D&D 4E Early Days of 4e will be a Gearhead's Paradise

[nothing to see here]

I've seen a bit of chatter on these boards and elsewhere about the 'core' classes that will be exclused from the 4e PHB and the concepts that might be excluded as a result.

And, I'm actually rather excited about it.

I count myself among those gamers who takes great pleasure with tinkering with rules and creating new (monsters/classes/races etc) with any toolbox that I am provided. You know --- the 'gearhead' types.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but from what I am hearing, 4e will be very tinker-friendly.

So as much as I am looking forward to PLAYING the game, I am also looking forward to taking the core concepts in the three main books and CREATING my own version of the bard, druid, barbarian, sorcerer and so on. To me, that's almost as much fun.

It's a similar approach with other concerns I've heard. I use a lot of non-combat encounters in my games. If there are not enough non-combat powers in the core lists, I look forward to whipping up some of my own ones based on the guidelines we will be provided. Same thing with NPC concepts -- I'm optimistic that the "monster build" rules can be adapted for new noncombat 'roles' for NPC's

Is anyone else in this same boat? Are there any worries that the 4e ruleset will be less of a toolbox and more difficult to innovate with?

 

[deathdonut]

I definately agree. I have a player who was inspired by a manga to play something that will probably be more sword-mage than anything initially released. Rather than fret over the lack of cloth-wearing defenders, I see this as an opportunity to play around in a new sandbox. I just wish my sand box had more than one pail of sand right now!

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I'm sure people are concerned because a DM might create a unique version of a class, and a year from now, right in the middle of the DM's campaign, WotC releases the official version.

 

[nothing to see here]

I'm sure people are concerned because a DM might create a unique version of a class, and a year from now, right in the middle of the DM's campaign, WotC releases the official version.

That's always a risk when you invent new material for a home game. In the case of the druids, barbarians etc, it's certain we will see "official" content at some point. And I'm sure in some more RAW-minded groups the concern you state will be a problem. I just happen to think that these same groups are missing out on a big part of the fun.

Maybe I'm just fortuante to have played with people who actually enjoy playing in the sandbox. Should an "official" version of a class come out, we'll just do what we did for the "swashbuckler" in 3e -- allow a straight up level-for-level conversion -- or keep on playing with the home-school-rules.

 

[AZRogue]

I agree with the OP. I expect many homebrewed Classes to be posted in the days following 4E's release. Hopefully the DMG provides enough of a foundation and the game is transparent enough for DMs to feel comfortable adding their own Classes, Races, and Powers without fear of breaking the game outright. I can think of several ideas that would work in my homebrewed campaign that I will have to make up myself.

 

[Baka no Hentai]

I agree 100%, and I already have ideas floating around for a light-armored defender type class that arises from one of the indigenous elf nations in my homebrew campaign. I think that 4E will provide a great opportunity for tinkering, and I for one am looking forward to it!

 

[keterys]

One of my groups of players green lighted me continuing one of our games in 4E... as we know it now, months before release, so I'll be running them through multiple levels (but absolute cap of 10, not touching 11+) with just what we know... and when stuff comes out, we'll just adjust, cause whatever.

So yesterday I got to make a dozen powers and a monster.

Yeah, damn good times.

 

[Cactot]

Am I the only person who thought "gear" in the steroid sense? I had a really funny mental image of Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler sitting around a table and playing dungeons and dragons.

Jay: I cast magic missle!
Ronnie: I rip off his arm and kill the rest of them with it.
DM: the RAW dont allow that Ronnie, what else would you like to do
Ronnie: I SAID I RIP HIS ARM AND BEAT THEM WITH IT!
DM: b...b...but Ronnie, you cant...
Ronnie: would you like me to PROVE its possible?
DM: eh... erm... oh my... Ronnie RIPS the arm off and slays everyone within eyesight with the bloody stump
Ronnie: thats more like it

 

[nothing to see here]

Am I the only person who thought "gear" in the steroid sense?

Stat buffs are discouraged in 4e

 

[howandwhy99]

Actually, there are stories the rules will be transparent to DMs, so they can understand why all the rules are as they are. This is one of the best things about 4e IMO as previous editions were poor at explaining why they had chosen the designs they had.

That and siloing which may mean tinkering can go on in one "silo" without effecting the balance of the game in other areas. Also very cool.

I'd still prefer it if they made the rules transparent (and as customizable as possible) for the DM and opaque for the players. I don't want to be thinking about the rules when playing my character. I want to be thinking about the world. I want to be challenged and rewarded for thinking outside the box and rules keep you in those.

BTW, why would any publisher's "OFFICIAL(tm)" version of a class have any effect on an individual home game played outside those offices? Aren't we all "official?