Slashdot Log In
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, Latest News
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 19, 2007 03:58 AM
from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.
from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.
Lord Aramil of Dreadwood writes "Blogger and Dragon magazine writer Jonathan Drain is tracking the latest developments on the new D&D edition. Highlights include: Thirty levels instead of twenty, no more XP costs for magic items creation, flexible talent trees replacing feats and prestige classes, a new racial bonuses system that obsoletes ECL, and an end to rubbish skills like Forgery and Use Rope. A quote from the blog: 'Unlike 3.5, all the changes this time around sound like they're definitely for the better... If nothing else, at least they have the opportunity to get rid of Mialee.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Latest News on Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Now that's what I call (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now that's what I call (Score:4, Funny)
It worked for me: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=272173&cid=20
Parent
Re:Now that's what I call (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Now that's what I call (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Now that's what I call (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite part is when the girl kills herself because her character died.
Parent
The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
(Said in jest, not out of ignorance)
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
There's even an online gaming table -- the demo is a native Wiondows desktop application, and it does indeed rely on DirectX: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204368&pa
Parent
WOTC Death Throes (Score:5, Insightful)
The AD&D 3.5 manuals are just too damned complicated. Hundreds of pages and table after table after table. It's more like a software spec than game instructions. No one new is going to get onto this. If you're going to make it that complex, let a computer handle all that messing around.
Enter WoW. It's the AD&D online that AD&D never had. Must irk them to see all that money going to someone else. Their own DDO Stormreach bombed. This is a desperate ploy to cling some of their market back. If they can find people who'll pay $$$ for all new AD&D 4.0 books. In this day and age of the net does it have to be WOTC that rewrite the rules a few solitary voices claim so badly need repairs. Nope. Fans could do this by themselves. WOTC, like the RIAA, are on an outdated business model.
If someone went to a VC with this as a business plan, they'd get laughed out of the office. WOTC on their way out.
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if the only D&D you played was "by the book" or "hack and slash", then yes, you would probably be better off with WoW, or even Diablo.
I seriously doubt WotC is dying. The D&D franchise is still extremely large. It may take years for people to switch over, but they'll be making their money, one way or another.
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it does have to be WotC that rewrites the rules. Trust me. Fan-based rule rewrites have happened, many a time, and they have never caught on. They don't have that "Wizards" seal-of-approval. They're not often play-tested, nor made by developers with years of experience. Go around on the Wizards boards sometime and try and find me a serious fan retooling that is used by more than a small handful of people. You won't. Like it or not, the people that play D&D shell out their money for a book of rules. They could go to the fans, but for some reason they feel that what Wizards provides is worth spending money on, while what the fans provide is to be swept under the rug. Much like how you pay money for the Harry Potter books (to give an example) but throw fanfics into the bit bucket.
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:4, Funny)
Nonsense. I fondly remember many middle school afternoons playing D&D going into the forest and grinding against gradually larger and larger boars until I eventually hit level 20 and fought dragons.
Isn't that how everyone else played?
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:4, Insightful)
Later on, you fight demons who are trying to destroy the entire world you know and love
What WoW lacks, compared to pen-and-paper role-playing, is state and consequences. If you devote your time to destroying the Defias, go through the Deadmines, kill the guy, nothing changes. 15 minutes later, all those Defias you killed are back. You've defended no one. Letting them run rampant in the countryside doesn't impact life in the town in any way. If nobody hung out in Outland fighting demons, the demons would never take advantage of it to destroy the world. The only thing making it more compelling than a regular computer RPG is the other players.
I like the lore and many of the storylines in WoW, and I do play it. It's hardly an 'either/or' proposition. But I'd never ditch my tabletop Supers game to play WoW; it will, after all, be there when I'm done. But if I skipped a run of a tabletop game, my team might fail to stop the villain and boom, no more city, and I'd have to deal with the consequences of that next time I play. And that's one of the biggest differences.
