Reading my 4th Edition PHB from 4 years ago: "This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." So ... what's up? Why is WotC rewriting this franchise from the ground up ... again .... 6 years ahead of schedule?
"This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of
play."
So ... what's up? Why is WotC rewriting this franchise from the ground up ... again .... 6 years ahead of schedule?
On a side note, when I create pirate NPC's, I usually include a mix of fighters, rogues, and fighter/rogues, as well as some casters. Clerics of sea gods or wizards with parrot familiars, even a druid with his water and air magicks and a monkey companion, works great. When I PLAY a pirate, however, I generally create him with the ranger class. Why? Because when I play a pirate, I like to dual wield a sword & dirk (or a sword & flintlock, if they're available). The ranger's inability...
View full commentOn a side note, when I create pirate NPC's, I usually include a mix of fighters, rogues, and fighter/rogues, as well as some casters. Clerics of sea gods or wizards with parrot familiars, even a druid with his water and air magicks and a monkey companion, works great.
When I PLAY a pirate, however, I generally create him with the ranger class. Why? Because when I play a pirate, I like to dual wield a sword & dirk (or a sword & flintlock, if they're available). The ranger's inability to wear heavy armor is just fine, too. Plus, he typically gets the right skills for the job (in 3e, for example, he got Climb, Intuit Direction, Knowledge: Nature, Profession: Sailor, Swim, Use Rope, and Wilderness Lore, which are all useful on the open see).
Although favored enemy isn't necessary to the concept, choosing an aquatic favored enemy did assume a certain oceanic history for the character. Similarly, spells weren't absolutely necessary, but in a magical world, spells like resist elements, protection from elements, water walk all came in handy, while spells like animal friendship, summon nature's ally, animal messenger could be used to for very piratey toucans or parrots.
Tracks was the only ability that was rally out of place, so I would usually ask the DM if I could trade it out for something more appropriate (even something like skill focus in profession: sailor). Barring that, I just tied it to the character's life before becoming a pirate.
Hello My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self, please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou @ yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your response, Thanks Yours Kine. (kinemabou @ yahoo.com)
View full commentHello
My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self,
please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou @ yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your response,
Thanks Yours
Kine.
(kinemabou @ yahoo.com)
Maybe you could just take out the "Expert" term in the main titles of the full core rules, and maybe just make it a clearly visible, but removable and unobstructive sticker note on the books' cover. Other than that, it's a great idea. There could be the core rules plus adequate amounts of rule modules, feats that allow gameplay to resemble those from other editions (here's some meta-magic feats which could make 1e/2e and 4e style spellcasting possible: ...
View full commentMaybe you could just take out the "Expert" term in the main titles of the full core rules, and maybe just make it a clearly visible, but removable and unobstructive sticker note on the books' cover. Other than that, it's a great idea. There could be the core rules plus adequate amounts of rule modules, feats that allow gameplay to resemble those from other editions (here's some meta-magic feats which could make 1e/2e and 4e style spellcasting possible: community.wizards.com/the_mask_of_ice/bl...)
and other customizing options. The expansion books could be not mandatory for those who want the rule module, for example, DMs who want grid combat should find a good amount of rules for it in the DMG. But if they want to see wargame style rules or mass combat, they could buy the Combat and Tactics module.
I thought it made sense. He's saying that mechanics serve a purpose and if a new mechanic does its job every bit as well as some old mechanic, then it IS just as good as the old mechanic. Of course, you and I know that two different mechanics rarely accomplish the exact same end result ... but that's okay. Maybe the intricacies of the old mechanic were better in some ways, but as long as the new mechanic is better over all, with its own valuable intricacies, then so be it. The real...
View full commentI thought it made sense. He's saying that mechanics serve a purpose and if a new mechanic does its job every bit as well as some old mechanic, then it IS just as good as the old mechanic.
Of course, you and I know that two different mechanics rarely accomplish the exact same end result ... but that's okay. Maybe the intricacies of the old mechanic were better in some ways, but as long as the new mechanic is better over all, with its own valuable intricacies, then so be it.
The real question, then, is whether a given mechanic really is better than the older mechanic it was meant to replace. Sometimes, only time will tell.
Fair enough, but I'm not at all sure what you're describing qualifies. I mean what DID happen with Essentials? There was nothing wrong with it, but it wasn't as if the Essentials classes entirely worked within the 4e system. There were plenty of cases where feats, items, and other things didn't really work with e-classes. They used resources differently, which was one of the nice things about basic 4e, all classes have the same resources. Do we have this in the case of your multiple ways to cast...
View full commentFair enough, but I'm not at all sure what you're describing qualifies. I mean what DID happen with Essentials? There was nothing wrong with it, but it wasn't as if the Essentials classes entirely worked within the 4e system. There were plenty of cases where feats, items, and other things didn't really work with e-classes. They used resources differently, which was one of the nice things about basic 4e, all classes have the same resources. Do we have this in the case of your multiple ways to cast spells? No. We also don't have the simplicity of a single system. We don't have the power either. 4e-style power swap MCing, impossible. 4e style hybrids, pretty much impossible.
Also, no matter what anyone tries to tell me, there is no such thing as separate but equal. Casters are going to get the juice. Anyone that doesn't use similar mechanics isn't going to get the juice. The CS based fighter is a perfect example, outside of combat their main class feature is utterly worthless. Sorry, that may be old school, but it is exactly the old school that we can live without.
As for voicing my opinion, yeah, I seem to be basically just about the last of the real 4e advocates that has bothered to stick around. Wow. I can't even get the people I play with to spend their time on the play test at this point, it just isn't offering us so much as a dry bone. Hit Dice, bwaaaahhhaaaa! ;)
I suspect the disparity between racial ability score boosts will accelerate power creep. Nonhuman races will inevitably get mechanical options that are better than Human options, in order to “balance” the races better. But then the Human will use the better Nonhuman options as a baseline for new Human options. And the armsraces soar up from there.
Giving humans a blanket +1 to ability scores is a pathetic attempt to pander to Pathfinder power gamers. The way they're described it would be more appropriate to give them a +1 to Charisma, and go back to the extra skill or feat rationale of Third Edition*. On a related note, allowing elves to roll Perception with advantage is a little more than saying they're not often surprised. That, especially combined with the fact that low-light vision is overpowered for them and underpowered for...
View full commentGiving humans a blanket +1 to ability scores is a pathetic attempt to pander to Pathfinder power gamers. The way they're described it would be more appropriate to give them a +1 to Charisma, and go back to the extra skill or feat rationale of Third Edition*.
On a related note, allowing elves to roll Perception with advantage is a little more than saying they're not often surprised. That, especially combined with the fact that low-light vision is overpowered for them and underpowered for dwarves, starts off the wack arms race almost just as much.
*I think they get an extra skill in Fourth but I never bought that Players Handbook, and the point is not worth trying to decipher that edition's mangled SRD. People should want to play humans for the idealistic vision that they are newcomers to the world, elves for their contradictory jaded and naturalistic worldview, or dwarves because they are gruff curmudgeons.
"This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of
play."
So ... what's up? Why is WotC rewriting this franchise from the ground up ... again .... 6 years ahead of schedule?
View full comment