As everyone here knows by now, 4E is coming, and soon. We all have our private hopes and fears for the next era of Dungeons & Dragons, but there isn't much we can do but worry as long as we are left in the dark. Lucky for the Guild then, that somebody bit the bullet and got his hands on one of the 4th Edition preview books, so that the latest and greatest preview might as well be in your hands.
Below, I have the key points of Wizards' Presents: Races and Classes in convenient spoilers, including the tidbits of setting material that was included, which might not be included in other spoilers.
[spoiler=The Overview]
4th Edition will include humans, dragonborn, elves, eladrin, dwarves, halflings, and tieflings in the Player's Handbook, according to the book. Dragonborn are a humanoid draconic race with a breath weapon, pulled from Races of the Dragon, but given editing to remove the crazy rituals of hatching and mandatory good alignment. Eladrin are elves with heavier fey influence, from the new plane of the FeyWild, specializing in arcane magic, where the elves mentioned above are of the more woodsy variety and are prone to archery and tracking.
The new core classes for 4E are the cleric, fighter, rogue, warlock, and wizard. The emphasis on classes in 4th edition is powers for every class at-will, per encounter, and per day. Buff spells have been moved out of combat into "rituals" that apparently cost gold for the advantages they bring, and don't require spell slots. Yes, it appears Vancian magic is dead and gone. Since the warlock's special trick is now the norm, they have been granted the flavor of the Binder from Tome of Magic, binding the powers of the stars, fey, demons, or the familiar vestiges to gain powers. Their powers also have a demonic flavor to them, with code-names like "Hurl through Hell".
It is important to note that WotC has mentioned plans to return the previous classes and races, such as druids, gnomes, and warforged in future supplements. Now, on to the details.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Races]Races in 4E have been altered to have a greater impact over all levels, as hinted at in earlier previews. The plan appears to be including racial feats in the PHB. Most of the special powers of the earlier races, like bonuses against giants and darkvision have been cast aside in favor of flavorful options for advancement at higher levels. Using this system, the LA system has been abolished, since all the basic races are on a level of about LA +1, making stronger races valid options for level 1 characters and racial feats available to scale monstrous abilities.
[spoiler=humans]Humans have been tied to the flavor of ambition and recklessness, due to their comparatively brief lifespans. Their overall racial concept is tied to the great plains of the worlds, living varied lives but tied together by physiology and a tendency for quick thinking and rash action. Humans in the world have founded most of the empires, but witnessed falls at the hands of decadence and corruption. The design reason behind the varied nature of the human race is their lack of a progenitor god, like Moradin for the dwarves, to guide their development and unite them as a race.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Dragonborn]The official response to a long demand from players that they want to play dragons, WotC has revamped the Dragonborn to be a race that was once the servants of dragons, now left to their own devices. Their empire long lost, they now roam as mercenary clans, finding purpose in violence and the wealth it can bring.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Dwarves]Dwarves are characterized by their creation and subsequent abandonment to servitude under the giants. The dwarves of 4E now live close to the surface and have lost darkvision, but kept the stoneworking and heavy drinking of past incarnations. Clan lines follow profession, and the social structure of the dwarves lends itself to a network of isolated fortresses among the darkened realms of the world.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Eladrin]One of the three elven subspecies to survive the leap to 4E (wood elves and Drow being the other two), Eladrin specialize in Arcane magic and reside in spiraling towers on the Fey plane. Previously a type of outsiders, Eladrin have merged the traditional fey of D&D with the High Elves of the past. The Eladrin come from another world, and are thus quite alien compared to the more local races. A sense of superiority serves to maintain the barriers between the species, leaving these magic elves high and mighty, as well as distant.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Elves]Elves have been restored to the traditional forest-dwelling archery masters of the past, living a life of long journeys in a symbiotic relationship with nature. Elves are tied strongly to a hatred of goblins for their despoiling of nature in the new edition, but not much else has changed.