No way I am buying into 4e.

[Dailus]

ok I started playing D&D back in the 80's with the red "basic" set. I bought all of those boxed sets, well over a dozen 1st eddition books, and nearly that many second eddition books & boxes. I continued throwing my cash at WotC with 3e then came 3.5...***, now 4e double ***!
now this isn't really just about the cash its about the radical changes in the game. Gnomes have been replaced by tieflings, warforged are a core race, what the heck is a dragonborn any way? (thought they ditched dragonlance) I hear half-orcs are gone... classes are being replaced. Yesterday I read on the WotC forums that barbarian, druid, and bard were likely to go. Warlock and warlord are in... is this table top WoW? Anyway I know this is just a pointless rant, but apparently I needed to rant to someone.

-Dailus

[TiberiusofTyr]

now this isn't really just about the cash its about the radical changes in the game. Gnomes have been replaced by tieflings, warforged are a core race, what the heck is a dragonborn any way? (thought they ditched dragonlance) I hear half-orcs are gone... classes are being replaced. Yesterday I read on the WotC forums that barbarian, druid, and bard were likely to go. Warlock and warlord are in... is this table top WoW? Anyway I know this is just a pointless rant, but apparently I needed to rant to someone.

-Dailus

They don't have a concrete vision for what gnomes should be, so they didn't make the initial cut. They should be in the monster manual though.

Warforged will be just as core as anything else in the monster manual. Not in the PHB.

Dragonborn have nothing to do with dragonlance.

Half-orc will be one of the first things released on DDI. Reportedly.

Barbarian, druid, and bard are likely to come later. I don't know why they made the choices they did for the initial offerings, but I will check it out when it is released. I suggest you do the same. There just isn't enough information right now..

[Fallensbane]

Honestly if you have no interest in 4e then just don't buy it. There are so many 3e / 3.5 books out from various companies and free sources created by fan communities that you could play 3.5 for the rest of your days and likely never incorporate everything at least once. Now granted there is a lot of crappy content out there, but there is also a lot of good content also.

Personally I am looking forward to 4e myself. There are some things I don't like about it. Mainly flavor and lore things. But I will use my own personal world so that stuff is easily rectified. Who knows maybe down the line you will find you like 4e. Don't knock it until it has actually been released and more information is available.

And seriously, the WoW comment is lame. Why is it people always fall back on "ZOMG its being WOWified?" This trend is almost as bad as grammar Nazi's who have no real response to someones criticisms of something and then feel the need to attack that persons grammar because they couldn't think of anything else to respond with...

[Nevthial]

ok I started playing D&D back in the 80's with the red "basic" set. I bought all of those boxed sets, well over a dozen 1st eddition books, and nearly that many second eddition books & boxes. I continued throwing my cash at WotC with 3e then came 3.5...***, now 4e double ***!
now this isn't really just about the cash its about the radical changes in the game. Gnomes have been replaced by tieflings, warforged are a core race, what the heck is a dragonborn any way? (thought they ditched dragonlance) I hear half-orcs are gone... classes are being replaced. Yesterday I read on the WotC forums that barbarian, druid, and bard were likely to go. Warlock and warlord are in... is this table top WoW? Anyway I know this is just a pointless rant, but apparently I needed to rant to someone.

-Dailus

If you played D&D more than 25 years ago, 4th. Edition isn't for you. ( It isn't for me either.)

[Fallensbane]

I work a comic/hobby shop which sells D&D products. We also have a huge basement where we run tournaments and during the week people are also allowed to come down and play whatever game they like. So we have several D&D games run at our store during the week.

I have been trying to talk to as many of our customers about their thoughts on it as I can. It has been pretty close to an even split. Some people are really interested in it. Some people would rather see WotC burn in hell for releasing a new edition. Though the majority of people who I have had read some of the preview book Wizards Presents: Races and Classes change their opinion to hating it outright to deciding to take a look at the books when our shipment hits in July.



If you played D&D more than 25 years ago, 4th. Edition isn't for you. ( It isn't for me either.)

That post assumes you know what every single person who has played D&D for over 25 years likes. That's a rather bold assumption as everyone has different likes and expectations, sometimes wildly different. I have been playing D&D for around 19 or so years. Are you saying if I had been playing for another 6 or so years I would automatically hate the idea of 4e? Why?

