And in earlier editions, the same happened to classes like the barbarian, cavalier and assassin, to name three, while the bard went to PHB status with 2E (and was changed a lot as well). Changing priorities is nothing new.

A number of races can probably be reconstructed - like the half-orc with a mix of human and orc and using the half-elf as a guideline. Tieflings probably the same - if one uses the Eladrin as a baseline.

The barbarian and cavalier were not core material, they were expansion material in AD&D and came in as expansion material in 2nd edition AD&D as well. The Bard was in the PHB in AD&D 1st and 2nd edition both. Nonetheless, you are correct that priorities change.



Not really. The Half Elf doesn't have any overlap with the abilities of the Human or the Elf. It's a completely unique thing. Elves get a Wisdom and Dexterity bonus. For reasons unknown the Half Elf actually has a Constitution and Charisma bonus.

I'll agree with you that you can simply write up a Half Orc if you want, 4e races aren't super difficult to construct. But you seriously would be designing a brand new race completely from scratch. The Orc isn't finished either and the Half Elf "guideline" is apparently to just wander off in a random tangent unrelated to either parent.

The old school Tieflings is more problematic. The new campaign material has a new race which is called "Tiefling" and thus bringing in the old Tieflings not only requires you to design a new race, but to make a new name for that race as the name they used to have is taken by a different race in the 4e campaign and rule books.

-Frank

Or you can simply replace the 4E Tiefling with your Tiefling - people used to replace the 3E ranger with Monte's ranger as well.

You aren't seriously comparing house ruling different abilities for player characters of a specific class get to house ruling out a race that the newly published versions of the campaign settings have ruling entire kingdoms are you?

The new version of the FRCS seriously has entire nations and armies of the new "tiefling" race in it. Bringing back the old race called tiefling is in no way a small change to presented campaign worlds. It would be closer to house ruling Elves out of Shadowrun than it would be to house ruling out Satyrs.

-Frank

Of course I am serious. I'd house rule those armies in a heartbeat.

Without knowing the new background other than what I read in the preview book, I'd simply change the Tiefling empire or whatever it will be in the FR to have spawned the home-made tieflings - instead of a demonic pact, the nobles would have mated with demons, and their half-demon offspring formed the new nobility, and their descendants became the tieflings. And, of course, the Planescape tieflings would still be around - the "Descendants of the Nobility of this empire" tieflings would just be a part of the tieflings as a whole.

Where's the difficulty in that? All one does is use the new stats and (variable) appearance, and change a tiny bit of the origin fluff.

Edit: I mean, to sum it up: We have the 2E/3E Tieflings, who look different and have different powers because they have a fiend somewhere among their ancestors. And we have the 4E Tieflings, who look like they do because their ancestors made a deal with demons or such. It really is not difficult to incorporate the 4E Tiefling background into 2E/3E Tiefling background by assuming that those 4E Tiefling Ancestors did not just make a deal, but mated with the demons. Heck, that's how the elven tieflings in FR, the Fey'ir (or such) were explained- a noble house mating with fiends.

Also, house ruling elves out of Shadowrun would be easy as well. Just replace all elves with humans and ignore the Tirs, and you're mostly done. Or simply let the Tirs be instead populated by racist celtic-flavored extremist cults.

Just a reminder, try and keep things positive and constructive, rather than critical and negative. We have like 3 D&D threads up right now, there's no reason for all three to be full of bile and "This is why this game sucks".

That said, I've done a bit more reading, and me and a buddy made up a character each the other night. He made an Eladrin Warlock, I made a Dragonborn Warlord.

All in all, it was interesting. I'm still in the "like camp". I'm not gonna say it's the best game ever, as there's a lot of stuff that's either outright missing, or was ommitted as a design decision. But I think some of that stuff makes the game more intriguing, at least for me.

