step, bonuses to saving throws (which they are reworking), etc. Every few levels he gets to choose from a new type of aura that is more powerful or useful than the one he got previously, and as he advances he is able to have more auras active at once.

In case you have never read any of the lord of the rings trilogy, or haven't seen the movies Hobbits are Halflings. A "hobbit" is what a halfling calls himself. Like we call ourselves "people," but a dog would think of you as a "human." (Bad example, but you get the idea)

Seriously, I will say it again. Before you all complain you should wait until you actually have read through the book first. Until you hold it in your hand everything you complain about is based off nothing.

I just hope like frick they don't nerf Paladins.

Oh wait, what am I saying? They'll release a supplement within three months that has a variant Paladin class that leads to a prestige class that gives my Paladin a 9d6+12 sneak attack bonus that automatically cripples them so they can't take their Dex bonus and always count as flat-footed for the purposes of any further sneak attacks.

That's why I don't like 3.5 that much. Supplements. You're playing Jack Paladin with your friend Mr. Rogue, and all of the sudden Evil Wizard Evilwizardington saunters over and takes a level in Arcane Trickster and two levels in Spellsword, and next round he's wearing plate mail and hurling 3 Maximised Fireballs every goddamn round for some silly reason.

"Oh, it's all legal, it's all in this supplement book I forgot to bring with me tonight. But I memorised their BAB, it's cool. What? Yeah, it's a +8 AC bonus. For being tricksy."

I'm sorry but doesn't anyone else find this post hilarious?



Edit: http://www.pvponline.com/comic_archive_results/?pg=4&c=dungeons+and+dragons

Have you looked at the world of warcraft d20 RPG? That is how they define the classes. If you haven't looked at it I highly recommend that you do. It is what DnD 3.5 should have been.

Yeah, I like the way WoW d20 did it. They've got that whole spell tree thing so there's only two types of caster but about six different caster classes. Plus, there's nothing more entertaining than playing a Tauren warlock, just because you can.

The only problem I have with the WoW RPG is that it's a little slapped-together. There are references to pages that don't exist and rules that rely on other rules that aren't there. And there's a summoned monster chart without any rules for the monsters you summon.

I think the introduction of the Warlock to the DnD system is going to be entertaining. A class whose core powers include summoning demons and stealing power from them is nice fodder for roleplaying. Though I'm afraid people playing them might get locked into the anti-hero archetype, since they're kinda evil "but kinda good."

Honestly, I think the warlord is a cool concept for a character class, and is needed. A general of an army might not be a good fighter, but he knows how to lead his troops. With a warlord around all of your allies benefit from special perks given to them by the auras he has. Like exta 5 foot step, bonuses to saving throws (which they are reworking), etc. Every few levels he gets to choose from a new type of aura that is more powerful or useful than the one he got previously, and as he advances he is able to have more auras active at once..

That's the thing, though...given what was just said about monks and barbarians being now part of the Fighter class, I don't really see a reason why this should merit a separate class of its own. The whole concept sounds like an odd mix between a paladin and a fighter.

I mean, think about the concept. A fighter is a guy who fights. A monk is a guy who fights with his hands. A barbarian is a guy who fights when he's angry. A Warlord, however, is a guy who...fights...smart? Doesn't that imply that everyone else is fighting dumb? And how does this make him qualify for a core class when nothing at all has been heard of the Bard?

Also, has anyone else noticed that no other core class implies a military rank in its title?

All the proposed changes I've heard about thus far sound good, and I do agree that you shouldn't need to have any ranks in the swim, jump, or climb skills to perform said actions. Perhaps if you want to do acrobatics or extreme mountain climbing, then yes, but basic things like that should be a given unless you decide at character creation that you have an irrational fear of water or grew up in a landlocked city so you don't know how to swim. I know some people feel like 2nd Edition was some kind of golden age for D&D but to be honest, I don't see it. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong classes but I remember back then...

- I am currently playing a ranger.
- My ranger is more of a scout and sniper than anything else. Fair enough, I can do that.
- I regularly get the last initiative due to the fact that my Longbow happens to have a speed of 8. Fair enough, I can deal with that. It gives me a chance to pick my targets, when the DM is feeling merciful.