If you hate the idea of 4e, don't like what you have heard that is fine. I feel I already gave a good reason why upgrading to 4e is not needed. Have fun with 3.5 or whatever version you play. But don't start tossing out assumptions on how certain people are just not meant to play 4th edition, that is just ridiculous.

[BurnerD]

Obviously WOTC needs to release new items to keep their business from stagnating. These new items also must reflect the current trends and tastes of the general gaming population.

What I do not understand is why they do not continue to release occasional content for the older editions... One would think there would still be demand, but maybe I'm off base here.

I'm kinda disappointed with WOTC anyway since they ditched Dragon Magazine. I understand why they did it, but I still don't like it. A well... change happens

[feast_of_souls]

Two-words..."Cash Grab"

Yes, Wizards is a company and any business relies on revenue to continue functioning. And i can empathize with any business that sells RP books. Fresh supplies and change are necessary, especially in smaller communities when the gaming populations are limited and those that do game already bought their books and kept your business afloat last year.

However, in the last twenty-two years I have transitioned from basic to advanced, then reluctantly to second, then happily to 3rd and gratefully to 3.5 (after the mess that was 3.0) i can look at my bookshelf and guess that i gave enough of my money to wizards to buy a new car and they will not get another penny for re-writing the same world again. I can role-play in 3.5 happily for a lot longer before i see any limitations, short of poor DM-ing. Until they come up with something original, I for one (and I encourage others to do the same, if for no other reason than to force them to make something new) am not giving them one more red cent.

There however are two for the forum.

[Nevthial]

That post assumes you know what every single person who has played D&D for over 25 years likes. That's a rather bold assumption as everyone has different likes and expectations, sometimes wildly different. I have been playing D&D for around 19 or so years. Are you saying if I had been playing for another 6 or so years I would automatically hate the idea of 4e? Why?

No, I'm saying that persons who are used to system as it was implemented in the past will not like the changes being made to it. I have played every TSR product that was ever put out. Seen every RPG failure you can imagine , I.E. : the Amazing Engine fiasco, the failed Red Steel campaign setting, D20 system when it was first introduced in Gamma World 3rd. ed. ( approx. 16 years before D20 was D20 ) , the copyright infringement removal of Elric from the Deities & Demi-gods AD&D book , ect. the list is endless. If 4th edition had been introduced in the non "PC" age, it would fail miserably. It doesn't look or feel like D&D. It is a totally different game. It will probably do fairly well with today's generation of players. I merely stated that it isn't for an older crowd of players who are used to the old way of doing things. It's meant for a video game generation who want everything "now". It is meant for a less patient group of players. Hence the "dumbing down" of combat in the new system.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
Here is a fairly accurate quote that describes why the game isn't for an older RP crowd:

1) Class Cut - Some classes aren't going to make it, or, will have to wait for PHB2 before they can be played. This means if you have a multiple year character you want to play, or NPCs in a module you're making that need those classes.. too bad.

2) Roles - Umm, why did you take the roles of military detachments in medieval war and apply them to a 4-6 man team? 4-6 guys are PROBABLY going to fight like a little gang... the amount of contrived interplay they describe is bordering on ludicrous. "Shoot everyone with an arrow for me!" "Okay, we magically now have time to whip out bow and arrow and let one fly, boss, you're such a good leader that we all have haste. Rock on bro!". Controllers and strikers etc? This is all stupid... Let characters decide their fighting strategy by their weapon/spell/multiclass/prestige/playstyle choice, and quit putting artificial "****" on top of the combat system. THIS IS NOT A BOARD GAME, QUIT TRYING TO MAKE IT LIKE ONE.

3) Party Size - Balancing for 5 PCs is foolish. Why? Because in all my years of playing D&D, I've only ever had a group of 5 Players who could regularly donate entire evenings to play maybe once. How about you make the game playable by a single DM and a single player, first, and THEN expand it to include multiple players? Oh, you were too interested in your stupid roles. Awesome. The game should be enjoyable by 2-8 players.

4) Critical Hits - This system maybe needed some work from 3rd edition. I loved it, personally, and thought it was a great answer to the "called shot" problem of old. Reducing it to 1 roll seemed attractive, but, making a crit just do max damage, I felt, was sort of stupid. THey should have just been more judicious with the inclusion of "keen" effects, and made x3 the highest crit multiplier, or something else equally subtle. I don't want "crit monsters" running around, but the chance to get suddenly beheaded, or to suddenly behead something was a very nice, spicy addition to the game. Many of my encounters as a player have hinged on a critical hit.

