apollo124
Jul 12 2008, 05:33 AM
I just read an email from RPGNow store which was advertising the pdf's of the 4e books for about $25 each, a savings of about $10 each or $30 off for the set. That brings the big 3 core books down to a (somewhat) more reasonable $75 for the set.
Critias
Jul 12 2008, 05:54 AM
Amazon.com has actual hardcopy versions of all three core books, in a boxed set "gift pack," for $65.
Bull
Jul 12 2008, 06:31 AM
QUOTE (Critias @ Jul 12 2008, 01:54 AM)

Amazon.com has actual hardcopy versions of all three core books, in a boxed set "gift pack," for $65.
I've seen there were a lot of problems with folks getting their orders when they were supposed to, with Amazon bumping a lot of delivery dates up a month or two.
Not sure if this was just a problem with their initial orders (They took more pre-orders than they could fill maybe), or what. And dunno if this has since cleared up now that they've been out for a couple months.
Bull
Kyoto Kid
Jul 12 2008, 07:05 AM
...they no longer have Monks.
That settles my opinion.
Bull
Jul 12 2008, 10:03 AM
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Jul 12 2008, 02:05 AM)

...they no longer have Monks.
That settles my opinion.
I never really liked Monks for some reason. They were never a part of the "core game" for me since they weren't in any of the core books until 3rd ed, and the couple players I had that went out and got the sourcebook (or the Dragon Magazine article) that had teh write up for them did so because they wanted to play a munchy, broken class

But I'd be willing to bet we'll see them in the next PHB. Along with Bards, Barbs, and Druids.
Bull
Critias
Jul 12 2008, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 12 2008, 01:31 AM)

I've seen there were a lot of problems with folks getting their orders when they were supposed to, with Amazon bumping a lot of delivery dates up a month or two.
Not sure if this was just a problem with their initial orders (They took more pre-orders than they could fill maybe), or what. And dunno if this has since cleared up now that they've been out for a couple months.
Bull
I ordered mine on July 5th, and got the box in the mail on the 9th.
Now, to be fair, they
told me I wouldn't get it until the 30th. So technically their delivery date was still wrong. But I'm not complainin'.
Caine Hazen
Jul 12 2008, 07:18 PM
QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Jul 12 2008, 02:05 AM)

...they no longer have Monks.
That settles my opinion.
Although they have already stated that they will be in next years Player's Handbook.
Lordmalachdrim
Jul 13 2008, 01:46 PM
Next year's PHB/MM/DMG. That's something that bugged the heck out of me. So now they'll have standard splat books (Martial Powers) and Core Splat Books (Yearly release of new PHB/MM/DMG).
No thanks.
I've read the books and I didn't like a lot of what I saw. It looked like it'd be a fun board game, and I know people who'd enjoy it but it's just not for me or my group. So we'll stick with other games (HackMaster, Alternity, Shadowrun, Palladium for example)
apollo124
Jul 13 2008, 11:07 PM
QUOTE (Bull @ Jul 12 2008, 06:03 AM)

I never really liked Monks for some reason. They were never a part of the "core game" for me since they weren't in any of the core books until 3rd ed, and the couple players I had that went out and got the sourcebook (or the Dragon Magazine article) that had teh write up for them did so because they wanted to play a munchy, broken class

But I'd be willing to bet we'll see them in the next PHB. Along with Bards, Barbs, and Druids.
Bull
No monks, bards, barbarians, druids, player half-orcs, or gnomes? I'm liking it less and less. What the hell do they have left? (Yeah, I actually do know, from the RPGNow ad/article about it, but damn). A price point like that and they're still talking about needing to buy the "new and improved" core books every year? Don't you guys get no ideas, 'cause that one sucks. Really, drop bear hit squads will be hired if you try to pull that one in SR. I know you wouldn't do that to us, but just sayin'.
By the way, is it just me saying "Oh no, we got ambushed by goblins. No, wait, whew! It's just a tribe of vicious gnomes."
Adam
Jul 14 2008, 12:10 AM
I'm not seeing an issue with the price point. $34.99 for full color books that are 318, 220, and 286 pages? I don't think that's an out of line price for the production quality of the books. I think there might be a perception issue that the books are more expensive simply because people are more likely to buy all three of them at once.
Of course, if you don't like the game or don't ever play it, then no price is going to satisfy you.
apollo124
Jul 14 2008, 03:53 AM
I think you probably hit it on the head there, Adam. The price is comparable with other RPG books, but having to buy the new core rules every year doesn't sound like something I want to get in on again. And it is the additive effect of needing to buy all 3 at once that gets to me. But, like you said, this new D+D doesn't sound like a game I want to play. Good luck to those who do, though. Just give me SR and I'll be fine.
Fuchs
Jul 14 2008, 10:22 AM
In one of my groups, we discussed switching. Starting a new campaign (recommended by WotC) was not on the table - we all want to continue with our campaign. The key points in favor of not switching were:
- Not enough classes available (no sorcerer)
- Not enough enchantment/charm spells or social abilities available for some character concepts
Minor negatives were:
- No conversion manual/guidelines
- Combat is not that important in our campaign, so one of 4E's biggest selling point is not as important
- All PCs are spellcasters, so another big selling point of 4E is not as needed as in other campaigns
- We have no new players who never played D&D, so ease of starting the game has no importance.
All voted against switching. Once 4E has had some more options available, especially out of combat, we may reconsider.
Malicant
Jul 14 2008, 10:54 AM
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jul 14 2008, 12:22 PM)

