Results for tag: 3e
Posted by: The_Jester on Jan 22, 2011 at 09:44:25 PM
At the time of this writing there are 3045 feats in the Compendium. Compare this number with the 2500 from core 3.5. There are a metric tonne of feats, and more published each and every month.
Feats received a very minor tweak in D&D Essentials: no longer having tier as a pre-requisite and instead more often improving as level increases (a very good idea) and being grouped by sub-type.
So, with that in mind, I’d like to look at feats, at what they do vs. what they should do vs. what they could do.
Feats were introduced in 3e, the big change and addition of that edition. Skills were comparable to the proficiency system of 1e/2e and the various class abilities were nothing really new, just tweaked. But feats were different. Some replaced the more potent proficiencies (like...
Posted by: The_Jester on Jan 6, 2011 at 08:11:21 PM
The D&D Essentials sub-line has been released and we’ve now seen what the products have to offer. The flame wars on the message boards continue to burn, but are hopefully dying out. I first mentioned Essentials here, and was not overly favourable to the idea. Now, a couple months after the books have released, seems like an opportune time to offer a quick review of the product line, a step back to critically look at the books evaluate where they met or failed to meet my expectations.
The Line Itself
Let’s start off looking at the concept of Essentials itself.
First off, the crux of the line is that the books are designed for new players, while the initial 4e books were not. That’s a lie, albeit a small one. The initial 4e books do present the game easily for new players,...
Posted by: The_Jester on Dec 9, 2010 at 04:17:35 PM
WotC recently released the Monster Vault product as part of the D&D Essentials sub-line, a 256 page book of monsters and 10 sheets of monster pogs. The book is a solid re-release of the core monsters, with beasties pulled from all three Monster Manuals. It was designed to include the classic monsters, the most well-known and popular of the game’s creatures.
This book started me thinking on designing a Monster Manual, what such a books needs in 4e and how a book for beginners – like the Monster Vault – might differ from a book for established players.
Monsters in 1e and 2e were fairly static. They came at a certain level and could only do a limited number of things. You had to make an entirely new monster if the one you wanted to use was too high or too...
Posted by: The_Jester on Oct 27, 2010 at 05:04:14 PM
As has been joked, D&D has no rules for tummyaches. There are the loosest requirements for biological needs, there are no rules for washroom breaks or visiting the “little cleric’s room”. Although, one can easily imagine the potential Gygaxian horror of separating from the party to relieve oneself only to be attacked by some improbable monster designed specifically to attack heroes in that vulnerable state.
Even sleep is a rather vague concept. PCs rest not because they need to sleep but because they need to recharge abilities and the current edition actually goes out of its way to limit resting and encourage the forgoing of sleep. While 3e had penalties for forced marching there were no disadvantages to not sleeping. While a few races have bonuses related to staying awake...
Posted by: The_Jester on Sep 30, 2010 at 06:39:16 PM
Continuing with this semi-series, I'm drifting away from entirely separate games into a sub-game. Midnight was actually a campaign setting for 3.0 and 3.5 but one which radically altered arcane and divine spellcasting. I have most of the Midnight books published by Fantasy Flight Games but never had the chance to actually use the setting.
The world of Midnight is set on the continent of Eredane where the dark god Izrador, also known as "the Shadow" is imprisoned. An alliance of men, dwarves, and elves opposed the dark lord and his armies of orc and goblins. Sound familiar?
Posted by: The_Jester on Aug 24, 2010 at 05:21:22 PM
There's alot of negativity in the community at the moment, and the General Forum has become a toxic environment. There's the rampant fear over the change D&D Essentials is bringing and worries that this will be 3.5 all over again. WotC has brought collectible randomized cards into D&D, fulfilling the prophecy initially foretold when WotC bought TSR and first acquired the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS brand. And the 4e = WoW argument refuses to die despite the beaten horse being a skeletal husk so devoid of meat even flies are ignoring it.
To avoid this blog falling prey to negativity, I'm trying to alternate between critical and positive articles, when I'm not writing a generic edition-neutral discussion pieces.
With all the panic I'm feeling nostalgic: thinking about the initial edition change...
Posted by: The_Jester on Aug 18, 2010 at 06:33:37 PM
The recent GenCon announcement that Ravenloft, my all-time favourite campaign setting – official or otherwise – is the 2011 campaign setting has sent my imagination into a tizzy resembling a hummingbird on a Red Bull and crystal meth high. One of my favourite parts of the campaign world was that monsters were not standardized and were often break-the-rules powerful.
Posted by: The_Jester on Aug 9, 2010 at 11:29:54 AM
With GenCon wrapping-up and the details of future releases boldly announced, we now have a better idea what D&D Essentials is and what it is not. So, today, I thought I'd revisit the idea and how my opinion of the micro-line might have changed (or not changed) since its first revelation during DDXP.
For those keeping score, I first blogged about DDE back in February, after the initial announcement. (I have also blogged about DDE here but I was, well, totally wrong in that blog. I'd rather forget writing that misinformed piece but am linking it for full disclosure. You must own your mistakes … or your mistakes will own you.)
Let's start with the oliphant in the gaming room: does DDE = D&D 4.5?
Yes, yes it does. DDE IS a 4.5 edition. WotC is never, ever going...
Posted by: The_Jester on Aug 5, 2010 at 01:14:23 PM
After a couple years of playing 4e I've noticed a few flaws; this blog is on one of them. (I do like 4th Edition, and couple probably write as many blogs praising its elements as criticising, but, frankly, I think partially negative blogs make for a more interesting read and more opportunities to comment or think about the game.)
Today's problem is tracking game elements in combat. 4e really embraces status effects that require round-by-round tracking. With the exception of Daily powers, every power lasts for a turn – give or take. Generally, At-wills end at the start of a turn, while Encounters last until the end of a turn. Dailies last for an uncertain number of turns varying by rolls. In any given combat a player has to track bonuses and penalties to attacks, defences, damage, ongoing...
Posted by: The_Jester on Jul 5, 2010 at 01:36:09 PM
This is an old complaint, roughly a year and a half old. But it's continual existence in 4e makes it a good example of what not to do in game design. It's a great example of the developers and designers not listening to the community or taking feedback or really looking at what they've created.
The Minotaur Question
This blog is about the minotaur, a PC race first showed-up (in 4e) in the back of the Monster Manual I, as one of the NPC creation statblocks but became a full PC race in Dragon #369. Then, it showed-up again in PHB3 with the slightest of changes: its racial encounter power now had a choice of three usable stats, and the standard PHB3 option to chose a secondary stat.
The Dragon minotaur came-out in November of 2008 and the fan community followed-up with this assessment in...