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Halfings]Halflings are tied to the water, where dwarves are tied to the mountains and elves to the trees. Traveling the rivers of the worlds as merchants and entertainers, they carry the history of the world in their stories. The preview describes the halflings as having an "invisible empire" in the swamps, and being connected through avian messengers and a healthy trade of information. A central change in the new edition is the larger size of halflings in the new edition to be about 4.5 feet tall, rather than the previous 3, making them more formidable adventurers. Wizards wants to characterize them as rogues and rapscallions, and they seem to be doing a fine job.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tieflings]Tieflings are the bad-asses of the new edition, bearing infernal marks of past deeds and blending imperfectly into the human societies of the world. Although tolerated, they are far from loved and only through their power have they survived. Designed to appeal to the rebel in the group, Tieflings walk the line of good and evil while maintaining a heroic presence. Although they lack a celestial counterpart, WotC has assured their partner is coming in a future supplement.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Other Races]Gnomes, Warforged, and even Drow are coming in future supplements. I assume the latter two are waiting for setting supplements, but WotC has explained the wait for gnomes to be in service of finding a strong identity before they are returned to the game.[/spoiler][/spoiler]
[spoiler=Classes]coming soon[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Game mechanics]coming soon
[spoiler=Feats]coming soon[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Skills]coming soon[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tiers]coming soon[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Setting Material]The new material unveiled in Races and Classes does nothing to contradict the Points of Light concept that was previously revealed. Instead, it hints at some of the fallen empires of the world and gives insight into the history of the world.
The primary divine event is a divine war between the primordials (think Cthulhu and company) and the gods, creators of the core races. I assume more information is forthcoming in Worlds & Monsters, but until then all we know is that the gods one, but the mortals paid for it all dearly.
[spoiler=Empires]Bael Turath: A decadent empire ruled by a human aristocracy. As it began to fade, the rulers made diabolic pacts with beings from the nine hells in order to maintain their power. The devils were summoned to lead an army, and the swearers of the pact were the first tieflings, whose bloodlines continue in the modern tieflings. Filled with confidence in their new army, the empire of Bael Turath expanded too quickly and collapsed after a fatal conflict with Arkhosia, empire of the Dragonborn. The empire is long since forgotten, but the tieflings remain as it's legacy.
Arkhosia:Empire of the dragonborn, which fell after a prolonged conflict with Bael Turath. Little else is known.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Gods]Moradin:Dwarven Progenitor who made the dwarves from the earth and gave them to a primordial as a gift. After he was called to war by the other gods, he saw that the dwarves had beeen made slaves by the giants and were forced to carve for others. He set them free during the war, and is still worshiped by his creations.
Io/Bahamut/Tiamat:Io created the dragons by putting spirits into raw elemental energy. A legend says that he was cut in half during the war with the primordials, and Bahamut and Tiamat were the result, but where his blood spilled the dragonborn rose up. Bahamut carries the virtues of honor, loyalty, and justice. Tiamat is mentioned as the goddess of vengeance, no word on whether she is still goddess of the chromatics and irrefutably evil.[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
Enjoy, and I'll get the empty spoilers filled as soon as I can write the information out. Happy Holidays everyone!
There's a collection thread over at EN World that has a lot of information scavanged from various interviews, presentations, previews, designer blogs, and so on:
Unofficial D&D 4th Edition News Page (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e)
(Just in case... ;) )
Setting Material is worth less than nothing here. Don't include it.
Also, I hereby request that everyone ignores the "lizards with boobs".
Everyone: for the love of everything holy, profane and mundane, please do not talk about Dragonborn and their large mammary glands! (sounds funny but I'm dead serious). The last thing we need is 10 pages of people debating the biology, anatomy and evolution of a fictional creature and the reasons for and against its large large mammary glands. Of course I doubt it will come up but the WotC forums are littered with this debate. In the end the debate is rather pointless because no matter what they say, WotC will still commission art where Dragonborn females have breasts.
Anyways, I don't want to derail this topic so I'll get back on topic.