5) The Softening - Much of the language used in the books so far has been geared towards making it much more difficult to suddenly die. Crits reduced, deathspells removed, traps softened up and made removable by everyone (this one kinda makes sense), Paragon level characters being more easily resurrected, etc etc etc. This, to me, seems a little boring. Part of the appeal as a player and a DM, was the possibility that my character might fall in battle. It's a sad event to lose a character, yes, but adds dramatic emphasis to the game (when it happens right). It seems like now to kill a PC, the DM will pretty much have to decidedly do so, which is really, really lame. Keep it as deadly as 3e, soften it 10% at most, guys, come on.

That's all I'll worry with for the in-game reasons. Yes, we don't have perfect details, but, what we do have, that stuff looks pretty bad to me as an old-school player. Admittedly, I was apprehensive about 3e when it first came out, but, it didn't do anything shaking to the fundamentals of the game... i.e. I could bring in and convert all my old characters and adventures with relative ease. So, 3e was a necessary, fresh repainting of an old and amazing game. There are some things in 4e that look fresh, or resurrected... I'm thinking paragon paths look like they might be getting back to the "name-level" of old, which could be fun... especially if they bring back a good hireling system and the "war machine" of old so our high level characters can wage wars against one another.


2) Tying the D20 license more closely to Dungeons and Dragons is a stated goal of 4e. I think this is rubbish. Games like Spycraft and Swords and Sorcery, and other D20 stamp having, compatible games were awesome to have around, and easy to sort from the 600 driftwood ****-system games with no logos. As Wizards turns its back to the industry that it helped so much, I believe we'll see less and less active RPGers of any breed, since Wizards essentially IS the rpg industry these days. While those other games can still operate under the OGL, it seems like a generic, non-wizards of the coast d20-like system is needed, and may be the only real hope for the rpg community. I doubt we'll ever even see it, with the stifling power that wizards now has.

3) This is the same company that makes Magic the Gathering. We all know this... but, according to Monte Cook (ex employee and foundation-layer of D20 altogether), many of the old-hat D&D people have quit or been fired (read his blog from about 2 years ago). They even talk about thinking about making a "card-like" system for combat in D&D, and (luckily) they decided against it, but, I'm pretty sure the new "powers" are sort of based on such a design. Guys, if they can sell you more and more miniatures and expansion booklets and eventually even cards, you're doomed. Have you PLAYED Magic the Gathering? Just like the Pigeon-holed the individual mana colors with the "color wheel" concept, so will your characters be pigeon holed with the "roles" concept.

In short, the old game of D&D was commercialized, yes, but, designed and developed by people with a love and appreciation of medieval fantasy. These old designers were more focused on enabling us to play a game where we can assume the ROLE of the errant knight, the mighty warlord, the noble paladin, the mighty sorceror in his tower (if you wanted one!), or the master rogue (With a knack for finding treasure/maps, etc on a per week basis even). They were not so consumed with figuring out ways to sell us more and more books... maybe the first hint of it in 2nd edition a little, but not so much as to be blatantly obvious and game demolishing.

Now it seems we have a candy-coated super-multi-racial mega-high-fantasy (behemoths help merchants move goods?!?), magic is not arcane anymore, completely whacked out and super-expensive game that has little to no respect for the game that spawned it...

Conclusion:
It's sad when Swords and Sorcery or even *laugh* Hackmaster are closer to Dungeons and Dragons is supposed to be than Dungeons and Dragons is.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

The above quote isn't mine, but it's fairly accurate.

[unionyes]

I also started playing with the Red Box set, moved up to AD+D, and stayed there. The last tabletop game I was in as a regular was about 5 years ago, and it was all old farts like me and we played AD+D. We had absolutely no problem with leaving stuff out or adding stuff in to the game, either. We made our own world, which is IMO half the fun. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the mobs are, or what the classes can or can't do. It matters that we had fun. For us, fun meant a balanced game that was challenging and interesting. It doesn't matter if you are firing a level 1 magic missile at an orc or laying a level 18 lightning bolt down on a black dragon, at the end of the day you should have had to think hard, innovate, and struggle some to beat the quest. And if your brother in law's favorite character should happen to die, well, thems the breaks ;)

I realize that there are probably purists out there who will want to use every rule in the new editions, and that's fine. For me, its always 'house rules', keep the best, discard the rest. If the new edition isn't good, change it or scrap it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you buy it in the first place, let alone incorporate all of the changes into your own world.

