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

[outsider]

Just how accurate is that "D&D Insider Package" shown on the first page? I followed the link to the source. The source is a post from November of last year on these forums, and seems far from official. Alot of the stuff listed seems pretty accurate to what we've been shown. However, I have to wonder if it's up to date.

Specifically, has the "you can use the digital tabletop three times a month" information been shown anywhere other than that old, unnoficial post? I think that restriction will make or break the service to alot of people, and the idea that you can only use it three times a month is starting to pick up some steam. It would really be nice to know if that's outdated information, a rumor, or if it's actually true.

 

[Zaruthustran]

From Scott Rouse:

Psionics will be in the SRD, no ETA on when it will be added. (Russ/Morrus has posted it is likely not going to be in the PHB).

Source

At the 4E seminar, they said that psionics won't be in the PHB but "will be in a book that your DM is likely to have."

Seems like the DMG, to me.

 

[outsider]

Okay, I poked around a bit, and I've come accross official information that seems to contradict the whole "3 times a month" rumor:

Originally Posted by randybuehler on the wotc forums:
D&D Insider will cost more than a magazine subsciption but less than an MMO. The precise figure hasn't been announced (or decided). For this monthly fee you get:
- Online Dragon and Dungeon magazine content (3 updates per week which then get fodled together into monthly issues as well)
- DM Tools
- Character Generator with all the rules from all the books wired in plus the visual aspects from the video we posted
- D&D Game Table unlimited access for using the 'Net to connect players to play D&D

The rumor that you can only play on the virtual tabletop 3 times a month is probably a pretty bad one, that should be nipped at the bud right away. ENWorld is a pretty trusted source(though I only started posting here recently, I've been lurking here ever since you were spoiling 3rd edition info), so it might be prudent to replace that info on the first post in this thread with something more up to date and reliable before the rumor gains too much steam.

Randy Beuhler's post can be found at the following link, under the [D&D, Gleemax, and You] heading.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908272

 

[RFisher]

The 3rd party publishers last time helped start the Feat and PrC glut that WotC then took up and expanded themselves. With an OGL I see the same thing happening here.

Doesn't matter to me. I tend to stick mainly with the core rules. I'll be happy to see those streamlined. What happens thereafter in supplements by Wizards or third parties won't matter to me just as almost none of the 3e supplements have affected me.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

Yes, how I read this is that they would ALSO be applying roles to monsters so as to make encounters that are better balanced and more fun. For instance, an orc might be a "tank" and a beholder might be a "controller", and digester might be a "blaster".

So, if you add a monster of all the major types into a combined encounter, it will be more fun as they part has to deal with all of the roles working together instead of just mindless attacks.

I think it's an effort to get DMs to look at the encounter as a whole to make it more fun for the players.

 

[The Souljourner]

Great first post, but where the heck are the updates?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think MerricB abandoned the thread under the overwhelming flow of info.

 

[Bacris]

At the 4E seminar, they said that psionics won't be in the PHB but "will be in a book that your DM is likely to have."

Seems like the DMG, to me.

I'd love for that to be true, but I'll believe it when I see it

 

[Snapdragyn]

Doesn't matter to me. I tend to stick mainly with the core rules. I'll be happy to see those streamlined. What happens thereafter in supplements by Wizards or third parties won't matter to me just as almost none of the 3e supplements have affected me.

Given that they've said (a WotC designer post in the bard thread) that WotC will consider PHB2, DMG2, etc. 'core', how will this affect your own outlook on the definition of 'core'? I think we're in for a big disjunction between what WotC envisions the word meaning, & how 'core-only' DMs & players use the word.

 

[Glyfair]

More things we "know" from the blogs (I'm only listing definitive statements):

Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells. (Rodney Thompson)
Asmodeus getting a "promotion" to god status. (Christopher Perkins)
New Multi-Classing rules. (David Noonan)