D&D 4E Gencon and 4E

[J-Buzz]

So that would mean a 2008 announcement for 4.5E...........

 

[Rasyr]

The difference is that 3.0 is a dead system - I don't think anyone specifically supports it any more. If 4e is closed, the other publishers will almost certainly continue to support 3.5. That keeps the game fresh, especially once someone does a glossy full-colour "Player's Manual" for "OGL Fantasy". This would probably maintain the split, since everyone who wants to stay 3.5 can stay 3.5 and find players, new books are always available, and so on.

Technically, 3.0 is not a dead system, as the 3.0 SRD was placed under the OGL. However, practically it is dead because WotC stopped using it, and the D&D brand moved to 3.5 and so did many companies. Unfortunately, this move also killed many companies that were not able to afford the costs associated with updating their products.

Wizards really have to keep the latest edition of the game open. Companies like Sword & Sorcery, Green Ronin and Mongoose are too prolific to be killed by having the carpet pulled out from under them.

Actually, that COULD be an arguement for them moving to 4E and not making it open. Not only are these companies prolific, but they are garnering a good portion of the market share. Add in the fact that several companies have also created their own versions of the rules (Arcana Evolved, True20, M&M, C&C, Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, etc.), and this increases the impetus for releasing a new version, and the only way to really stop those companies from just updating their systems accordingly (and continuing to steal market share from WotC) is to not release 4E under the OGL.

Players then have a choice. Continue with a system that the creator of the system (WotC) considers outdated, or to move on to the next version. Many people will switch just because it has the D&D logo on it. WotC proved that with 3.5 being released 3 years after 3.0 so there is no reason for them to think that it will not happen again (approximately 3 years after 3.5 was released).

Of course, whether Wizards/Hasbro understand this is another question. And, there's always a doubt about the OGL - if Wizards/Hasbro declare it rescinded, and threaten to sue anyone who continues to use it, does anyone really have the nerve and resources to challenge them?

Very few would have the resources. White Wolf (Sword & Sorcery Studios) and Mongoose are the only real possibilities that I see.

Actually, if Wizards did produce a closed 4e, and the third-party companies responded by publishing an OGL player's manual, and a significant number of people refused to switch, this might in turn provoke Hasbro into killing the D&D role-playing game altogether.

Several companies have already done this - produce an OGL players manual, though it is usually geared to a specific style of play, or an alternate set of the rules (Mongoose's Pocket Player's Handbook being the largest exception, and it would be relatively easy for them to just add in what is missing...).

 

[delericho]

Actually, that COULD be an arguement for them moving to 4E and not making it open. Not only are these companies prolific, but they are garnering a good portion of the market share. Add in the fact that several companies have also created their own versions of the rules (Arcana Evolved, True20, M&M, C&C, Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, etc.), and this increases the impetus for releasing a new version, and the only way to really stop those companies from just updating their systems accordingly (and continuing to steal market share from WotC) is to not release 4E under the OGL.

Players then have a choice. Continue with a system that the creator of the system (WotC) considers outdated, or to move on to the next version. Many people will switch just because it has the D&D logo on it. WotC proved that with 3.5 being released 3 years after 3.0 so there is no reason for them to think that it will not happen again (approximately 3 years after 3.5 was released).

See, I think the existence of this choice may necessitate 4e being open. When the change from 3.0 to 3.5 occurred, all the companies either changed over or disappeared. So, as far as the buying dollar was concerned, there was no choice: it was 3.5 or nothing.

If 4e is closed, then there is a viable choice: 4.0 or 3.5. Sure, the vast majority of gamers will change over just to stay current, but isn't it also true that the vast majority of gamers play using the PHB and nothing else? The market for supplements is much smaller, and I'm not convinced that the majority of 'serious' gamers would make the switch. Certainly, if the response to all the '4e is coming' threads is actually indicative of how people here would act, a significant portion of people wouldn't.

Ultimately, I don't know which way Wizards will jump. I'm also not convinced they won't make the wrong decision. I am reasonably convinced that closing 4e would be the wrong decision (from a business POV), and one that would hurt them pretty badly going forward.

 

[Rasyr]

If 4e is closed, then there is a viable choice: 4.0 or 3.5.

Look at it this way... The choice will be D&D or some other system.

Certainly, if the response to all the '4e is coming' threads is actually indicative of how people here would act, a significant portion of people wouldn't.

The population of message boards are, at most, a very tiny fraction of a percentage of all the gamers out there. IMO, those who frequent online forums (such as EN World) are pretty much among the top percentile, smarter, more informed, etc. So, such a reaction from such a forum is understandable.

I am reasonably convinced that closing 4e would be the wrong decision (from a business POV), and one that would hurt them pretty badly going forward.

Unfortunately, you have others (such as Chris Pramas of Green Ronin) who think that WotC will not OGL 4E. Note that they would not be "closing" 4E, but rather they would be "not opening" it. There is a difference. Remember, the SRD (the stuff under the OGL) is only a subset of the rules, and is not the actual rules themselves. Unless WotC purposely placed a subset of 4E under the OGL, it would not automatically be open.

 

[romp]

Look at it this way... The choice will be D&D or some other system.

Unfortunately, you have others (such as Chris Pramas of Green Ronin) who think that WotC will not OGL 4E. Note that they would not be "closing" 4E, but rather they would be "not opening" it. There is a difference. Remember, the SRD (the stuff under the OGL) is only a subset of the rules, and is not the actual rules themselves. Unless WotC purposely placed a subset of 4E under the OGL, it would not automatically be open.