I grew up on old school D&D, so I can handle a game with no solid non-combat rules. A game like Shadowrun needs some in depth social rules, stuff for lifestyles, all that good stuff. But D&D is adventuring, dungeon diving, and killing stuff for loot. THe games never changed, and frankly, it never really will. The phrase "It's Roleplaying, not Rollplaying" gets bandied about plenty, so I'll flat out say it... Really, do you need rules for all that? For some groups, sure, and as I said, for some games, it's a necessary part of teh setting. But for D&D, not really.

I'm not saying you shouldn't rollplay. THe best, and most well defined characters I've ever played and played with were in my old Shadowrun game (Bull, Johnny 99, Mr White, etc). The second best though, miles ahead of any other characters and game, was a 2nd ed D&D game we played back around '94. We played taht game pretty steadily for a couple years, and we really fleshed out our characters, our backgrounds.

So really, i don;t see any of this being missing as a real flaw in the game. It just puts the responsibility of this stuff back in the GM and Players hands, rather than a set of complex (and very, very easily skewed) skills. And it's not like there are no skills, they're there, just simplified a bit.

One complaint my buddy Shawn had was that the books seemed dumbed down, with a lot of stuff getting hashed and rehased that, as he put it, "any gamer should already know". The DMG is at least half full of "How to roleplay" stuff that is almost completely useless and redundant to us (though I maintain that no matter how long you've been GMing, these are useful to review, as sometimes there's new ideas you never thought of, and sometimes it's good to refresh yourself a bit, especially if you play with the same grup of people regularly. You lose track of some of the things that crop up in other games). But as I pointed out to him... Not everyone has been gaming for 20 years.

It's obvious from the design decisions that WotC would like nothing more than to lure in some WoW players. Because as arrogant as we are as gamers, the fact is, WoW is bigger than us. By a LOT. The Alliance Guild I'm in currently is co-run by a guy I knew from the old RN Mailing List (Wolfstar, for some of you old timers). A lot of the folks in the Guild are RL friends of his. But after talking to some of them the last couple weeks, it's become clear that most of them have never done Pen & Paper gaming. A couple were actually completely clueless as to how you could play a game like that without a computer. So obviously, if you're gona get any of these guys into the hobby, you have to give them a simple starting point. And D&D4 provides that.

Frankly, I'm really, really interested to atcually try the game out in a session. I'm hoping to get a small practice session in this weekend with Shawn and a couple others. And I'm gonna go ahead and run a couple full blown sessions at origins with Caine and anyone else I can round up. It's not a hardcore RPG, but honestly, I think that intigues me all the more. It has some CCG type mechanics (Hell, I'm tempted to make up a set of index cards with the powers on them, and encourage players to flip or "tap" them to show they've been used), it has some tactical miiatures/board game elements ala Descennt or Warhammer Quest (Both games I love to pieces), it has some basic, straight forward character design ala WoW, and it's got teh core element of classic D&D behind it.

In it's own way, it's an innovative design. Like I said, I'll need to see how it plays and really mess with things a bit to see how well they hold up in the long run, but... <shrug> I think with the right group, it could be a lot of fun, as it'll provide some of the same type of gaming I get from Descent, but a a lot more open ended and allowing for a greater variety of play.

And for when I want hardcore RPGing, well... I still have Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

Don't do that.

D&D4 has extremely strong Race/Class affinities and there are very small numbers of "effective" builds. Also the game math is predicated on the assumption that you will be using one of them - especially at high levels. Don't play an Eladrin Warlock, because it sucks. Eladrin are kind of on the weak side no matter what you do your bonuses don't fully synergize with any currently published class. But if you do play an Eladrin, you want to be in one of the decent presented archetypes for which there is currently no optimized race: like Control Wizard or Brute Rogue.

There are three kinds of Warlocks, of which only one of them is Charisma based (Fey type), and they are optimized for Halflings, Tieflings, Dragonborn, Humans, or (especially) Half-Elves. The other two are Constitution centric, and thus are optimized for Dwarves, Humans, or Half Elves.

If you're going to play 4e to high levels you have to build your character in the manner that you'd build a WoW character. There are penalties for stepping out of the guidelines and they are large. Being an Infernal Pact Warlock who isn't a Dwarf, Human, or Half-Elf seriously drops your DPS by 17%. Since DPS is your entire job, you can see how that might not be a good plan.