~~~
Back on topic: I love the direction WotC went with Eladrin, Elves and Drow. It really tightens up their vague and boring story, as was presented in 3E. I find the new story to be much more inspiring and fun. In fact I'm even thinking about developing a Fae world (VERY) loosely based off what has been presented for the 4E Elf-Breeds.
As a campaign syncreticist who probably won't be buying 4E, I for one am interested in the setting material.
Quote from: Holy Carp!As a campaign syncreticist who probably won't be buying 4E, I for one am interested in the setting material.
Let me give you the setting so far in a nut shell.
Take Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. Smash then together at the atomic level. Drizzt and Mordakinen are neighbors now.
Take WoW. Remove all of the gameplay mechanics, the economics, and the cosmology. Keep the gameplay styles. Remove orcs and gnomes. Add Forgotten Greyhawk heroes and dieties, and the new mish-mashed cosmology. Make the dwarves sexier. Add lizards with boobs.
Any questions?
Good job Rose, keep spilling the beans :)
Quote from: the_takenSetting Material is worth less than nothing here. Don't include it.
Best speak for yourself. I for one am intrigued, however contrived and derivative you profess the setting to be, and would rather have the product evidence its own poor standard if it is in fact a disappointment.
Quote from: the_takenAny questions?
Yes. Why does your obvious dislike of the material preclude the rest of us from hearing Rose's 4E spoilers about the setting?
I'm not saying it isn't bad - I don't
know what it is - but I would prefer that you not speak for everyone just because you've decided you don't like something.
As for specific questions, what is a "mish-mashed cosmology" and why exactly is this edition any closer to WoW than 3rd? I mean, hasn't D&D always retained the capability of being played as a stat-only hack and slash system?
Quote from: Holy Carp!As for specific questions, what is a "mish-mashed cosmology" and why exactly is this edition any closer to WoW than 3rd? I mean, hasn't D&D always retained the capability of being played as a stat-only hack and slash system?
I believe he's referring to the new Elemental Chaos. Essentially, it is a plane where all of the 3.5 Elemental Planes and the 3.5 Abyss exist together.
[spoiler=The Elemental Chaos description from WotC's Site]
Quote from: D&DIAll of the cosmos is not tied to the mortal world as closely as the Feywild or Shadowfell. The natural world was created from the infinite expanse of the Elemental Chaos (or Tempest, or Maelstrom), a place where all fundamental matter and energy seethes. Floating continents of earth, rivers of fire, ice-choked oceans, and vast cyclones of churning clouds and lightning collide in the elemental plane.
Powerful beings tame vast portions of the chaos and shape it to their own desires. Here the efreeti City of Brass stands amid a desert of burning sand illuminated by searing rivers of fire falling through the sky. In other places in the Elemental Chaos, mighty mortal wizards or would-be demigods have erected secret refuges or tamed the living elements to build their domains.
Elemental creatures of all kinds live and move through the Elemental Chaos: ice archons, magma hurlers, thunderbirds, and salamanders. The most dangerous inhabitants are the demons. In the nadir of this realm lies the foul Abyss, the font of evil and corruption from which demonkind springs. The Abyss is unthinkably vast'"thousands of miles in extent'"and in its maw swirl hundreds of demonic domains, elemental islands, or continents sculpted to suit the tastes of one demon lord or another.
Personally, I think this is a vast improvement over the Great Wheel.
Meh, in my completely-unworthy-of-attention oppinion D&D is already a mess of terrible and cliché decisions. They cannot possibly make it any worse. However, from what I've seen they aren't making it better.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawMeh, in my completely-unworthy-of-attention oppinion D&D is already a mess of terrible and cliché decisions. They cannot possibly make it any worse. However, from what I've seen they aren't making it better.
Its very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
From what I hear, this new edition could actually be quite an improvement. I don't expect a new and exciting setting, but that's what we're here for. But having the tieflings as their own race and what-not might be pretty cool.