Parent
Re:WOTC Death Throes (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously never saw the 2nd Ed rules books and suppliments. Or the rules for systems such as Rolemaster or GURPs.
D20 is actually quite straight forward rules wise. Many table top games rely on probability matricies, d20 simplified the matricies compared with the old THAC0 (to hit armor class zero) rules and the like.
Parent
Half-assed fixes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Half-assed fixes (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have any clue what I am talking about.
Re:Half-assed fixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Half-assed fixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Real hard core gamers make up their own game systems and game worlds.
Only slightly less hard core people rape, pillage, and convert their vast piles of source materials from a diverse set of game systems and versions thereof. The good ones can do most of it on the fly.
That's half the point of p&p rpgs and why their translations to the computer have been relatively weak and unsatisfying, at best capturing the numbers game of equipment design and basic combat.
Seriously if your problem with D&D is that a setting is 'missing' or 'wrong', the problem is you.
Parent
Re:Half-assed fixes (Score:5, Informative)
I'm chuckling at people who think any change to simplify the system is a change for the worse. The Hackmaster crowd can always play Shadowrun if they want an evershifting catalog of contradictory rules and exceptions.
Obviously, the proof is in the pudding, but for now what I'm hearing about D&D 4.0 is very positive. There are lots of rules like grappling that bear no relation to the other game rules and which grind the game to a halt when you try to use them. There are skills like Use Rope which are clearly inferior to other uses of your skill points, like Spot or Use Magic Device. Other skills and abilities quickly become obsolete: e.g. Climb, Heal and Jump (both are replaced by spells). Gear, especially flat +stats items, has become the end-all and be-all of advancement. And the endless prep work and bookkeeping, especially for the GM, is a waste of time and detracts from the fun of the game.
Plus, a game needs a reboot from time to time. AD&D became bloated with endless supplements, kits and spells that eventually made play completely impenetrable. 3.5 is heading in the same direction. YOu can't stop that, but you can occassionally reboot, reproducing and refining the stuff that works and dumping or rewriting the stuff that doesn't.
None of this is specific to newbies, either. Hard-core players would love to have a simplier but still thematically and tactically rich game, because then you can have five fights a night instead of three. Or your GM can afford to make the same three fights much more interesting, unique and challenging. Or you can free up some time for, G-d forbid, actually RP your character.
There are tons of games out there with clunky rules if you want difficulty and tedium for its own sake. I'm cheering for D&D because while I love 3.5, I can see the game becoming much more fun.
Parent
Re:Half-assed fixes (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure there are situational cases where Climb or Jump are still useful; but those are so rare that at high level play you're likely to jump less often than you are to use Use Rope. RP purists can still buy those skills (along with Profession: Basketweaver) but D&D is designed around combat, so you're shooting yourself in the foot if you do. Ideally, D&D shouldn't punish you for good RP; games like World of Darkness actually reward it. Ideally since skills cost the same they should be similar in overall utility; you'll never be perfectly balanced but it's like setting a level for a spell: if it's a spell you couldn't imagine NOT getting it then it's too powerful and if you can't imagine ever blowing a valuable spell slot or action casting it then it's not powerful enough.
Some people think that roleplaying and gaming are mutually incompatible-- or at least compete with one another. At times, that's true, but it needn't be so. We power-game in real life. My friend who had a high Int dumped all his skill points into "Knowledge: Computer Programming" to maximize his weekly skill check to earn the maximum number of gold pieces. Another friend, who has a high Cha score, splurged on masterwork clothing (+2 to diplomacy checks) and constantly socializes (checks Diplomacy) to maximize people's attitude towards him. These friends give him business connections (Aid Another on his weekly profession check), let him in on the latest gossip (aid another on his already-good Gather Information score) and do him favors (since they are Helpful towards him). He also has had a string of great girlfriends, which I can't put into D&D terms because I don't know the system for seduction, but you get the point.
Is that min-maxing? Sure! And it's definitely true to life because it is real life.