I know my old buddies still play a semi-regular AD+D game. I think I will give them a call and dust off my old half orc cleric assassin just for fun.

[Uska]

Well I am buying 4E and I have been playing since the pamphlet books (75) but I am banning Dragonborn, and the devil boys plus adding back in half-orcs(they will be posted on the website) and gnomes(stats will be in the MM) a lot of what they are adding I like but some I dont. I mainly like the idea of the virtual table and hope it works better then the ones out right now. As my poor gorup as scattered to winds and this may let us play together again.

[Uska]

If you played D&D more than 25 years ago, 4th. Edition isn't for you. ( It isn't for me either.)

Umm I played more then 30 years and still play orignal dnd, all versions pretty much except for basic and expert when I can. and I am looking forward to 4E

[Grimdiegn]

Here are some questions and answers from WotC about 4e. It doesn't look like iI'll be switching from 3.5 anytime soon.


http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1459259&from=rss



Posted by Zonk on Tuesday February 19, @10:23AM
from the all-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder dept.
In January we had the chance to ask the designers of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition a few questions about the new version of the classic tabletop game. The Wizards of the Coast Community Manager, Mike "Gamer_Zer0" Lescault put our questions to members of the development team, including: Andrew Collins, Chris Perkins, Scott Rouse, and Sara Girard. Some of the questions weren't quite answered in as much detail as I would have liked. That said, they've given us a great opportunity to follow up on their responses. If you have a follow-up question, put it in a comment below (one question per comment please). We'll pass on five of the best, and the designers will answer your question on-camera at the Dungeons and Dragons Experience at the end of this month. We'll post the video to the site early in March. This is a great chance to put a face to some legendary designer names, and get your unanswered issues resolved. Get asking.

Why 4th Edition? by DrMrLordX:
3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically. Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wizards of the Coast:
The design team had play-tested Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 extensively and it was clear that the game needed to evolve. Since there were things we wanted to do digitally, like the Digital Game Table and the Character builder, it became clear that we should create a new, fully integrated system, with rules that would support our online applications. There were so many system improvements that the team really felt that the time had come to revamp the game. I don't imagine that our customers would have been satisfied with a version 3.75.

How long will this edition last? by Erwos:
It upset quite a few folks when D&D 3.0E transitioned to 3.5E relatively soon after release, and made some people's investments in D&D become basically worthless overnight. While I appreciate that it's sometimes time to spawn a new edition that's incompatible with the old, it felt like 3.5E should have been an errata to 3.0E, rather than a totally new set of books. I understand that WotC can't commit itself to any firm "we will not release another edition for X years" guarantee, but it would be nice to hear some sort of assurance that we won't see a repeat of the 3.0E->3.5E debacle. What's the plan? What lessons have you learned?

WotC:
I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 happened a little too soon. Would Wizards of the Coast have released 3.5 if we knew at the time that 4th Edition was coming? My guess is probably not. We would like to have 4th Edition last 8 to 10 years just like previous editions.

Player's Online Component? by Zonk
I know this component is still 'in the works', but I have to ask: what are you planning for the online pricing for players vs. DMs? You've said that accessing D&D Insider and the 'online tabletop' will cost between $10 and $15, but is that for everyone? I just can't see telling my players they *each* need to pay $12/month to play online, let alone shelling out $30/month for myself and my wife. Also, will I need to have a paid subscription in order to access PDFs of the 4th edition books that I buy?

WotC:
We will be announcing pricing and subscription details at the D&D Experience convention in two weeks.

Open Gaming License by egg_green:
With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?

WotC:
The initial 4th Edition plans for allowing third-party publication of compatible supplements have been announced, and we're currently working with a number of independent publishers to iron out the details and get them started. Our goal is to allow 3rd party publishers, both large and small, the opportunity to publish products compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.

Will combat be more streamlined? by DeafDumbBlind:
At higher levels in D&D 3.5, a fight between the party and a group of enemies can easily last a couple of hours. How has combat been streamlined?

WotC:
Two significant changes to gameplay that accelerate and streamline high-level combat are the reduction in the number of dice rolls required on each turn, and the drastic simplification of monsters. No more "full attack actions" requiring handfuls of d20s. No more monster powers hiding in feats, or that require you to look somewhere else to understand what they do--monster powers are self-contained, specialized abilities appropriate to that monster's role, its tactics in a battle, and its identity in the world.

