Shadowfell Box set coming in 2011! (an other GenCon announcements)

[giant.robot]

I'm with Imaro on this one. It's one thing to have your own preferred playstyle, but it's quite another to not realize or recognize that other people have other playstyles that they prefer, and that this is not the result of them not understanding something, or not 'getting it' like you do, or whatever.

You don't have to like playing that way yourself, but to be puzzled that other people do like to play that way...well, I don't know what to say. There's a sniff of BadWrongFun there.

I'm fully cognizant that people exist who play the game differently than I do. The reason I'm confused about the particular idea of lots of non-combat skills is that area has been provided for in the 4E rules. Skills in 4E are not doled out like they used to be in 3E. There's a relatively steep cost to get additional skills in 4E. If it's not on your class skill list you don't get it "for free" at first level and have to use a feat for Skill Training.

It's not so much about styles of play but adding overly complicated rules. Say you add a Profession skill. If it become a class skill or provided by a Background players will be tempted to go ahead and take it. Now they've got Profession: Blacksmith to carry around with them. If they took that instead or Survival they're royally screwed crawling around a dungeon. They'll also want to use Profession: Blacksmith a lot because they wasted a skill slot on it. In D&D are characters more likely to be crawling around dungeons or sitting around a forge making horseshoes?

If Profession: Blacksmith isn't a class skill or provided by a background players need to waste a feat to get it. Even with such a skill they're only getting a +5 bonus to a check. That's a small bonus for such a rarely useful skill that's eating up a skill slot.

A D&D game doesn't need to be and really shouldn't be combat oriented. In all types of games I want players to get into their characters and think of interesting things for them to do. They're not constrained by the engine of a video game or the strict play of a traditional board game. At the same time I don't see adding tons of non-combat rules and prescriptions adding a lot of fun to the game. Some stuff should just be left to the players and DM to improvise and the "rule" should be "improvise and have fun".

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not so much about styles of play but adding overly complicated rules. Say you add a Profession skill. If it become a class skill or provided by a Background players will be tempted to go ahead and take it. Now they've got Profession: Blacksmith to carry around with them. If they took that instead or Survival they're royally screwed crawling around a dungeon. They'll also want to use Profession: Blacksmith a lot because they wasted a skill slot on it. In D&D are characters more likely to be crawling around dungeons or sitting around a forge making horseshoes?

You're assuming quite a lot about how these things are going to be implemented, that it's going to be just like 3E. Leaving aside the fact that many people like how 3E handled these skills, I doubt they'll just be adding a bunch of new skills to the list. That would not fit in well with the rest of the system.

Some stuff should just be left to the players and DM to improvise and the "rule" should be "improvise and have fun".

Perhaps it should be, but the line between what should be codified and what should be left to the DM is completely arbitrary and personal.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Can we either fork this to a new thread or stop? Because the conversation is definitely not about future D&D releases anymore.

 

[doctorhook]

Can we either fork this to a new thread or stop? Because the conversation is definitely not about future D&D releases anymore.

Haha, I was just about to say, "Are you guys just about done being boring?" Seriously, speculating about the Shadowfell boxset will be much more fun than arguing about who likes 4E more or who's reading everyone elses' minds correctly.

I guess if this thread doesn't turn around within a page or two, it'll be time to point it out to a moderator.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Too late. The thread is already dead. Pity. And both sides will claim that "i just defended my opinion - THEY started this vicious circle!" Sigh. Thats why you can´t have nice things.

 

[falcarrion]

Finally, something to look forward to after I get my Dark Sun books. The Shadowfell boxset is an ingenious idea. Make one for the Feywild and one for the Nine-Hells and I will love you eternally Wizards. Bladesinger sounds like it could end up being an "Essential" type version of the Swordmage. They are clearly not afraid to double up on class concepts if they give them mechanical differences (Fighter and Slayer) now.

I can now actually relax for once about the direction the game is going. It looks to be going in a very sensible direction.

If I'm not mistaken there was book of the Harper series called "Bladesinger"

 

[doctorhook]

If I'm not mistaken there was book of the Harper series called "Bladesinger"

Is that a recent novel? (I don't read any of the novels, myself.) If so, maybe there's some "flavour hints" in that book about the 4E Bladesinger, a class with some history.

 

[Jack99]

Is that a recent novel? (I don't read any of the novels, myself.) If so, maybe there's some "flavour hints" in that book about the 4E Bladesinger, a class with some history.

No, its very old - from 2006

link

Never read it though.

 

[doctorhook]

No, its very old - from 2006

link

Never read it though.

Hmm... In that case, it's no doubt not at all about 4E's Bladesinger, just an older version of it, isn't it?

(For anybody reading this who isn't familiar with Bladesingers, IIRC they're a kind of elven "magic swordsmen" -- more graceful than brutish, as you might imagine -- and they go back at least as far as 2E AD&D.)

 

[MrMyth]

Which is EXACTLY WHAT 4E HAS HAD UP UNTIL NOW, and exactly what is being proposed to be done away with. It's not so much that it goes away in theory as that it goes away in practice as soon as you start saying that specific 'skills' are required to do specific things.

From the sounds of it, isn't the book with 'non-combat skills' and the like going to be having elements presented as entirely optional?

I mean, I think that the previous situation - of having non-combat skills and combat skills competing for the same resources - was a terrible situation, and moving away from that was a good thing.

I think that the default for 4E - that the DM basically decides how to handle non-combat skills - is functional, but what the game could really use is some suggested systems so that the DM has some guidance for doing so.

Prior to now, I've used backgrounds to fill that role in some games, handwaved it whenever character appropriate in others, and I've recently looked at implementing something along the line of the "Traits" system I saw linked from Enworld.

It sounds like that's the sort of thing this book will be doing - providing several possible approaches for DMs that do want to codify that. For those who don't... it remains much easier to those who don't want these rules to not use them, than it would be for those who do want them to create them on their own.

I mean, we'll have to wait and see the final product to be sure. And I do get what you are saying - they could end up setting a bad precedent, and making it harder for people to flesh out their backgrounds if they feel they have to represent it mechanically, and need to meet annoying prereqs to do so. If, as giant.robot fears, you have to spend a feat or skill slot to become a Blacksmith... then yeah, the system will be an utter failure. I always will be very surprised if that's the case.

WotC has already moved away from those sort of limitations, and if they can produce a refined and robust system of themes, backgrounds, and non-combat skills and options, I think that can be an excellent tool for the DMs who want it.