Slashdot Log In
Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Launches
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Jun 06, 2008 02:47 PM
from the when-it-must-be-pencils-and-dice dept.
from the when-it-must-be-pencils-and-dice dept.
darkwing_bmf writes "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition rulebooks are now available. There's a review up at EuroGamer. Unfortunately, the online tools portion, D&D Insider, isn't ready yet."
Related Stories
[+]
The D&D Designers Answer Your Questions 211 comments
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.
[+]
D&D 4th Edition Details Released 171 comments
Wired is reporting that some juicy details of Wizards of the Coast's new 4th edition for Dungeons and Dragons are being leaked on to the web from the D&D Experience in Arlington, VA this week. "Wizards of the Coast, the current custodians of the D&D universe, have been talking about the upcoming fourth edition of the game for months, but they've been fairly cagey about hard details, preferring to tell us more about how elves love footraces than how much damage a fireball does. They're running actual 4e games at D&D Experience, though, and thanks to people with scanners, you can too!"
[+]
D&D's Story Manager Answers Your Questions on Camera 112 comments
Chris Perkins, story manager for the upcoming Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, took some time out this past weekend at the D&D Experience event to talk back to us. He answered the concerns of five readers who had commented on their responses to our earlier questions from January. With a large amount of information about Fourth Edition now out in the open and the NDA for playtesters lowered, there's been a floodgate of new concerns over the latest change to this tabletop icon. You might also be interested in the other videos from Gamer Radio Zero filmed at the D&D Experience event, which covers everything from DMG design to D&D Insider pricing. Chris's responses can be seen in the YouTube videos included below. Thanks both to Mr. Perkins and Michael Lescault for making this interaction possible.
[+]
D&D 4th Ed vs. Open Gaming 243 comments
I'm no expert in this subject, but mxyzplk has written a good summary of the issues affecting open gaming and the upcoming release of 4th Edition D&D. The open licensing associated with the 3rd Edition spawned a number of successful 3rd parties and add-ons that made the system far greater than it might have been otherwise. I've attached his writeup on the subject below, and you should really read it if you are interested in D&D, Gaming, or trying to apply 'Open' licenses to things besides code.
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.
Not a review (Score:2)
There's nothing about any of the mechanics of how the game plays, except that it's supposedly easier for newbs and balanced at all levels.
So in summary, there are...
1. New books!
2. New art!
3. Online tools!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. New books!
2. New art!
3. Online tools!
4. New prices!
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Not a review (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not trolling here, and I usually share your sentimate but honestly the last time I went into one My main goal was to get my son out as fast as possible. What a bunch of foul mouthed SOBs.
Gaming stores aren't for people who want to run a business, they're for people who want to show off their gaming collection.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Locally-owned" does not always mean "good." Sometimes it does, but more often than not it doesn't, and that's why chains succeed. You might not think much of McDonald's, but there's a reason people went there instead of diners and hamburger stands: McD's has always had high standards for customer service and cleanliness.
The same is true of bookstores. I remember the last t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well hell, $60 in 1980 is the equivalent of about $170 now.
$60 dollars now was around $21 in 1980.
Seems like a deal to me!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay - funny joke, but it's not accurate. Have you checked the price of the new books? I don't know if it's just the US$ to UK£ exchange rate at the moment, but the new books bought together are actually cheaper than I paid for the same three core books years ago when 3.5 came out. WotC (Wizards of the Coast) are hoping to keep on selling further books each year, but right now, the cost to get into the game is really low.
The online tools are $15 a month which may or may not seem a lot depending on
Re:Not a review (Score:5, Informative)
No more memorized spells at all...you learn, "Otlukes flaming bunghole" you can cast it every round like you were swinging a sword.
Some abilities are "per encounter" meaning you can only use it once per combat. Others are "per day", so once per day.
I don't know. I haven't finished going through the rules yet, but I'm not pleased. A lot of things that I never thought "had to be said" are now filled in for you...like the "party role" for your class...Fighters now have "tanking" abilities that "force" the monster to attack them...What the hell is that about? Didn't everyone and their mother used to role play that? Instead of being a simple framework, D&D is more like a complete game.
Some people may be pleased with that, but to me its like someone pre-chewed my dinner.