So basically, yeah, everything is just peachy until you take a look relative to the other members of my party. Whether they be mage, fighter, or cleric, they regularly do 5x more damage than me and are eminently more useful members of the party. I feel like extra baggage in the adventure and I can only hope that one day, I will get another level and finally be able to attract followers or have an animal companion...just so I can be better cannon fodder. The only person I can sympathise with is our Bard, as he barely gets to do anything (but has a Ring of Invisibility, which makes him eminently more useful as a scout), and our Thief/Mage now has his bow and is unlikely to give it back.

Is there a point to where I'm going with this? Yes. My point being that if Rangers are going to have a proper, defined role in the party that is important, recognised, and useful, then I'm all for it. Bring on 4th Edition!

The one thing you can be sure of, is that most of the stuff that is 'wrong' with 3.5 will be fixed in 4.0, and a whole lot of stuff that was just fine, will be broken...on purpose.

Becuase lets face it, WotC is in business to make money. If they put out a perfect product then you are less likely to switch to 5th edition when it comes out. So it's in thier best interest to put out a product which is less then perfect.

I personally am really excited about 4th Edition.

One of the things that reall has me going is that they are reducing Magic Item dependence.

So a 20th Level fighter will be a force to be reckoned with, not because he has a +5 Vorpal Sword, but because he is 20th Level fighter.

Updating core rule systems on a basic level is fantastic, and I'll never object to a company doing so. What bothers me is the huge number of completely unnecessary supplemental materials that WOTC has put out, which had to be re-released after 3.5 and will now be re-released again for 4. Supplements are a huge cash cow that proves how restrictive and overcomplicated the original system was. That people continue to buy them baffles me.

In comparison, Savage Worlds is a single core setting rulebook, which can be used for anything. They released optional toolkits for genre settings (fantasy, horror, pulp, sci-fi) which are more focused on how to use the system in that genre, and they've published a large number of world settings like Evernight and Rippers.

That's a far better model, and WOTC will never adopt it because mass-producing supplements is where the money is.

I own the 3.0 core books and some of the Ravenloft setting material. I was tempted by the Complete series, but decided against them. When I play in 3.5 games, I use the 3.5 updated SRD which is publically available. I may buy the fourth edition core books, but I'll never pick up or use their supplements, and if that means that my characters are underpowered because everybody else is using supplements, I'll deal with it or find a group that doesn't use supplements at all.

The warlord fits in perfectly with how they are defining the class roles.
There are 4 main roles of characters in battle, Defenders(Melee Tanks), Leaders(Support Class), Strikers(High Damage Dealers), and Controllers(Dictate flow of battle either through damage, charms, etc.)

Defenders: Fighter, Paladin
Leaders: Cleric (Druid), Warlord, Bard
Controller: Wizard, Warlock
Striker: Rogue, Ranger

Now, even though two classes might have the same role, they might fulfill that role in a different way. And they will vary greatly outside of combat as well to give each class even more flavor. There will be no more dead levels like there were before, allowing for a lot of flexibility, and the chance to define your character more deeply. It has been stated that classes will even be able to bend their role a little bit to be able to do different things than their set archetype if they want. Characters and their classes, abilities, etc. are what they spent most of their time on when making the new game, so I think it will probably be better than it was in 3 or 3.5. They closely looked at what was wrong with previous editions of dnd, like my example with the melee cleric. They wanted to get away from the fact that you need the 4 main classes in Dnd, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric. If you want to play a bard or ranger or druid, you had better be the 5th person on the team because otherwise one of the main roles isn't being filled. They wanted to make it so that multiple classes could fill the same roll equally well. An exciting concept in my opinion, considering that it has always bugged me since edition 1.

They will have been working on the game for about 4 years by the time it comes out, I am sure all of our fears have already been had by the people on the team and have been dealt with by now.

Check out star wars saga edition, I have yet to see it myself. I was told it is a representation of how 4th edition Dnd was looking when it was released. Meaning development of 4th edition has changed since then, but it should give you an idea of where they were going with it a while ago.