Parent
Dungeons & Dragons... (Score:5, Funny)
Ok... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately I don't know whether to feel old or cool.
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Informative)
Thirty levels instead of twenty basically means there's more headroom for higher-level adventuring before normal players have to worry about abtruse and convoluted 'epic character' rulesets/feats/whatever that often feel very non-canon.
No more XP costs for magic items creation means that you no longer lose experience points (gained by running quests, killing monsters) whenever you create a magic item. This is a Really Good Thing(tm) because it would invariably mean that the one person in each group who got saddled with building a character capable of crafting specialized magic weapons for everyone got shafted good and hard when the time came to start whipping up custom +5 swords of Destroy All Life that cast Karsus Avatar three times a day (injoke, sorry).
Feats were basically very generalized character bonus property snapons that you would add (on average) every three levels. This could be anything from improving your character's skill at the short sword (Weapon Focus: Short Sword), to them gaining the general ability to to double the duration of beneficial spells (although doing so made them harder to cast). Prestige classes were basically specialized variants of the normal basic classes (or occupations, examples of classes would be fighter, mage, thief, etc.) that had special properties: examples include the "Frenzied Berserker" spinoff of the Barbarian, the "Assassin" spinoff of the Rogue, and so forth. Canon prestige classes were *in general* slightly weaker than the base classes they were derived from, but if used very very carefully in moderate proportions could be game-breakingly powerful (Fighter/Bard/Red Dragon Disciple/Frenzied Berserker players will know exactly what I am talking about). Both of those systems apparently got folded in to class-specific development trees, which is very similar to how (surprise!) World of Warcraft handles this basic concept.
Racial Bonus system shedding ECL: ECL stands for Effective Character Level. With so many different races/sub-races in D&D it was impossible to keep them all balanced, so certain 'uber' races like Aasimar, Tieflings, Drow, and Deep Gnomes were assigned Effective Character Levels. What this basically meant was that they got pushed back one to three levels on the experience tree so that at the point where a human character was level 5, a drow party member of theirs was likely to be 3. Given the degree to which levels are the beginning and end of a character in D&D (particularly spell-casting classes, double-particularly sorcerers) this could make things very un-fun, especially in the upper game where levels are few and far inbetween. Getting rid of this comes as a massive relief to me, as it's always struck me as the single least pleasant 3.x convention.
The final bit is just cleaning up some of the more ridiculous skills out there which nobody uses.
In general, all of this is *hugely* positive news for D&D fans. I hope to God clerics got toned back a bit as well, but that might be asking for too much.
--Ryv
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could be wrong on this, but the thing is I don't think the grand-parent poster was a newb. I think he's just lost track of all of the rule changes, and to be honest so have I.
It is now literally decades since I played my last game of D&D. Even then however, the rules were just so silly be basically ignored them when playing. The world then was split into D&D and AD&D, with AD&D just having a ludicrous num
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Except it's a game (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: Hoping to God ... (Score:3, Funny)
"I hope to God clerics got toned back a bit..."
Whose God are you hoping to? The overpowered Cleric's, or yours?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Buahahahahaah! Cry. Scream. Cry. Aieeee! I can't believe you just said that.
LOOK AT YOUR SIG: Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
For those who don't get it, he's referring to a game system with a level 8 cap and "story arcs pacing" that keeps 6 or 7 levels of completely unused headroom clear of
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't sound happy...
You are a happy citizen, aren't you?
Only commie mutant traitors are unhappy...
You're not a commie mutant traitor are you?
Neph-I-LIM
Parent
Values (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more a matter of the value you can get out those skills. You might have an actual need for 'use rope' once every five sessions, while other skills such as 'spot' or 'diplomacy' would be used repeatedly during a session. So you have the choice of spending your limited number of points gaining ranks in a skill that might eventually be useful versus one you know will be used over and over.
The other side of this is that the people writing the adventures know that most players don't take those skills. So they don't add events that require the skills, or provide alternative ways of solving the problem. So it spirals down fast.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
D&D is what you make of it. Sounds like you didn't have a very good DM.
