Necromancer Games Goes 4th Edition! Planned Product Updates!

But it will include the Illusionist

Here is a blurb from Ari's Introduction (the only part of the manuscript I have actually seen):

So what have we got for you? The gnome and the half-orc as PC options make a return in the Advanced Player's Guide, as does the “shire halfling.” He's an older fashioned halfling, not the lithe athlete of modern editions but the portly, comfort-loving, hairy-footed hobbi... er, little guy of fantasy's most classic roots.

The furious barbarian, the inspirational bard (available in both singing and non-singing flavors), the nature-shaping and prayer-casting druid, and the unarmed monk all make their 4E debuts in the APG. And we've also called our old buddy the illusionist off the bench as well.

There's more, of course, as I mentioned above--new paragon paths, new rituals, new feats--but the races and classes represent the true beating heart of the Advanced Player's Guide, the reason for its existence. I hope you're at least half as excited to play them, moving into the game's new era, as I was to design them.

Click to expand...

I'm as excited to read it as you are!

Clark

Orcus said:

No 4E Wilderlands is planned. But you never know... If Tegel is a run away hit, maybe we will reconsider.

Click to expand...

Guess I'll have to pick up a couple extra copies of Tegel...

I think Wilderlands would be an awesome setting for 4e.

So, I'm assuming that the furious barbarian will be inspired by the 3rd edition version and not the 1st edition one. Is that correct?

Nikosandros said:

So, I'm assuming that the furious barbarian will be inspired by the 3rd edition version and not the 1st edition one. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Well, without going into detail (because, of course, I can't)...

I tried, with the material in the APG, to draw inspiration from both 1E and 3E (and, on occasion, 2E). The mechanics throughout the book resemble 3E more than 1E, but there's an awful lot of both.

That said, when it comes to the barbarian, let's be honest. There's really very little of the 1E barbarian that can transfer over. A great many of his "special abilities" of the time have, in subsequent editions, been absorbed into the skill system. A great many others are little throwaway bonuses that are exactly the sort of thing 4E is cutting out for streamlining purposes.

The two truly unique aspects of the 1E barbarian were:

1) The "summon horde" ability--which, frankly, is more or less impossible to balance given what we know of 4E. More to the point, it never made sense to me. Why should a barbarian, who isn't necessarily even a leader back home, be able to raise an army?

2) The whole "anti-magic" attitude. While I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me, I'm a firm believer in the notion that you never base a class's core mechanics on a notion that will automatically inspire inter-party conflict. That should entirely be a flavor/background decision, fully in the hands of the people sitting around the table.

That said, don't necessarily expect a point-by-point update of the 3E barbarian, either. As I said, even when I can't draw mechanics from all past editions, I'm trying to draw flavor from all of 'em--and sometimes, that in itself causes the mechanics to shift a bit.

I suppose I'd be greeted by a chorus of boos if I said that I always considered the barbarian class to be interestingly designed. Being a barbarian, in my opinion, should just be a cultural thing as well as a statement about preferred weapons. He should just be a fighter with a few minor tweaks to make it possible to survive while wearing nothing but a loincloth for protection, not something that gives you incredible strength and endurance, only to leave him begging for healing at the end of the combat because his status as a meat shield has just soared to new heights.

Honestly? I don't entirely disagree.

But my job was to create a fun and workable class informed by the prior variants, not try to explain to people why they didn't need one.

Mouseferatu said:

Honestly? I don't entirely disagree.

But my job was to create a fun and workable class informed by the prior variants, not try to explain to people why they didn't need one.

Click to expand...

It does present an interesting design challenge, does it not?

Frankly, I had a barbarian character that I had played all the way through 2nd edition, which I retired in 3rd edition because the rules just didn't support him. OK, so there's nothing original about a guy named Thor who roughly fit the description of Conan, but what exactly do you expect from the product of the imagination of a highscooler? Regardless, to me the 3E barbarian was not Conan. It was more of a berserker.

Whisperfoot said:

It does present an interesting design challenge, does it not?

Click to expand...

Well, fortunately I'm in a position where I like the concept of the rage-driven character/berserker; I just don't think it should be tied to the concept of the "barbarian."

But since it almost always has been, it wasn't hard for me to continue to do so.

But again, I'm sort of talking around the issue, since--again--I can't talk about what the class actually is, just the various inspirations that went into it.

I'm looking forward to this book. It will likely be the only 4th ed book I buy outside of the core books.

Good news even though I'm not sure about 4e. I did wonder if there would be a Tome of Horrors for it.