Magic Item Requirement by Blackeagle_Falcon:
One of the things I dislike about 3rd edition is that at medium and high levels magic items are such a big part of a character's power. A PC has to be decorated like a Christmas tree with various magical doodads in order to be effective. Running a campaign in a world where magic items are rare or nonexistant required a lot of house rules and adjustment on the part of the DM. Will it be easier to run a low or no magic item campaign in 4e?

WotC:
We're definitely reducing the number of magic items that a typical character will carry around. Magic items aren't going away--they're a great way for characters to specialize their tactics, shore up weaknesses, and otherwise differentiate themselves from other characters--but they'll be a smaller overall portion of a character's array of special abilities. In addition, we're being clearer to the players and DM what mechanical benefits we expect all characters to derive from their array of items, which makes it easier for a DM running a "low-magic" campaign to know what his characters are missing (so that he can either take that into account by reducing monster stats, or provide the missing benefits via other methods).

D&D and WOW by halivar:
It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?

WotC:
Just as the design teams of most computer games draw on their experiences with Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games, we look to other games for inspiration and innovation. Many of us in RPG R&D play or have played MMOs and other computer games. Some of the lessons we learned about gameplay on those platforms have helped us craft a better tabletop RPG, both for current D&D players and for potential new players who either haven't yet tried D&D or haven't found previous iterations of the game to their liking.

The balance between easy and good by Mongoose Disciple:
How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.

WotC:
The struggle between playability and tactical depth is a constant one for any game designer, and D&D is no different. We're always wrestling with the right balance between providing streamlined, intuitive play and giving players all the options they want. For example, by giving more characters customizable options for their actions in combat, we've added a dramatic level of depth (both strategic, in building your character, and tactical, in employing those options during a fight), but at the cost of increasing complexity for some characters. We think that's a net positive effect, because the lack of tactical and strategic options for fighters, rogues, and many other characters had become a glaring weakness in the game. The key is to ensure that players of different sensibilities can still find a rewarding play experience within the game's framework. A player who prefers simple options can select those and still feel like he's creating an effective character, while his buddy who thrives on complexity can load up on interesting combos without grinding the game to a halt.

New content for old Settings? by andphi:
I know that some of the old settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammers, Dark Sun, Planescape) have been transitioned to other companies or have been quietly kept alive by their fans with knowledge bases and efforts at rules translations between old rulesets and 3.5. Will any of these old, orphaned settings being making a comeback in 4.0? (Planescape. Please, Planescape!) If not, are the 4.0 rules being written to make these on-going translation efforts easier?

WotC:
We appreciate the devoted fans who have continued to run campaigns in our older campaign settings. For a variety of reasons, we can't give every setting an equal amount of support, but we certainly expect to revisit older settings from time to time on D&D Insider. We constantly re-evaluate the role of older settings in our business plans and product schedules, and it's entirely possible that some of those settings may well stage a full-fledged return at some point in the future. For now, though, we're focusing on relaunching the Forgotten Realms campaign setting in August of 2008, with the Eberron campaign setting following in 2009. When we firm up any other plans, we'll certainly share those.

Negative Press by eldavojohn:
Short intro, I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. Play a lot of computer games. Enjoy reading up on lore and the like. But I never got into D&D. I had friends that played it but I was never into it. I tried playing it a few times and had some fun experiences. But there's always been a sort of negative stigma associated with it among ... well, the general populace. What are you doing to break free of this? Or do you embrace it? What are your thoughts & opinions on this strange negative publicity that popular movies push onto D&D players? Do you ever try to break free of that?

WotC:
(Note from Gamer_Zer0: Sorry Zonk, I tried my best to get this question answered for you, but apparently the Sci-Fi channel was having an original Battlestar Galactica marathon and the entire D&D team was no where to be found!)

Complexity vs. other gaming systems by Mechagodzilla:
Has there been any thoughts or discussions on reducing the amount of books needed to play? Donating a bookshelf to every new edition is getting a little ridiculous for the casual gamer. I have 40+ books from first and second edition. I bought the Player's Handbook from the third edition, read the first thirty pages and went "bleh". I know it goes against the business model, but can you actually make a game that can be played with less than four books?