-jcr
Re:Ok... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
In this age of MMORPG's, where issues with game balance can be tweaked monthly, the game universe can be expanded just as often (if not on the fly), and campaigns can involve real-time cooperation among dozens of players, could there really be a thriving market for a pastime as "last-gen" as D&D?
Then it occurred to me, at least with D&D you're actually interacting with real, identifiable people. No griefing, no gold farming, no bots, no avatars with tearing polygons, no server lag to contend with.
Then I could see the market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
You've never played with my group of friends.
When we started out, it was cool...but gradually we introduced new people into our group and now all that's left when I play are a bunch of asian people who barely speak English who just want to stand in one spot in a dungeon I'm running and farm for gold. Some have even just resorted to sending a laptop with canned responses in their stead....so the last time I hosted a D&D group, it was me DMing and 5 laptops sitting around a table.
I think I'm going to give this up soon. But the laptops ARE pretty polite.
Parent
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there's physical proximity. It's an excuse to sit down with a bunch of friends, pop open a beer and enjoy yourself. You can't quite match that in a MMORPG, even with Teamspeak.
Second, there's creativity. My experience in MMORPGs is that there's endless grinding of trash mobs, highly scripted raid encounters that you fight every week the same way, and PVP battles that are exciting but still pretty much scripted. A good DM designs all kinds of weird and interesting encounters, including conversational RP encounters.
Finally, there's the "greatest hero ever" effect. In a MMORPG, you can't ALL be the great hero of the world. Ultimately, everyone has to be roughly balanced with one another. Even the top-end raiders and PVPers on the server, while great and well geared, aren't going to change the game world any. And everyone else doesn't even have a name for themselves. In a pen-and-paper setting you and your friends really can do world-shaking events. You can down Illidan and he STAYS DEAD. (mostly)
OK so let me wrap it all together. In my weekly D&D game, I get together with friends who live up to an hour away in every direction. We meet up, grab some drinks, talk about how things are going face to face, and then get down to the game. One of us is a ruthless mercenary ranger, another is a minotaur who just completed his plot to be crowned Emperor of the Minotaur Empire, another is a warlock who is finally realizing his goal of revenge against the red dragons, and another is a mystic who attained godhood. We've been playing for five years, from level one to our current (epic) game. We now run two side games in the same world-- one game we play our own lowbie minions, and the other we are actually starting to play mid-level antagonists. When we do world-shaking things, the world actually shakes and stays shaken. Our actions have permanent consequences, our enemies and allies react to us (and try to pre-empt us), and we have to consider the economic, political, social and religious consequences of our actions.
None of this is possible, even remotely, in a MMORPG. I love WoW, I play avidly. I've got a 70 and am working on two more. I PvP avidly, and am in an end-game raiding guild. To some extent, WoW and D&D do scratch the same itch, but neither is a good substitute for the other.
Parent
More levels... sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Originally, in AD&D First Ed, you hit level 20, there was a high chance that your DM would suck up your char sheet because your character was so powerful that it was a god, and not a minor one.
The first MUDs were somewhat based around that, when you hit the topmost level, you became an immortal. The level limit for "ascension" ended up being between 20-30.
As time went on, this limit climbed to 40, 50, then on some MUDs, even was as high as level 100.
Around 1999, MMOs came into the picture. UO didn't use a level based system, but EQ did. To keep players going, and the game interesting for people at the level cap, the original level 50 limit was raised to 60, 65, 70, now 75, and in the next major expansion 80. EQ2 similar, except the game is structured by tiers, starting at 50, then 60, now 70, and will be 80 come the next expansion. WoW too. Next expansion, level 80.
There is something lost in this climb for levels, to the detriment of everything else. In WoW, level pretty much is the gauge of your character's abilities, so a character that is level 70, that has crappy equipment is more often asked for groups/raids than a level 65 with excellent stuff.