- No conversion manual/guidelines
How can someone with access to teh internets say this with a straight face? WotC has a even conversions for Monks and stuff like Hexblades...
deek
Jul 14 2008, 02:52 PM
Personally, I have never understood why people switch editions just because there is something new. I mean, if it is honestly better in more respects than not, then sure, go ahead.
I mean, if I were to start a DnD campaign today, I'd open up my second edition PHB, DMG and MM, and start playing. While I love 4th Edition and had some fun with 3.x, to me, DnD is 2nd Edition, with a little bit of 1st Edition sprinkled in (like OA). I didn't have any house-rules in 2nd edition and had a lot of fun.
I don't know, sometimes I just don't know why people that have a ton of fun playing in one edition, are compelled at all, to leave it all behind. Especially when a new edition almost always limits what you have available when compared to the "new" edition.
And really, that doesn't make a new edition bad. Just not worth it to switch when you like what you are playing.
Adam
Jul 14 2008, 03:10 PM
QUOTE (apollo124 @ Jul 13 2008, 11:53 PM)

I think you probably hit it on the head there, Adam. The price is comparable with other RPG books, but having to buy the new core rules every year doesn't sound like something I want to get in on again.
The question to me is: how usable is the game without buying the PHB2? A company releasing extra stuff that I don't want or need doesn't make their current games/books less valuable to me.
I'm not entirely sure how the PHB2 is supposed to work [I, ah, haven't had enough free time to do more than skim the 4e books, much less read scuttlebutt about them on the 'net, aside from the threads here] -- do they contain only additional material [IE, are they supplements?] or do they repeat the basic rules but substitute new races and classes in?
deek
Jul 14 2008, 04:57 PM
That's a really good point, Adam. Looking at both 4th edition games I actually like to play, I can make a really good case at playing the games and having a lot of fun without every buying another book. With SR4, flawed, house-ruled or whatever, the game can be played with just the core book. DnD4, you need three, but both systems, mainly just add to the content, not really change it (except for the optional rules).
I really don't see any DnD4 books after the core being REQUIRED to enjoy the game.
Nightwalker450
Jul 14 2008, 06:30 PM
Actually the DMG isn't even overly necessary. Yes theres some traps, poisons, diseases, and skill challenges (discussed enough). But 90% of the book is telling you how to handle running a game, and dealing with players. So with just the MM and PHB, your role-playing veteran should have more than enough to run a good campaign. And everything is simplified down, so its actually really easy to come up with your own classes/races/monsters whatever.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 14 2008, 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Nightwalker450 @ Jul 14 2008, 01:30 PM)

Actually the DMG isn't even overly necessary. Yes theres some traps, poisons, diseases, and skill challenges (discussed enough). But 90% of the book is telling you how to handle running a game, and dealing with players. So with just the MM and PHB, your role-playing veteran should have more than enough to run a good campaign. And everything is simplified down, so its actually really easy to come up with your own classes/races/monsters whatever.
Hmmm, I think that's largely true. One question: The combat encounter building only appears in the DMG, correct? The limits on building easy and challenging combat encounters, as well as what levels of monsters can be in them, etc only appear in the DMG and would probably not be obvious, even to an experienced GM. It's only about 1% of the book, but it would be rough to try to put together a campaign without having seen it at least once, I think.
Nightwalker450
Jul 15 2008, 07:05 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jul 14 2008, 02:00 PM)