Updates and supplements will be kept to a minimum, because they feel the core book is so solid. They ARE, however, working on additional classes not found in the rule book that will probably be released online on the dnd pay site. I was able to sign up for free a while back (that's where I am getting my information), but I am not sure if it is still free. Also, once 4th ed comes out people will need to subscribe. It will kind of be like dungeon, dragon, and the supplement books all rolled into one. While I don't like the idea of paying, I am sure I can split the cost with my friends to make it cheaper.

Double posting, but because of my love of warrior priests, I had to post this.

Previously I could never duke it out in combat with my two-handed warhammer as a priest, because I had to keep stopping to heal my allies.

From DnD insider:
"Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly."

Healing flowing constantly from the leader? Sounds pretty sweet to me. How the leader accomplishes it is up to their class. Clerics=Holy energy, Bards=Songs.

How does the Warlord heal people?

I say again: the party "Leader" is a function that could easily have been filled by a Paladin or a subset of the Fighter class without needing its own whole separate section. It's not so much undesirable as a really unnecessary addition.

I'd rather have Monks back then get a whole new Warlord class, is what I'm trying to say. I'm sure the Warlord class will be well-designed and probably do very well. From what I've read, they get abilities that let them grant allies extra attacks outside of their initiative order and give things like extra movement and initiative bonuses. I just think that, with all that aside, that isn't enough to justify it being a core class, especially when nothing's been said about Bards or Druids other than that they "need a lot of work."

I like the way they're apparently moving Elves back to their tree-hugger roots (there was always an inherent contradiction with their racial background there) and that Tieflings are now a core race, to complement the Warlock, which looks like a really interesting class. What I don't get is why they didn't put Aasimar in, and have instead introduced Eladrin, which are basically - though this isn't set in stone - another flavour of elf. I don't see why there need to be two types of Elf in the core races.

Especially when introducing Tieflings practically sets precedent that their opposite number be included, in the same way that one cannot have Elves without Dwarves. Unless you're Bethseda, in which case your dwarves are elves, which is why I never liked the Elder Scrolls.

I'd link you to the DnD Insider page that describes what bard will be doing in 4e, but I can't find it right now.

Suffice to say, that their singing will be the thing that grants bonuses to their allies(like healing and attack bonus), and their spells help them control enemies(charm, dominate, illusions).

Clerics on the other hand will have auras that heal and buff too, but they will be different buffs than the bard or Warlord. And their spells will be geared towards smiting, and healing status effects like poison.

The warlord is still pretty much an enigma, his auras will grant combat perks to his allies, and "heal" like the others, but it will probably be more like DR or regeneration where everyone around him gets tougher. His abilities will most likely not be spells like the other two, but more combat focused. (Think the dragon shaman).

I hope this gives everyone an example to how they all fill a similar role, but have added perks them let them do other things on top of the role.

Another example is the Rogue/ranger classes. They are both strikers. Rogue deals damage through sneak attacks, one shot huge damage backstabs. The ranger deals damage through tons of regular attacks in a round (most likely, but subject to change). They both end up doing around the same damage, but the way they do it is different.


Now, I admit I don't know much about the "new" races, other than they added the tiefling so they could have the new warlock. But this is because I honestly don't care. If the standard races are in the book, then it doesn't matter. I could care less about gnomes, half elves, or half orcs. Without sounding to rude to people who liked to play as them, I think they are all unnecessary.

Meh... I stopped playing D&D when character building became a convaluted mixture of feats and metagaming. I still would rather play skills & powers (ADD 2.5) than any WotC game. Just play WFB and 40k.

I really was not expecting such a huge response to a, honestly, minor rant thread. you all have given me much more info than was available elsewhere, And have given me allot to think about. That said I still am hating this new direction, even more so because allot of my favorite bits, like half-orcs and monks seem to be missing. One thing I haven't heard is what will supplant Skills, or is the new game going to be straight hack and slash?