I used to DM, and have been since First Edition AD&D. In campaigns, levels were there, but they were mainly a gauge of progress, of what difficulty I needed to make encounters. Characters had a lot more ways to progress and gain in power. They could gain reputation by pushing back orc scout parties, learn spells (In First Ed., magic items were VERY rare, and a +1 sword would be something that would be a 3-4 session campaign, but worth obtaining.), and perhaps travel, guarding trade caravans (or waiting until the caravan was alone, then sacking the people on it.) As the party grew, they became impressed into a local ruler's service as a scout group for taking care of enemies and seeking relics, then the party eventually was able to start their own kingdom after a number of fights, and having to not just go head off places, but make sure the kingdom was in good order while they were gone.
I like levels at a low number. For a lot of intents and purposes, 20 is enough. Epic levels in third edition and up never really played a part, because at that level of character power, I'd have to move the party off of the usual medieval fantasy world into either different spheres (Spelljammer), or do like everyone and their brother does, and start plane hopping, which meant that it wasn't really my campaign world, but just using the Planescape sourcebooks pretty much verbatim.
Maybe I am an old timer, but I try to get player characters to grow "horizontally", and focus on getting reputation, gear, and status with their class guilds, rather than climb the numbers with regards to level. When getting status and doing missions, the XP comes in its due time.
Re:More levels... sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Some useful links (Score:5, Informative)
Video 2 [youtube.com]
Video 3 [youtube.com]
Video 4 [youtube.com]
Video 5 [youtube.com]
There are more
Whew? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'm still not sure if I'll drop a bunch of money on getting this new edition when it comes out I'm slightly more optimistic about this edition of the game. The designers seem to have a few good ideas in their heads; not least of which is getting rid of those bloody prestige classes. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen that feature abused!
Still, is it enough to get me to spend money? I dunno. And the sting of needing to update the material I've written hasn't quite worn off yet. It'd be nice, though, if they could cut down to one core rulebook, or failing that have a basic rulebook handling the first few levels -- sort of a digest version of the core rules
not worth the investment (Score:4, Insightful)
As of right now, most of our gaming sessions (which last between 4 and 6 hours) involve at most, a dozen die rolls that mean anything, and I'd say more often than not, a session ends without a single combat. I guess our campaigns have evolved into what could be considered drama. And to be honest, it's a much more enriching experience than a traditional hack & slash game that I so often see with newer/younger players.
This isn't to say we won't do a bit of research into the new system, but if all it does is revise the combat and levelling system, then we won't be adopting 4.0.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've actually switched over to playi
I'm thinking (Score:5, Funny)
4e and the OGL/D20 License (Score:5, Informative)
Gamer (fanboy) Response (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, if your on board with the D&D Insider your probably going to need to buy the core set. The Insider is actually the Dungeon and Dragon magazines which WOTC brought back in house, combined with a ton of digital tools such as an online game table, dungeon master tools, character creator and visualizer, and other features. That would probably be the only reason to buy the core set, unless of course you have some reason to want to see WOTC succeed, which I do. Of course that doesn't mean I'm going to buy supplements I'll never use. I'm pretty far from the completist.
This really isn't a money grab, at least not on some levels. Yeah, I'm sure Hasbro is happy about the core set, but Third Edition being tapped dry. There is nowhere else to go. I don't want to see WOTC die. If they don't release a new edition, its over. Look at whats been released lately, compendium after compendium, splatbook sequels, worthless environment books, adventures I have no interest in playing. Nobody is buying these books, nobody but completists, and there isn't enough of those to keep a company afloat. Besides, there is plenty of rules that need to be tweaked, plenty of skills that need to go, plenty of classes that need revision. Third edition was broken the day they released it, ask Monte Cook, who wrote third edition.
Its time to take what everyone learned playing third edition for the last eight years, and make the game better. WOTC deserves their coin for what they do. Of course, I'm a WOTC fanboy, what do I know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)