Hmmm, I think that's largely true. One question: The combat encounter building only appears in the DMG, correct? The limits on building easy and challenging combat encounters, as well as what levels of monsters can be in them, etc only appear in the DMG and would probably not be obvious, even to an experienced GM. It's only about 1% of the book, but it would be rough to try to put together a campaign without having seen it at least once, I think.
Yah they have those tables. But it sums up pretty much in a paragraph.
*Spoiler!*
Level of Encounter * Number of Characters
So if you want a level 2 encounter of 4 characters look up the exp for a level 2 creature (125) and multiply it by the number of characters. You have 500 exp to spend on creating the encounter. Easy is lower then the character level, moderate is no more than 1 level higher, difficult is 2-4 levels higher. There you go, you have the essential part of the DMG.
The diseases, traps, and poisons add flavor and could be useful, but pretty much everything is really simple to throw together. If you're short on cash you can easily skip this book to start with (and maybe even figure out your own pretty easy once you get going).
Wounded Ronin
Jul 17 2008, 06:44 PM
I always felt that monks were essential to the late 70s-early 80s feel of D&D. The monks were there to remind everyone that oriential martial arts are superior to western martial arts, because Tallhoffer wasn't well known or popular at that time, and at the same time all the 70s creative types likely to get into fantasy RPGs were also probably getting high and trying to find the truth of their souls through krotty. One of the most poignant moments for me was reading a first edition rule book where Gygax said that "monks are not super men" when in fact looking at the statistics that's actually pretty much what they were. That implied that the super-powerful monks were considered "realistic" at that time.
As such, I always felt that the appropriate thing to do when not playing an oriental-setting D&D game was not to play as a monk, while still keeping the monks on the rulebook. That way in the abstract you could be a western elf or whatever, but at the same time you'd understand in the abstract that if you were asian you'd automatically be better, in keeping with the times. The monks weren't there to play. They were there for statistical purposes and to lay the parameters of period-appropriate orientalism.
Therefore, D&D 4th edition should have a monk class which you're not actually allowed to play, and which has ridiculously high stats all across the board. There should be a sample monk who is the highest statted entity in the whole D&D 4th ed system, and his name should be David Carradine.
Caine Hazen
Jul 17 2008, 11:43 PM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jul 17 2008, 01:44 PM)

Therefore, D&D 4th edition should have a monk class which you're not actually allowed to play, and which has ridiculously high stats all across the board. There should be a sample monk who is the highest statted entity in the whole D&D 4th ed system, and his name should be David Carradine.
This is where we make the thread descend into chaos as I stand over in my corner here and scream BRUCE LEE!!!! And then the rest of the M.A. nerd an' wanna-bes float out and rumble and it looks like that scene in
AnchormanAlthough Mr. Carradine is pretty cool, got to share a whiskey with him a few years ago at GenCon, nice dude.
Cthulhudreams
Jul 18 2008, 12:06 AM
So, thanks to customer service, if a cleric wacks up a blade barrier and a wizard knocks a monster back through 5 squares of it, the monster takes damage 5 times.
Even if you didn't take damage 5 times, we have the new gold standard of 4th ed combat. Someone wacks up some sort of barrier effect, and the party tekken juggles the dude through it repeatedly getting huge damage. If you use something like wall of fire which doesn't exempt you for multiple damage on multiple entry, and use D&D's awesome non ecludian geometry, you can knock someone backwards in a zig zag fashion and push them through the fire multiple times.
Awesome! Actually a kinda fun tactic too, if a bit 'gamist'
Reg06
Jul 18 2008, 07:17 PM
Wait! Hold the presses! If you push somebody through a shitload of blades multiple times that person gets hurt more than if it had just been the one pass through a wall of pain? Well screw that, 4e is obviously broken.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 18 2008, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Reg06 @ Jul 18 2008, 03:17 PM)

Wait! Hold the presses! If you push somebody through a shitload of blades multiple times that person gets hurt more than if it had just been the one pass through a wall of pain? Well screw that, 4e is obviously broken.
Whaaaat? That's just crazy talk. I'm gonna try it and see. Anybody know where I can get a huge wall of spinning blades? Preferably on the cheap. Oooh, and a box of band-aids. Just in case!
Malicant
Jul 19 2008, 08:55 AM
QUOTE (Reg06 @ Jul 18 2008, 09:17 PM)