WotC:
The only book any player needs to play the game is the Player's Handbook. In addition, the DM will want a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual (to help him craft encounters, build adventures, and run an entertaining game). Players won't need the Dungeon Master's Guide to equip their higher-level characters, because the PH will have plenty of magic items for all levels. Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them. That said, a large number of D&D players want more options than the core rulebooks provide--so we publish additional supplements and sourcebooks to meet that desire--but the game's fully functional without them. Of course, with the new online tools provided by D&D Insider (including a full rules database), it'll be easier than ever to carry around even your whole collection of D&D books wherever you play--just log on and there they are!

DRM? by MykeBNY:
Many people are acting as if a new edition will not only obsolete their old books, it will actually prevent them from accessing the ruleset at all. Level-headed people of course regard that as silly, nobody's going to sneak into your house and burn your old books! However, with more and more importance being placed on digital content (not specifically Wizards of the Coast, but in general) ... Is the issue of whether to DRM or not, and why and how being treated very seriously within the company?

WotC:
There is still a fair amount of non-rules content in the 3.x books that is still usable with 4th Edition. The rules themselves are changing and the old rules content will be obsolete. We plan to sell digital versions of our books for use online. Our DRM philosophy is to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Character sheets like by coppro:
We know that you are providing a tool for editing character sheets on your computer, although you have not specified anything else. An editable PDF sheet seems likely. However, there have been many popular tools (e.g. PCGen) that can update many aspects of data automatically based on game events, rather than numbers. Will the suite of digital tools released with 4th Edition include a tool that can maintain a character sheet that can be updated based on effects and modifications, rather than simple numeric input? If so, will it be extensible with published supplements/user-provided data?

WotC:
Our character builder application let's you build characters of any 4E class and level. It will also let you populate the sheets with content from the D&D database, and to update your characters as they grow.

Arcane/Divine Balance? by Rydia:
In 3.5 and even basic 3d ed, Priests were far and away more useful than wizards and sorcers. They had damage spells, could use better weapons out of the box and had a serious of buffs, combined with their armor, that made them powerful and extremely difficult to kill. At very high levels, a powerful wizard can deal great damage with delayed blast fireball and whatnot, but at that point a good cleric can throw down greater aspect of the diety, divine power and a load of other spells and turn themselves into a combat machine, plus the ability to heal and a few good damage spells. How are you going to balance the two main spellcasting types in 4th ed? Or are you going to leave things generally as they are?

WotC:
One of the most significant design goals of 4th Edition was to clarify the roles filled by each of the character classes in the game. Not only does this help prevent one class from being good at too many things--such as the cleric--but it also prevents classes from being unable to accomplish any role effectively (such as the bard or monk). For example, clerics in 4th Edition occupy the "leader" role (sometimes also known as the "healer" or "party buffer" role). Their damage output is decent, but far behind that of the wizard or rogue, and they don't have the defenses or melee-control abilities of the fighter.

Who are you trying to please? by HikingStick:
I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers. I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. My question is this: who are you trying to please? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?"

WotC:
The "beneath the surface" answer is, "Because this edition is the most exciting and playable version of D&D that has ever been published." In order for Dungeons & Dragons to continue to thrive, it needs to retain current players while also attracting new players to the fold. Third Edition D&D succeeded wildly on both counts, and also brought thousands of lapsed D&D players back into the game (in some cases after years away from the tabletop). We have every expectation that Fourth Edition will repeat that success.

The fact that the Player's Handbook continues to be a strong-selling book years after its publication tells us that new players still enter the game every month. We also know from our RPGA programs that the game environment is full of diehard veterans from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as new players trying out their first characters. But in order for us to continue to please existing players (whose preferences in gaming continue to evolve) and also attract new players (whose needs may be quite different from veteran gamers), the game must keep pace with an enormously volatile and variable marketplace.

D&D has always been a tabletop-based game, and Fourth Edition won't change that. However, we recognize that people think about games, information storage, and even social gatherings differently now than they did in 1974, and we want the new D&D to recognize and embrace those differences rather than risk becoming obsolete. So now you'll be able to access your rulebooks online via the Rules Database, craft the perfect look for your PC with the Character Visualizer, and even game with players across town or across the globe on the Digital Game Table.

At the end of the day however, we really just want to please the fantasy gamer inside all of us and feed that insatiable desire to keep the adventure fresh and exciting!

[Dimicron]

Obviously WOTC needs to release new items to keep their business from stagnating. These new items also must reflect the current trends and tastes of the general gaming population.

What I do not understand is why they do not continue to release occasional content for the older editions... One would think there would still be demand, but maybe I'm off base here.