Parent
Re:Not a review (Score:4, Insightful)
My pre-play evaluation of 4e is that the rules are improved muchly in terms of game-play and ease of banging out encounters. There are a lot of nice ideas in it such as Minion rules to make High Level vs. Mooks a viable encounter again. Production values are fantastic. But the role-playing side seems to have been gutted both by a lack of non-combat rules and by character and monster abilities that make no sense at all except for the metagame reason of interesting combat tactics. The latter problem undermines immersion in the setting more than the designers realised, imo. But I wont say more here as I've already posted more detailed thoughts below.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
When that occurred to me I found the rules easier to take. Yeah I don't need to know what the roles are, but why should it bother me that they explain it for some who does. When I pick up a programming book, I don't get twisted when it explains the basics of OO.
ADnD was NEVER a simple framework. It was always intended to be a complete game. Many people used it as a framework, and those s
Re:Not a review (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the monster do that? It should attack whoever it wants to attack. And the smarter it is the more intelligent its selection and tactics should be.
The whole MMO inspired 'all the monsters wail on the tank, while the rest of the group focuses on one target at a time and burns it down' is the most absurd thing going.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) The fighter "marks" a target after attacking it (read: scary guy who really knows how to use a sword is actively engaged in slicing at you).
2) If that target makes an attack on someone other than the fighter, the fighter gets a free attack of opportunity (read: if someone is actively engaging you in sword play, it leaves you wide open when you turn to bash someone else).
It's dumb
Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:5, Insightful)
um, no.
I would have respected the choice to get rid of alignment, but this is a boneheaded move. The problem with alignment (with bad role players anyway) is that it reinforces trite stereotypes. This just gives you fewer trite stereotypes to choose from.
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:4, Interesting)
Having played the game, I can same that it is really fun.
I can also say it is not the same game. It is completly focused on minis, and what you can do as far as moving other players and yourself has added an interesting level of tactics to the game.
The Alignment systems works very well.
from what I had heard about the game I wasn't really looking forward to it, but having actually played the mechanics and the game, I found it to be really fun.
Normally I don't participate in the 'I've been doing it for x years' circle jerk, but since I feel it is relevant to the context of the post I am going to make an exception.
I have been playing DnD for it's entire history, including pre-ADnD. I also have played all the other 'major' systems and I find Savage Worlds to be the superiour RP gaming system.
Parent
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like if +100 is LG then maybe +25 is chaotic good? Then -25 would be lawful evil?
The only thing more meaningless than a two word title (e.g. Chaotic Good) is a fricking number. (I see that thou alignment be a mere 14, I will smite thee not-quite-evil-doer!)
Re: (Score:2)
Good: Even Mother Theresa would think you're a prude.
True Neutral: You're a farking schizo.
Evil: Hitler feels his place in history is threatened.
It's probably one of the few things that I though were completely out of line about AD&D under TSR. But then again, I hate players who put too much value in their alignment. Unless you're a cleric or a
Re: (Score:2)
Also holding up Lawful Good as the paragon of virtue that all people should look up to is kinda whacked.
Re:Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are Deprecated (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with alignment was it started moving towards this a while ago with LG - G - CG - LN - N - CN - LE- NE - CE becoming a single spectrum. It made it difficult to play a saintly Robin Hood type because for some reason respect for the law (which became confounding with one owns organizational qualities), became compounded with goodness.
While it certainly could be used as a crutch by poor roleplayers, that's not a bad thing. Everyone needs time to learn to roleplay, and the CG/LE removed variants provided nice dilemmas. And, if not that crutch, bad roleplayers will fall into character/race archeotypes anyway.
Personally, I would rather have seen the alignments expand so that you could be Goodish/Evilish/Lawfulish/Chaoticish. Not enough to get affected by spells/effects that target people with that alignment, but enough to give people a clue as to how you lean.
Parent
Are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big change from previous versions, but still good (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've read so far, the main good things about 4th edition that I've seen so far are:
The main complaints I have so far is that they haven't released rules in the Monster Manual for creating your own monsters from scratch and figuring out appopriate levels, and the death penalty is really almost too minor. Raise dead still takes 10 minutes to cast, and the cost does go up as your level goes up, but the penalty is only -1 to all rolls until you rest for 6 hours. I appreciate that they were trying to lessen death effects and other affects that take your character effectively out of game (Medusa gaze, Illithid mind blast, etc), but by having such a minimal penalty for death, you'd have to wonder why any fears death.