Wait! Hold the presses! If you push somebody through a shitload of blades multiple times that person gets hurt more than if it had just been the one pass through a wall of pain? Well screw that, 4e is obviously broken.
What?
Cthulhudreams
Jul 21 2008, 03:29 AM
It's probably unbalanced actually because it allows you to use an at-will to hit someone 5+ times with a daily, and then you have another guy standing at the other end to bounce them right back.
However even at the once per turn end of the spectrum, its probably good.
deek
Jul 21 2008, 12:38 PM
That's like saying its unfair to be fighting near a bottomless chasm and shift/push an enemy into it. Its the terrain and strategy to use it to a benefit.
I mean, the PCs are just as open to these kinds of attacks as well.
I guess I wouldn't be surprised if we would see some sort of resistance to the forced movement, but I'd rather just allow it.
DTFarstar
Jul 22 2008, 10:17 PM
There is a save to resist being forced into hindering terrain or off cliffs, and I think it applies to forced movement into general damage at all.
Chris
Cthulhudreams
Jul 25 2008, 04:40 AM
Well, it would only if you ignore the exception based design matra. In 4th ed things always work X unless specific exception Y is applied.
The exception Y only applies when being pushed into terrian type 'hindering terrain'
apollo124
Aug 5 2008, 03:42 PM
I'm thinking that a "wall of lots of knives" would hinder my movement pretty well, so would a wall of fire, IMO.
Cthulhudreams
Aug 6 2008, 01:07 AM
Sure, but its not actually 'hindering terrain' which is a special category of terrain as defined by the DMG and does not include walls of fire as they are defined as a combat spell... though it does include fires.
Edit: Its like the 'spike stones' spell in 3.5 didn't make the area difficult terrain, despite 'spiky stones' being obviously difficult terrain.
Wounded Ronin
Aug 6 2008, 04:34 PM
QUOTE (apollo124 @ Aug 5 2008, 10:42 AM)

I'm thinking that a "wall of lots of knives" would hinder my movement pretty well, so would a wall of fire, IMO.
Pansy!
Cang
Aug 12 2008, 04:18 PM
I am GMing 4e right now (not by choice

) But i have to say it grew on me. Plus i see it as a good foundation to build up my own game. It is great for noobies because it is simple as flipping a switch. But it is a good foundation in which i am building up from.
1) i have added a feat that lets you specialize in a skill so you can put extra points in lets say pickpocket in the theivery group (so now trained just means you know it, now that you are great at it).
2) I have added a feat that lets you learn more ecounter powers (and prob gonna add one for at-will and dailies) You still can only use 2 encounter powers per encounter, but you can pick from a bigger base (no longer do you forget powers.. to me that was damn stupid)
3) I redid the death and healing.. its pretty much the same with alot more tacked on it. So now you get modifiers for how many surges you use, you have some damage that can only be healed by a ritual, and you have a limit on certain kinds of healings. I also put a weakend status if you hit under 0 hp. I had too many players going from 0 to fighting in one encounter.
So i plan to keep adding more things as we go. I am going to add a profession system and more feats. I plan to have most changes be added as feats and give out feats as rewards, instead of xp. That way i can keep everyone at the same level (because that is what the game wants really) and i can reward rp and ideas with feats and such.
On the fluff side, i really think it is crazy that they retconed so much fluff in 4e. Personally i dont care much because d&d isnt my game but i can see where the anger is coming from. But alot of it isnt that bad. The issue for alot of it is that you have to wait a while till the books come out. Druids barbarians and gnomes are going to be in the PhB2. And the Ebarron campaign isnt untill 2009. Also just because you can play a warforged or hobgoblin doesnt mean your game has to let it. I mean we can play damn free spirits and AIs in shadowrun but I aint gonna let just anyone play one of those.
Reg06
Aug 13 2008, 08:55 PM
I'm glad you've given it a chance. And I'm seeing alot of what people hate about 4e isn't what it is, but what it isn't. Most people don't like the things that 4e changed, or dropped, from 3.5, rather than actually disliking 4e as a seperate entity that exists on its own.
DTFarstar
Aug 14 2008, 06:32 AM
I have noticed that myself, Reg06, and I can agree with them sometimes, but largely I like 4E, it hasn't replaced 3.5E for me yet, but that is largely because it just isn't developed enough. I love the hard tactical flavor of it, so the other minor nitpicks beyond what is missing so far don't really bother me.
Chris
EDIT: Shadowrun is still an insane amount better, of course, but my group wants a break from having to think during gaming sometimes so we move to a lighter game.
Aaron
Aug 18 2008, 05:00 AM
QUOTE
TO: D&D4e
FROM: SR4
RE: PC Roles
I'll see your four and raise you nine.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.