I'm kinda disappointed with WOTC anyway since they ditched Dragon Magazine. I understand why they did it, but I still don't like it. A well... change happens


I'd rather see them rewrite the Planescape and Dark Sun settings(bringing them into 3.5e) instead of working on 4e.

[Savaas]

3) This is the same company that makes Magic the Gathering. We all know this...

Aye, and if you're familiar with the direction that game has been taking, design wise, then you shouldn't be ovely surprised. Much like the newer MtG sets that promote less innovation and more collecting, decks in a can as it were, it seems that WotC wants to "update" thier license holdings to entertain the digital generation. Using your imagination isn't the popular thing anymore. C'mon, we're playing a D&D MMO .... that in itself strays from the core storytelling / roleplaying aspects of it's namesake. Still we're paying so there must be a market in it right? They're simply shifting focus to where the action hungry crowd wants it to be and hoping to reign in some new customers ... and dip into the pockets of the old ones again :)

**note: the lack of respect 4e has for Druids puts me in a foul mood :) **

[Dimicron]

**note: the lack of respect 4e has for Druids puts me in a foul mood :) **

I haven't looked into 4e much, ok any... can you explain this a bit please?

[Sem34]

This was posted on WoTC website


WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
4TH EDITION AT D&D EXPERIENCE 2008

1)Character roles are more clearly defined.
Everyone who’s played D&D knows that there are roles for
each character – some characters “tank”, some characters
are “artillery”, etc. 4th Edition defines those roles into four
types – controller, defender, leader, and striker. Controllers
(like wizards) deal with large amounts of enemies at once,
favoring offense over defense. Defenders (like fighters and
paladins) are the front-line characters that have great
defensive abilities and good melee offense. Leaders (like
clerics and warlords) are good at aiding other members of
the party by healing, inspiring, or protecting them. Strikers
(like rangers, rogues, and warlocks) deal large amounts of
damage to single targets at one time and quickly move about
the battlefield. Most adventuring parties consist of at least
one character of each of the roles.

2. Powers give you more combat options.
Clerics chant prayers, wizards incant spells, and fighters
attempt exploits. These are all examples of powers – your
suite of combat options. Three power sources – arcane,
divine, and martial – are presented in the Player’s Handbook.
Each character class draws abilities from one of these power
sources: clerics and paladins use divine powers (prayers),
warlocks and wizards use arcane powers (spells), and
fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords use martial powers
(exploits).
You get a number of powers based on your character’s
level. Powers can be used at-will, once per encounter, or
once per day depending on the power.
TIP: Use your at-will powers instead of using basic
attacks. They’ll frequently do more than just a modest
amount of damage to one enemy.

3. Attacker rolls against a static defense.
In 4th Edition, you have 4 defense values – Armor Class,
Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. The attacker chooses an attack,
rolls 1d20, adds the attack bonus, and calls out the result
against the appropriate defense. The defenses are all static
numbers, just like Armor Class was in 3rd Edition. Attack
actions involve a “to hit” roll against any and all targets, so a
power that targets all enemies within 1 square requires a
separate attack roll against each enemy affected.
TIP: If you make an attack against multiple targets, you
don’t roll damage for each target – just roll that once. It’s best
when you attack multiple targets to roll damage first, and
then roll your attacks.

4. Standard, move, and minor actions.
Each time it’s your turn, you get one standard, one move,
and one minor action. Standard actions are usually attacks,
move actions are usually used to move, and minor actions
are little things like drawing a weapon or opening a door.
You can always exchange a standard action for a move
action or minor action, or a move action for a minor action.
There are also free actions, which take almost no time or
effort, such as dropping a held item or talking. You can take
free actions during your turn or anyone else’s turn, and as
many as you like (within reason).
There’s another category of actions called triggered
actions – these include opportunity actions (like opportunity
attacks) and immediate actions (like a readied action). Your
DM can tell you more about those should you need them.

5. Healing gets an overhaul.
Hit points still measure your ability to stay in the fight, but
healing’s no longer just the burden of one character
anymore. Each character has a certain number of healing
surges. Once during each encounter, you can take a
standard action called a second wind; this gives you a certain
amount of hit points back equal to your healing surge value
and gives you a +2 bonus to all your defenses until the start
of your next turn. You then tick off one of your healing
surges for the day. Some powers (like some cleric prayers)
will also heal you your healing surge value, and you’ll tick off
your healing surges for them as well. When you run out of
healing surges, you’ll want to take an extended rest.
If you’re outside of combat, you can take a short rest and
tick off the healing surges you need to heal up damage.
TIP: If you’ve been knocked down a few hit points and
can’t decide what to do when it’s your turn, taking a second
wind action is a good idea.