I really was not expecting such a huge response to a, honestly, minor rant thread. you all have given me much more info than was available elsewhere, And have given me allot to think about. That said I still am hating this new direction, even more so because allot of my favorite bits, like half-orcs and monks seem to be missing. One thing I haven't heard is what will supplant Skills, or is the new game going to be straight hack and slash?

While I question your like of half-orcs and monks, I assure you that some sort of unarmed fighter will be present in the new edition. All the "ki-bullshit" will most likely be released in the new oriental adventures book. You will still be able to punch dragons and actually hurt them, jump small buildings in a single bound, be immune to poison...shoot hadukens...never age? (Well, I sure hope not, who made those 3.x rules up anyway?)

Skills will be present in 4th ed, though in a different form. Listen, spot, sense motive have all been groups into "perception," and other skills have gone the same route. Now instead of having skill points you divy up every round that effect your role this system will be like this:
Does you character know how to climb a tree?
Yes.
Then you can climb a tree.

Rolls will most likely be modified by your class level for trained skills. I am serious, look at star wars saga edition. It is like the beta version of DnD 4th edition.

For those that are really interested in 4th edition, i went to the DnD Worldwide gameday yesterday, and i received the 4th Edition preview stats for one of the new monsters.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9778/statblockjk3.jpg

The entire system needs a major overhall. DnD's become the 40k of RPs. Company that only wants money, severely ill with supplementtisis. First game you come to, first one you leave when pastures with grass in them appear.

It's a game that works. It's functional. But it isn't pretty.

I want to try and keep this discussion alive by asking a question that hammers completely home on the main argument of the state of the game and 4th edition. Progressively from first edition to present you notice that balance became the forefront, and yet at the same time I think if I were to go back to my first edition books they'd probably be more balanced than some of this recent...I'm going to use the word garbage.

There was a reason why leveling occured at different paces. No, it wasnt a perfectly clean system but at the same time rogues leveling twice as fast as mages sorta made sense. I would at least say pound for pound the rogue of today does not get the same value as the mage of today at each of those levels.

Then theres the emphasis on metagame balance, and by that I'm talking about stats, and roleplay, and I guess even alignment. You see all sorts of game development with expansion which isnt nescesarliy bad but is serious dull. I remember when the game encouraged a party to have a range of stats. Some characters in the party were powerful, some were weak, but essentially the system had you still need each other. It added a little varity. To that end, I'm not trying to say that buying stats is a bad system or that any race can be anything, but it just takes something away from the genuine expirence. We know not everybody is made equal, and it added something to humans as being the only race that could be paladins.

Real quick, did anybody else miss speed factor? I know I did. I honestly hated that great swords became as quick of a swing as daggers. The system might have been incomplete before but it at least rewarded certain weapon types with initiatives. If I understand correctly that will again play a factor. Thats nice, it was a great quality. And if there is one thing I would like to see differently its a more clear item damage system with repair etc...

Finally, The only other thing I have to say bad about 4th vs 3.5 is that , with such range of options everybody in our group is very unique and individualistic. I know that theres no way to come close to representing my character except with the current rules. Moving foward to 4th edition would be a huge step back for our character individuality, but not nescesarily in fun. Just that if I wanted to translate my character into the new system, I know I couldnt.

So my question at heart would be if you feel 4th edition, whether its better or not is too "perfect" of a game and cheats the players out of the fun of a somewhat more awkward game presents?

OMFG, that card or partial page or whatever it is that Bigs180 posted looks like crap.
I really hope the new monster manuals or whatever they're going to put out look better than that. The color scheme doesn't in any way suggest "devil". The fonts are boring. The presentation has no sense of fantasy to it. The stats are presented with all the grace of an algebra textbook. Ugh.

That's just the Minature Game card not an entry from a manual or anything. Sorry if you realised that but I felt I'd point it out. The current mini cards are uninspiring on the RPG side so it shouldn't cause too much worry.

What is intresting is seeing that they've moved on to speeds in squares not distances. And what is the stat bar on the bottom saying, I can't make out the smaller comments in parantheses?

Didn't realize that, so thanks, but that's still no excuse for them to inflict such poor graphic standards on the public. Click on the bar above the pic Bigs180 posted to enlarge it so you can read the tiny stats.