Some will certainly complain that 4th edition is too MMO like (especially like WOW), but the new character building rules do admittedly enforce character balance quite well through all levels.
Re: (Score:2)
If you looked for a cleric only because he can heal it's no wonder you've seen the those that play the class as a burden instead of a party member. You're treating clerics like most corporations treat their IT departments and you know how most IT employees feel about their companies...
Oh well, just another reason for me to dismiss WotC as the destroyers of D&D.
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Insightful)
The Cleric PC in the campaign I'm running even has the Touch of Healing feat (can basically heal PCs up to half HP for free) and still probably spends half or more of his spells on healing. In almost any campaign I've been in, the decision to rest is usually made because the Cleric is out of healing magic, or the wizard is >90% empty.
Parent
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Informative)
3/3.5 replaced that problem with a different one. The designers were so desperate to make the class attractive, it became the most powerful class in the game with good combat skills and hit points, healing magic, and the ability to cast a whole host of effective combat spells and "buffs".
And "destroyers of D&D"? Give me a break. Ever play any of the following RPGs: Warhammer RPG, HERO, GURPS, Rifts, Rolemaster, Vampire: the Masquerade, Middle Earth RPG, or the (original) Star Wars RPG? I believe they all came out well before Wizards of the Coast produced 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. Each has plenty of flaws, but if you've played a few of them it will give you enough perspective to see that all versions of Dungeons and Dragons have some ridiculous inconsistencies and poor design choices that interfere with or downright euthanize fun gameplay.
Wizards of the Coast didn't destroy Dungeons and Dragons. They just rearranged the problems, and I bet you're mostly angry because you have nostalgia for the particular set of problems you enjoyed when you first played some previous edition.
Parent
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:2)
The hit points level off as you get higher, and contrary to your statement, then CAN be killed in one shot. A lot less likely, but it is there.
My Rogue could do d6+8+2d8
I've read those rules, and the monster creation is pretty easy to do. Bear in mind, a monster is a Monster, not another character type.
It is clearly focused
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big change from previous versions, but still go (Score:4, Insightful)
The main things I noticed book keeping wise are as follows:
1) Effects are no longer a number of rounds, its either a) until end of next turn, b) until you save at the end of your turn or c) until end of encounter, up to 5 minutes, which are essentially the same thing.
2) You'll no longer waste 30 minutes as the spellcasters pick their new spells for the day. True wizards still pick their daily powers, but that should go quickly.
3) Thanks to minions, you have to track HP for less monsters at a time.
I think the effect tracking will be the most immediate increase in game speed. I just ran a 3.5 encounter last night with the following effects:
1) Players cast Haste and several invisibilities before combat started, as well as several buffing spells with durations in rounds.
2) BBEG had several defensive spells with duration in rounds.
3) Other monsters had an ability that caused slow, which would tempoarily negate haste for characters afflicted by it for a random number of rounds
4) BBEG was also a mind flayer, so there were mind blasts used at various times which caused stun for random number of rounds to each target.
Now, if the combat is quick, this usually isn't a problem; but this fight went for 10-13 rounds, so various effects started wearing off at various times, and with 6 PCs and 3 monsters, and people using delay actions, its really easy to lose track of which round you're actually in and what round and when in each round a given effect ends.
Parent
Imagine that! (Score:2)
WotC fumbled the ball with software AGAIN? Who woulda thunk it? After their very sophomoric attempt at software with the 3.0 PHG and that shame for sale that they passed off as DM Tools I can only wait to (not) sink my teeth into their next software offering.
I've personally written better software for the game on a TRS-80.
Too much of a departure (Score:3, Interesting)
Still Using AD&D 2.5 Edition (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the WotC Slashdot questions regarding the release of the 4th edition. One of the questions was why we should bother to upgrade our libraries since D&D edition 5 is probably just around the corner? The answer was, and I'll paraphrase since I'm getting old, "Because it's just better." Great logic. I read that as "We need more money."
Of course, a lot of our group play World of Warcraft between games and from all indications, 4th edition is tabletop WoW.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But further, you are incorrect in several major ways:
1. In 3/3.5 DnD, a medium to high level character is defined more by his gear than by his skills. That fits an MMO. 4e reduces the gear characters can use and reduces "buff" gear ("buff" is an item or magical event that makes a character stronger, faster, or otherwise more capable).
