D&D 4E 4E: What we think we know

[Kae'Yoss]

I would assume so? What's your point, mate?

Well, in 3e, we basically have "martial, arcane, divine, roguish", so when the part about Arcane, Divine and Martial characters first came up, someone asked about the rogue (maybe afraid that the class was going away), and it was said that he was martial.

Not that big a point, actually (though points are, by definition, pretty small, anyway).

 

[Nebulous]

I think I'll just skip the online stuff entirely. I'm hardly a technophobe but for the most part computers are really not necessary for D&D.

Except to run music, which i personally cannot play without. Otherwise, yeah, i'll probably skip the DI.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Except to run music

That's the main use of the PC standing next to the gaming table. And of course the occasional youtube Video or something during game breaks. Nothing gets you in the mood to play evil characters like Slaughter Your World.

It sees a lot of use during preparation, though.

 

[AllisterH]

It sounds to me, however, like there will be plenty of room for ignoring the roles a bit & exploring other options. Maybe not to the extent of 3e. Plus, I think having the roles better defined may make the challenge of making "incomplete" parties (e.g. parties with one or more roles unfilled) work more interesting.

I think that goes hand in hand with the redesign of the monsters in the MM. IF I'm reading it correctly, WOTC has broken down each class into a role and as a DM, by WOTC acknolwedging these roles and by redesign of monsters, a DM can easily choose monsters that play either to the strengths of the party thus making it "easy" or you can have monsters that exploit the missing role.

For example, if your party lacks a tank, then presumably, the DM can choose monsters that don't exploit the lack of a tank, to make a "normal" level of difficulty for an encounter for THAT party when compared to a "balanced" party that does have a tank.

 

[stonegod]

The laptop gets mostly use from me for SRD searches; usually much faster than flipping pages.

 

[Nyaricus]

Well, in 3e, we basically have "martial, arcane, divine, roguish", so when the part about Arcane, Divine and Martial characters first came up, someone asked about the rogue (maybe afraid that the class was going away), and it was said that he was martial.

Not that big a point, actually (though points are, by definition, pretty small, anyway).

Ahh, fair enough. Maybe the cover will change by the time it hits shelves?

 

[Mistwell]

I think that goes hand in hand with the redesign of the monsters in the MM. IF I'm reading it correctly, WOTC has broken down each class into a role and as a DM, by WOTC acknolwedging these roles and by redesign of monsters, a DM can easily choose monsters that play either to the strengths of the party thus making it "easy" or you can have monsters that exploit the missing role.

For example, if your party lacks a tank, then presumably, the DM can choose monsters that don't exploit the lack of a tank, to make a "normal" level of difficulty for an encounter for THAT party when compared to a "balanced" party that does have a tank.

That's an interesting observation.

 

[Knight Otu]

Ahh, fair enough. Maybe the cover will change by the time it hits shelves?

I believe it has been mentioned that the PHB cover is finalized. Besides that, the recent Design & Development seems to spell out that martial really means "well trained" in a 4th Edition context. I guess martial simply sounded cooler.

Something else I noticed, and posted elsewhere, it almost looks like that for every possible role/source combination, there is no more than one class, and possibly none at all.

Known:
Defenders, we have Fighter (Martial) and Paladin (Divine)
Leaders, we have Cleric (Divine) and Warlord (presumably Martial)
Controllers, we have Wizards (Arcane)
Strikers, we have Rogue (Martial) and Ranger (presumably Divine)

Druids are probably the Divine Controllers, but barbarians are a bit of a problem in that theory - I'd put them as Martial Strikers, but only Martial Controller is open. Sorcerers have a lot of options, on the other hand, but would probably be Arcane Leaders. Monks and bards would then be removed for taking slots already filled (Martial Striker and Arcane Leader), and we may some day see Arcane Defenders and Strikers (isn't there an early arcane sourcebook rumored?). Monks might return when a Mystical power source is introduced.

Interesting for psionics: Psions and Wilders both would probably Psionic Controllers, while both Psychic Warriors and Soulknifes could be said to be Psionic Strikers, though the former could also be a Psionic Defender.

 

[RFisher]

Besides that, the recent Design & Development seems to spell out that martial really means "well trained" in a 4th Edition context.

Or merely "not magical" perhaps. i.e. "neither arcane nor divine". "Mundane" would be the first adjective that would come to my mind, but it doesn't have the best connotations.

Something else I noticed, and posted elsewhere, it almost looks like that for every possible role/source combination, there is no more than one class, and possibly none at all.

I wonder if there will be hybrids. e.g. Paladin = martial & divine.

 

[DonTadow]

Except to run music, which i personally cannot play without. Otherwise, yeah, i'll probably skip the DI.

I'd strongly disagree. I noticed that at the Iron DM tournament this year, only 2 or 3 DMs did not have a laptop. It's just easier to manage your game. It's like saying cars aren't neccessary to travel. Sure they aren't but you'd have a heck of a journey if you don't have one.