I'm still irked about them dropping gnomes, but that doesn't keep me from having them. I think it's silly for them to add an elven subrace as a core race, but whatever. I plan on buying the new addition for my younger brother for him to start playing, but hopefully the new addition won't do much for me!
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work. D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass. You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even
begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.
D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's
bad at being too generic.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work. D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass. You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.
D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
agreed. The system should be more about building base archetypes and then rules for customizing them to fit the world, not decribing what races or classes are 'in' or 'out' in this month's version of the game.
I think that splitting up elves into two races is an inspired move. 3.X elves were way too many things all at the same time. It was kind of a pain to fit all the "elf baggage" into a setting.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work. D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass. You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.
D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other. Of course in practice this fails miserably as some classes are inherently more powerful than others. Still, like I said, D&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.
My friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is
our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
Quote from: LordVreegQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work. D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass. You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.
D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
agreed. The system should be more about building base archetypes and then rules for customizing them to fit the world, not decribing what races or classes are 'in' or 'out' in this month's version of the game.
Quote from: Bill VolkI think that splitting up elves into two races is an inspired move. 3.X elves were way too many things all at the same time. It was kind of a pain to fit all the "elf baggage" into a setting.
I totally agree with you. D&D Elves were (and I suppose still are (until 4E is released)) so tightly woven into radically different and often opposed themes that creating anything less than the stadard elf and his 40 lbs. of excess baggage felt wrong in some way (not to me, so much as a friend of mine who absolutely *loves* all flavor produced by WotC).
D&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself. That's why the joke about requiring every 3.x supplement to contain a new base class, new PrC, a new feat, a new spell, a new magic item, etc. exists. It almost sounds as if they aren't even learning their lesson, as they say that they've already planned to release splatbooks just so they can give out new classes and not just new talent trees to customize the ones they already have.
The thing is, D&D could do very well if it stopped trying to be the end-all of fantasy roleplaying. Other games have tried this and sound very good at what they do. The Conon d20 RPG, for instance, is not something I'd personally want to play, but from reading the reviews I get a good sense of exactly what it wants to do. My guess would be that if you tried to use the system for anything other than a solidly Conan-esque style of play it would either trip up or require a bunch of house rules. And the thing is that D&D suffers from this problem simply because it doesn't clue you in to its limited nature.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other.
Unfortunately I fail to see how this has anything to do with the flavor issues of genericness vs. failed-genericness.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfD&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.
Well if the game was kept D&D as if D&D was one way to play out of many then I would be okay. It's just that D&D keeps getting billed as the system for any sort of pseudo-medieval when it needs a bunch of tweaks to go outside the assumed D&D ideas.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
Either that or acknowledging that their limited number of choices isn't going to fulfill every character idea.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfFrom the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
ARGH! Mechanics that we now almost nothing about! We cannot make opinionated guesses about them for fear of being wrong!
Sorry, but I've gotten quite annoyed with the whole "we must wait and see before expressing our opinions" stance. People are entitled to it, but it really misses the point about having meaningless debates (i.e. it's something to do while you wait).
Anyway: "Training" feats seem like another silly option that in the end misses the mark. Why have specific feats that let you take options from other classes? Why not just put those options into a communal pool and have one Varied Training feat?
I for one am going to be putting a fair amount of faith into the new edition. I was skeptical before, but the more I read the more I tend to look forward to the game at least as an improvement over 3.5. One good thing about it is that it will feel "fresh" and might give an incentive to try playing everything again instead of assuming your favorite class/race combo is the same and sticking with it.
I'm really hoping that the core books include a few generic talent trees to fill in the blanks. Since the nature classes seem to be missing, they could have a talent tree or two to help fill that that is generic - you know, something that offers animal companions, favored enemies, passive bonuses in the wilderness, tracking, etc.