-Frank

Well I broke down and got a PH... one way or another I was going to get it anyway (damn collector instinct) but I figured since I had a few folks around here lay into it and like what they saw I'd give it a look. I've gotten a decent read into it, and skimmed over most of the rules for character creation, I do like that its evened down to 1 set of level progressions, although it would seem an odd choise the way the classes are set up really support the leveling system put into place. I also have found myself somewhat enamored of one of the classes I thought I would hate, the warlock. I think the idea of a crazed "archaeologist" who has committed himself to the "gods" of the Far Reaches would be fun to play (yes, I'd have to try and feed the party to my "god", cause it'd be that way). Although the racial changes at first kinda bothered me, I found that really it wasn't too bad. Gnomes weren't core back in the old days, the idea of seperating up the "high" elves and the nature elves was good, the dragonborn I could take or leave and I think changes to the half-elf finally made them a most viable race to play (took long enough!). I love the changes to magic... it doesn't take up 1/2 the book for just a few classes. The split between character "spells" and rituals looks to flow naturally. There are a few things that I don't like as of yet, but I'll save those out for one of the negative threads

Heh. This is so cute (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I don't play WoW by this rule, so why should I play D&D this way? Besides, every RPG since the dawn of time has had "Optimal builds". Hell, Shadowrun sure as hell has them. I mean, why play a non-elf Face, or a melee character that isn't a troll?

Unlike a computerized RPG, which has a very unflexible set up with Player vs Computer (Or Player vs Player), RPGs are much more flexible. The GMs job is to set things so they're challenging but fun. If a PC is getting punished for playing an "un-optimized build", well... That's a bad GM.

Now, play nice Frank. Try and leave your sarcasm and derision to the other threads, please (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

Oh I am. The 17% wasn't just some random number, that's the actual number for not being the "right" race to play an Infernal Pact Warlock (though it goes up and down as you gain levels). The solid and inflexible math combined with long combats is an advertised feature of the new edition. The Warlock is a "Striker" and his presented role in the party is "DPS." The game math is written assuming that you will play a Warlock of the "right" type and that you will thus hit 50% of the time against normal enemies and 40% of the time against solos. If you play the "wrong" type you only hit 45% or 35% respectively. And since battles are now intended to last 20 rounds or more at high levels, those DPS shifts make a huge difference.

When we say that there are three types of warlocks, that's not character optimization snootiness - that's again an advertised feature of the new edition. There are exactly three types of warlocks that are allowed. That's a feature, and it's there to reduce the number of bad builds fo people to accidentally take and shorten the learning curve.

Frankly I honestly don't know why they didn't go the extra meter and write hard race/class restrictions, because the soft ones they have now are not very soft. Coming to the table with an Eladrin Warlock or a Dragonborn Wizard is like coming to a guild with a Survival Specced Hunter. Making the "proper" synergies is fairly easy (again, an advertised feature of the new edition), and there are a fair number of them for every class (again, an advertised feature of the new edition). There are Laser Clerics and Beat Clerics. There are Tron Paladins and Grind Paladins. This isn't sarcasm, this is explicit designer intent, and real people really like it.

But if you make a Tron Paladin, you go Dragonborn or Human, boost Strength and sub Wisdom. Doing almost anything else is an extremely bad plan. Making a Dwarf or Elf Tron Paladin is possible, but is pretty much restricted to point buy and is considered an unusual build. Making a Halfling or Eladrin Tron Paladin is "wrong." It is an advertised feature of the 4th edition rules that it is very easy to figure out what the optimal builds are, and it is an advertised feature of the game that it is supposed to be played with everyone using them.

-Frank

Okay, Frank, now say something you really like about the game. You know, 'cause this is the POSITIVE thread.

I always reflected that as a GM, I never enforced the whole, "trolls are 2-3 times as tall as you and therefore can't fit though doorways or into cars", since that could be very disruptive and time consuming to games.