2. In 3/3.5 DnD, medium to high level characters
Maybe eventually... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've only looked briefly at the rules, so maybe I'm wrong in some of this.
The alignment system isn't as "broken" as it looks. The original frankly wasn't that great, and the new one isn't so very different. It looks silly at first, but only if you're used to the old one, which has been there since 1st edition. Neither one was a hard and fast stricture on how you can role-play your character, despite some people trying to make it that.
The new races actually look kind of cool. And all classes having "powers" which are about the same. For instance, some have pointed out that there's now no functional difference between a ranger firing his bow every round and a wizard firing off a magic missile every round. OK, but there's still a big difference in flavor. Although I'm going to miss them each having their own separate advantages, disadvantages, and different defenses for each.
Out of combat skills have been scaled way back, which is kind of a shame. In 3.5, you could give more information, or make the NPCs a little friendlier based on knowledge or gather information or diplomacy checks, letting a character be a diplomat or master of social situations even if the player wasn't. In 4th ed, it seems like things like this rely purely on the players skill at convincing the DM. Which eliminates all those characters whose builds were focused on their ability to resolve encounters through other than violent means.
The biggest problem, though, is the online component. Maybe if I was playing regularly again I could justify it. But I'm between groups now and will probably be that way for a while. Normally, I'd be getting Dragon magazine during times like these, but they canceled that. But it's not just extra content it looks like. Significant parts of the rules - most of the classes, powers, monsters, etc. - will be online only. Having to pay an extra $15/month to make the core rulebooks complete makes me want to not buy the core rulebooks rather than make me want to pay extra for the online content.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Considering that the average male's wand is +5 to +6, you should be able to see why she's not getting excited.
Parent
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That must have been awkward.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-No more wizards/clerics/etc saying, "Crap, I just blew all my spells in that one encounter, I need to rest for 8 hours!"
-Much simplified rules for DMs creating encounters and adventures, as well as putting rewards in those encounters. (This is a complete overhaul, and hard to really give too many examples)
-No more random hit point amounts every level, in addition, a larger hit point total at level 1. (No more fighters rolling a 1 at first level, etc)
-New death/dying system, that scales as you lev
Re:Rulebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
The new rules are very much more elegant. They play quickly in all sorts of areas, from actual combat to monster customization and NPC creation. Character classes are very well balanced with each other and the "sweet spot" that you got in the mid-levels where you were tough enough to survive with good tactics but not so powerful the game became broken... well the game plays well at all levels now. Production values are also very high and I don't think when you read the books and grok the rules, you can really disagree with any of this. There are many well-thought out refinements to the system.
However, the game, imo, seriously suffers on the role-playing side. Non-combat skills are all but gone, character abilities are designed solely for their tactical interest in combat with little thought to justifying them in the game or whether they make the remotest sense and playing with table-top miniatures is all but compulsory now. There are also serious concerns being voiced about whether the classes are now too balanced for their own good. If you can be a wizard firing off endless Magic Missiles (they're at will now), or a ranger firing off endless arrows and both have similar range and damage, you ask yourself whether everything has become a little meaningless through nothing being better than anything else.
It's a difficult one that will only be resolved through trying it out. There's much good stuff in the new game, but there's a serious worry that it's lost it's sole as an actual role-playing game. We'll have to see.
Selling like Charm Person scrolls on a Saturday night, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There still are a hand full of non-combat skills, such as diplomacy and knowledge. But I think the general feeling is the "fluff rules" for non-combat weren't really needed
Re:Rulebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need rules for how much you can earn playing an instrument in a village of population X, there's no argument there. But not only have almost all non-combat skills been removed (incl. the generic catchalls you could use such as Profession), but most abilities aren't even defined except in the context of combat. Fey Pact warlocks can teleport after downing a foe. Can they teleport outside of combat? Under what circumstances? Do they carry round pockets full of bunnies so they can kill them if they ever need to teleport? We don't know, we're never told and there are numerous examples of the world just stopping at the edge of combat. Many players enjoy being able to say that they are a world class card player or whatever. The feeling you get from reading the books is very much that it's all about combat. The emphasis is bad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If a player ever asked me that question, I would immediately respond "Yes. Yes, you do. Start rounding up bunnies. And it has to be *combat* with the bunnies, not just bunny murder, so roleplay it out."
Re:Rulebook? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RPGs have always been about splatbooks. 4e really isn't any different here.