Quote from: SovietTrollI'm really hoping that the core books include a few generic talent trees to fill in the blanks. Since the nature classes seem to be missing, they could have a talent tree or two to help fill that that is generic - you know, something that offers animal companions, favored enemies, passive bonuses in the wilderness, tracking, etc.
separate thread[/i] for the dragonborn mammary glands debate?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
From the structural design standpoint, I think the best class in 3.X was the fighter. Because most of the classes abilities came through the bonus feats, you could build quite a number of archetypes with just the base class, by choosing different feat trees. Unfortunately, other classes didn't go the same way.
If I was designing a variant d20 system, I'd probably go in that direction - making all the classes gain abilities through bonus feats. Say, every level you gain a feat. Most levels, that feat has to be selected from class-related feats, although at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. you can choose any (non-restricted) feat from any class or the general list. Your class only comes into play by which feats are class-related. Setting-specific details can be added by creating new class lists, restricting availability of certain feats, etc.
I think that designing a spell system requires making some assumptions about the setting. But I'd still prefer a situation where spell-casting is driven by skills and/or feats rather than being a whole separate sub-system. It might be easier to balance that way.
I'll be most interested to see the changes in the spell system for largely this reason. The Vancian spell system was awfully rigid, and very difficult to customize for a setting and remain balanced.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.
Various D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support
any setting and portray
any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
Update:Added Moradin and the dragon gods to the Deities. Filled in the Empires section.
Quote from: Epic MeepoI have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.
I've never gotten that feeling. The fact that the names of races and classes are things you could pull out of random fantasy books rather than trying to be new is just an example of the factors.
Quote from: Epic MeepoVarious D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support any setting and portray any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
I think we're disagreeing on what "generic fantasy" means. I take it to mean having a certain range but not a complete range. In D&D's case it acts (through what it contains) like it can encompass a broad range of popular fantasy visions. I just think that pre-defined statistics just don't cut it.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other.
Unfortunately I fail to see how this has anything to do with the flavor issues of genericness vs. failed-genericness.
I was referring to your statement about how predetermined PCs actions are and how they have a lack of options. A big reason each player can do only so much is due in large part to his/her class choice. Each class is limited in options because WotC makes decisions about classes you, as a player, have no control over. Because you lack control, many of the heroic fantasy tropes are lost. Thus we either accept that they are lost and hope that in the end the classes are balanced off each other (so no one feels superior to anyone else) or design out own game. Sadly, most people choose the former.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfD&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.
Well if the game was kept D&D as if D&D was one way to play out of many then I would be okay. It's just that D&D keeps getting billed as the system for any sort of pseudo-medieval when it needs a bunch of tweaks to go outside the assumed D&D ideas.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
Either that or acknowledging that their limited number of choices isn't going to fulfill every character idea.
They could do that but they won't. D&D is, at least as far as I can see, attempting to be the flagship for fantasy RPGs. If they admit D&D can only truely work for particular sub-sets of fantasy, than its self hoisted position as flagship will be diminished. And that's the last thing WotC wants right now.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfFrom the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
ARGH! Mechanics that we now almost nothing about! We cannot make opinionated guesses about them for fear of being wrong!
Sorry, but I've gotten quite annoyed with the whole "we must wait and see before expressing our opinions" stance. People are entitled to it, but it really misses the point about having meaningless debates (i.e. it's something to do while you wait).
Anyway: "Training" feats seem like another silly option that in the end misses the mark. Why have specific feats that let you take options from other classes? Why not just put those options into a communal pool and have one Varied Training feat?
Lol, meaningless debates are often the best debates :)
WotC won't do that because, IMO, their theme with 4E is to make it accessible and easy for new players to play. Giving a new player a communal pot of abilities with little restrictions is a forumla for him making a bad character. Which in turn might mean he will quit because D&D becomes 'too confusing.'
If your goal is to make the game accessible to new players, than it needs rigid structure which means predetermined classes. If your goal is to appeal to the older generation, than a communal pot of talent trees would probably be the way to go. If your goal is to do both, than meet in the middle and make semi-rigid classes for newbies but at the same time make multi-classing easier so older players can make the character they want to more easily.
Quote from: Epic MeepoQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.