Player: "I enter the bar to see the Johnson".

GM: "You ram your forehead into the doorframe."

Player: "I use the shipping door in back."

GM: "You get stuck as you try to crawl through and then the security guards repeatedly tase you in your helpless nuts."

So I guess that in principle playing a troll could be "balanced" by extreme social difficulty, but no GM I know actually wants to spend that much time and energy subjecting the troll to slapstick comedy.

Gnomes and half-orcs have been the least popular of the core races, no matter how vocal the players are who are fond of them. We'll have to see if the new (ugly) Tieflings will prove to be popular. Dragonborn will be for sure, especially now that they're a true-breeding race.

Alas, they still have half-elves and halflings. If it were for me, these two races would have gone the way of the dodo.

I honestly love making characters that aren't completely suited for their roles.

I'm the guy that makes Troll Technomancers and Gnome Warlords. I made my Gnome Warlord specifically because it's a somewhat silly thing to do and the Gnome is no longer a PHB class.

Of note, looking at the half-elves they are related to neither humans or elves... But their attributes come from something else entirely.

Meh, perhaps heterosis. Could be. The problem is still that there are too many elf-races. Of course, another problem that might be creeping up is swapping too many elf-races through human-races. Shadar-Kai, Tieflings, Cambions, and you can bet that there will be some bajillion genasi-half-human freaks running around.

Oh well, it's a D&D-ism.

Let's see...something positive about 4e D&D? Well, you don't HAVE TO play it. That's a big positive. Another is that they didn't try to back door their rip offs of WoW, so you can interchange things between the two games fairly effectively. Ok, so it's not a BIG positive, it's still nice of them to be so open about it. And, ahh, oh hey, there is one real positive positive here...the art is better than usual...much better than the earlier editions of D&D in the old AD&D days especially. And ahh, well, errrr, hmmm, yeah! Your 3.x and earlier edition stuff is becoming more valueable on EBay by the day right now and no one is going to come to your house and try to take it from you... yet anyway.


Lock and load brothers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)





Isshia

I found another positive thing. Well, positive for my wizard, anyway.

I can use Sleep on skeletons.

SCORE! No more of this "undead are immune to sleep" crap. When it's nappy time for the lich, it's nappy time for the lich.

Immunities in general are mostly gone - probably. There's still some argument over the fact that the description of Undead says that they "don't sleep" and that they aren't listed as being immune to sleep in their actual description. But as soon as that's sorted out, we can probably get to the real heart of the matter: staking vampires in their sleep (something which due to some very badly written rule interactions was physically impossible in 3rd edition games).

I think the removal of immunities went too far myself, we're at the point where using one weapon over another isn't usually a meaningful tactic. But it is easier to have too few monster abilities than too many.

-Frank

The MM says "Undead do not need to breathe or sleep." Semantically, they can sleep and breathe (the latter makes sense, as vampires should be able to speak).

Yes, very astute.

Okay, I know this is a positive thread but here's something that really irked me about the art: a lot of it (especially in the MM) is from older-edition books! We sat down and flipped through the pages and were like "Yep, that's from Oriental Adventures," "Oh, the original Monster Manual there", "Miniatures Handbook." I do like the art for trolls, however. Also, pseudodragons are still listed as coveted pets and that made me smile. Right now, that's what my gnome warlord is questing for (other than the complete destruction of the kobold race and the next place where he can get a stiff drink).

That irks you? The recycled art is the best stuff in the book! If all the art was recycled, and it was all awesome stuff like the Bog Hag, I'd have a much higher opinion of the art as a whole. All the dragonborn look like muppets and the new art is much more "Unwired Cover" than it is "Unwired Interior."

I could seriously do without the new beholders. Or the new white dragons. Or those guys with three skull heads.

-Frank

Haha, okay, yeah. The Dragonborn do look like muppets and the beholders do look quite silly, as well. But I place a high value on new art and even if some of it is less-than-par I'd prefer new art to the recycled if nothing else then just for more variety.