6. Short and extended rests.
Resting’s now divided into two groups – short and extended.
A short rest lasts 5 minutes, and is a long enough time for
you to regain your encounter powers and use healing surges
to heal up. An extended rest is akin to “camping” and lasts 6
hours. After an extended rest, you’re fully healed, you have a
full compliment of healing surges, you have your daily
powers back, and you reset your action points to 1.
TIP: It’s good to take an extended rest when some
members in the group are down to about 1 healing surge
remaining, or everyone has used all their daily powers.
® & © 2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

7. Attack!
Attacks are divided up into a few different types. Melee attacks
are those you make usually when you’re adjacent to your target.
Ranged attacks can be made at any distance up to the maximum
range of the attack; however, if you take a ranged attack next to
an enemy you provoke an opportunity attack against you. Close
attacks affect an area starting with squares adjacent to you;
these attacks don’t provoke an opportunity attack. Area attacks
usually affect an area at range; these attacks do provoke
opportunity attacks.
Most of the time when you take an attack, you’ll use one of
your powers. However, there are some times when you’ll use a
basic attack – just a regular old swing of the sword or shot from
the bow. These attacks are less powerful than using powers, but
they can get the job done. You’ll use a basic attack when you’re
charging, making opportunity attacks, or when you use certain
powers.

8. Action points give you an extra action.
You begin each adventure with 1 action point, and you can get
another one for every 2 encounters that you complete (called a
milestone). You can spend 1 action point per encounter to take
one extra action on your turn. It can be a standard, move, or
minor action.
When you take an extended rest, your action points reset
back to 1.
TIP: Make sure to spend action points at least once every
other encounter (as often as you earn them), since you can only
spend one per encounter.

9. Movement is quick and easy.
Each character has a speed listed in squares. One 1-inch square
equals one five-foot square in the game world. When you take a
move action, you can move up to the indicated number of
squares. Moving from one square to another, even diagonally,
costs 1 square of speed. Sometimes terrain will slow you down,
costing you more than 1 square of speed – this is called difficult
terrain.
Moving away from an enemy adjacent from you usually
provokes an opportunity attack. However, you can also use a
move action to shift; this lets you move one square without
suffering an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.
TIP: If you need to get somewhere fast, you can run as a
move action. This gives you +2 speed for your move, but you
grant any attackers combat advantage until the beginning of
your next turn.

10. Saving throws are straightforward.
Sometimes your character will be hit by an ongoing effect, like
taking poison damage or being immobilized. When this
happens you’ll usually get to make a saving throw to remove the
effect at the end of your turn. Saving throws are simple – just
roll 1d20. If you roll a 10 or higher, you’ll end the effect. If you
roll a 9 or lower, the effect will usually continue until you have
to make another saving throw at the end of your next turn.
Some characters have bonuses that can be applied to certain
types of saving throws, and some powers grant modifications to
saving throws as well.

11. Durations are easy to manage.
Most effects that have durations (usually imparting a condition
on the target) last either until the target makes a saving throw to
ward it off, or until the end of the next turn of the attacker that
caused the nasty effect. A few effects have durations that last
through the entire encounter. No more tracking rounds to
determine when your effect ends!

12. Reach (usually) isn’t as threatening.
Reach (possessed by some monsters and weapons) is only
“active” on the attacker’s turn. Otherwise, attackers with reach
function just like those without reach. This is usually most
relevant when determining the area a character or monster
threatens.
TIP: Watch out for the few creatures with threatening
reach – they can threaten more than just squares adjacent to
them.

13. A trio of “c” rules you might want to know.
• Combat Advantage – This gives you a +2 bonus to attack
rolls when you’re flanking, or when the target is under one
of a number of conditions (dazed, surprised, etc.).
• Cover – If an enemy has cover, you get a -2 penalty to
attack rolls against it. Your allies don’t provide cover, but
enemies do. There’s also no penalty for making ranged
attacks into melee.
• Charging – This is a standard action. Move up to your
speed, and make a basic attack. You get a +1 bonus on the
attack roll. You have to move at least 2 squares from your
starting position, and you must charge to the nearest square
from which you can attack your target. You can’t charge if
the nearest square is occupied, but you can charge over
difficult terrain (it just costs you extra movement).