IMO, people see D&D's flavor as generic because they have been playing D&D for many years. Everything becomes stale after a time. Add to this games like WoW that copy some of the core flavor of D&D and its not that hard to see why some believe D&D is generic. But then again, what is generic fantasy? Is it copying Tolkien or some of the other first fantasy writers? Is it merely having Orcs and Elves? Is it having medieval tech with magic? I have not seen any argument or justification about what generic fantasy really is (not just here but on other forums). Until that matter is settled, no one can say this or that is or isn't generic because you could be talking about two different types of generic.
Quote from: snakefingQuote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
From the structural design standpoint, I think the best class in 3.X was the fighter. Because most of the classes abilities came through the bonus feats, you could build quite a number of archetypes with just the base class, by choosing different feat trees. Unfortunately, other classes didn't go the same way.
If I was designing a variant d20 system, I'd probably go in that direction - making all the classes gain abilities through bonus feats. Say, every level you gain a feat. Most levels, that feat has to be selected from class-related feats, although at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. you can choose any (non-restricted) feat from any class or the general list. Your class only comes into play by which feats are class-related. Setting-specific details can be added by creating new class lists, restricting availability of certain feats, etc.
I think that designing a spell system requires making some assumptions about the setting. But I'd still prefer a situation where spell-casting is driven by skills and/or feats rather than being a whole separate sub-system. It might be easier to balance that way.
I'll be most interested to see the changes in the spell system for largely this reason. The Vancian spell system was awfully rigid, and very difficult to customize for a setting and remain balanced.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Classes should be defined by a player choice of an ability/feat, rather than by a predetermined ability/feat. It opens the door to so much more customization and personalization if the player is given more choices. This is one reason why I liked the Star Wars SAGA. Granted many abilities were predetermined but each of the talent tree paths (especially for the Jedi) were very flavorful and were very different. A Character would look very different if he went straight Sentinel compared to a person who went some what into Sentinle and some what into Guardian. If you add bonus feats to this mix then you really have a good system going for you.
As for the spells, I too am curious how it will work. IMO, it will probably be similar to a mix of Jedi Force Powers and more traditional spells by level system we all know from 3.5 (not vancian just certain spells have levels at which they become available).
Quote from: Epic MeepoQuote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.
Various D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support any setting and portray any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
No, they never claim that they are the most flexible and or that they support every whim of every designer. They merely do what any larger company does to smaller companies, they use their position (through websites, continual updates, and teasers that fanboys write about on the blogs and fanpages...and setting design sites) to infer that their product is better and more desirable than everyone elses. And by the interest in this one thread, there must be something to that.
But I'm frankly impressed by how many people seem to looking forward to this. People ponder about changing the games they play based purely on WotC coming out with a new blueprint that is certainly becoming less and less applicable to other settings. I somehow don't think there would be a list of threads and comments if Shadowrun did announce a reinvention, so the comparison may be less valid.
Quote from: Epic MeepoEverything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics.
I've never gotten that feeling. The fact that the names of races and classes are things you could pull out of random fantasy books rather than trying to be new is just an example of the factors.[/quote]this post[/url] by D&D designer Mike Mearls:
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think we're disagreeing on what "generic fantasy" means. I take it to mean having a certain range but not a complete range. In D&D's case it acts (through what it contains) like it can encompass a broad range of popular fantasy visions.
I don't see a broad range of fantasy visions in D&D at all. I see a high-magic sword and sorcery wargame with a bit of exploration and roleplaying added in. If D&D has fully-developed rules for any other fantasy vision, I have yet to see them.
@Epic Meepo: It's nothing about you, but I'm going to drop the "generic vs. non-generic" topic. I've gotten my "meaningless debate" quota for the day.
There is one thing I like about 4E that has nothing to do with the mechanics or flavor: I get something of a high because I get to be on the ground floor for an edition. I hear so much about previous editions (of both this and some other games), but to me that experience doesn't exist yet. I really want to see what it's like not to be playing the "used" editon.