Maybe this is what Matt Sprange of Mongoose meant when he was referring to their new edition of RuneQuest (and the BRP system it uses) as a strategic move to publish. Even though Mogoose has the Pocket Player's Handbook out for their version of OGL Fantasy (and they have an OGL Modern Pocket edition out), If Wizards' does not "Open" 4.0, then they can start using their "in-house" BRP and go from there, rather than play with WotC lawyers and word games over whether something is 3.5 or 4.0 based ...

 

[Rasyr]

Maybe this is what Matt Sprange of Mongoose meant when he was referring to their new edition of RuneQuest (and the BRP system it uses) as a strategic move to publish. Even though Mogoose has the Pocket Player's Handbook out for their version of OGL Fantasy (and they have an OGL Modern Pocket edition out), If Wizards' does not "Open" 4.0, then they can start using their "in-house" BRP and go from there, rather than play with WotC lawyers and word games over whether something is 3.5 or 4.0 based ...

Hmm.. I had thought that Mongoose was working on developing their own house system. I remember hearing about that someplace. I am not sure if that would be theRunequest/BRP system or not. If it is, then cool! As I liked the old BRP system (have boxed sets of both Runequest and Elfquest sitting on my shelves).

 

[Merlion]

However, I would strongly object to a loosening of the LG requirement for Paladins. To me, that would utterly destroy the class. I can live with pokemounts, but not non-LG paladins

This one, along with the Monk's is the one I find most annoying. Partially because its such a tight straightjacket, and partly because it involves the whole law/chaos thing which I loathe anyway.


I cant really agree with your statement tho. If the restriction was removed, you could still have your LG paladins who have to try to be champions of good but still abide by the "legitimate authorities" of wherever they are, and I could have my NG paladin who's just a champion of good and worries only about right and wrong.

Its a roleplaying restriction, and I consider it against the espoused philosophy of the game. It has stayed the way it is because its a sacred cow and for no other reason.


In a related note, I'd also like to see the paladin and monk multiclassing restriction crud dropped.

Again, I would object to this. I like the division of roles.

I didnt say anything about removing division of roles. I said make it all class by class...and remove the "arcane" and "divine" division. Which contrary to popular belief isnt a division of roles anyway, not in terms of the rules. Look at the Druid and the Bard. The Druid is a "divine" caster but almost as good a blaster as the Wizard, and the Bard is an "arcane" caster that can heal.
The only difference between "arcane" magic and "divine" magic is that one is subject to "arcane" spell failure, and the other is not, and one type of spellcasters get all their spells for free and the others have to pay for/aqquire them or something similiar, and people's perception that "arcane" equals damage and "divine" equals healing.
So what I am saying is, ditch the monoliths and have each classes magical methods, abilities, and role decided by what class they are, not by some overreaching and ill applied mass catagorization.

This I agree with, although I think just "spell failure" is the way to go. Remove the exception for Bards, and introduce feats for spellcasting in armour

Actually I think Bards should be a total exception, in the sense of that the majority of Bard spells should be verbal only. Conceptuality, I prefer a balanced class by class aproach, as it is in AU, or simply removing it entirely.
The Cleric for instance is not balanced as is with the ability to cast in armor. The Wizard is fine without it, but would probably be fine with it too.

It's a good system, but it's more complex than base D&D

No, its not. It looks that way on the surface but if anything its less so. I will admit I havent played it, but I have played a high level wizard in the D&D system, and its a massive headache. Deciding which spells to prepare, and wether to prepare multiple copies...and then you throw in metamagic as it is now, you have to decide wether to use a slot for a spell of its level or for a metamagiced spell etc etc
With something like the AU readied spells and spells slots, or the UA Spell Point system, you simply choose which spells you want to have avaible to cast, and then you use your resources to cast them until your resources run out.

It is, or seems that it would be, far easier to deal with, as well as being more "realistic" as far as fitting better how magic is portrayed in stories (once you know a spell you can cast it till you cant cast no more)


On a related note, even if the overall magic system stays more or less the same, at least Metamagic needs to be improved so that its easier to use and more of the feats are actually worth using. The Daily Uses Spontaneous Metamagic variant in Unearthed Arcana works quite nicely for this.

Cautiously agree. Certainly, this makes adding new Cleric/Druid spells from supplementary books easier, since it doesn't represent a huge boost to those classes

And even more importantly it would help to balance these classes, especially the Cleric and especially with regard to other spellcasters

That said, I'm also thinking that perhaps a Warmage approach to those classes might be better. Or maybe just a Warmage-like divine spellcasting class in addition to the Cleric.

I dont understand what you mean. The Warmage works just like a "divine" spellcaster already...they automatically know every spell on their list.

As far as I can tell, there are two classes that are absolutely essential to a party: Rogue and Cleric. The Rogue is required to find traps

Its a little off the subject, but I disagree about Rogue being neccesary at all...or anyway its totally campaign dependent. Some campaigns make so little use of traps that it really doesnt matter.

Making Trapfinding available as a feat removes the first problem

Or just let anybody Search for traps automatically, which is more logical anyway

Making healing easier to access generally would allow parties to form without the feeling that 'someone had better play the Cleric',

And it would prevent the designers from feeling like the Cleric has to be made extra desirable by making it stronger than the other classes.

Rework multiclassing. I like the idea behind the current system, and it works fine except for casters. Personally, I don't care whether multiclass casters are "competitive", but either they should be or WotC should stop pretending that they are. Using PrCs like the Mystic Theurge is silly and a cumbersome patch, at best. If they want multiclasses to be comparable, build it directly into the multiclass rules.

This is a good idea, but a diffacult one to actually execute. Something like the Unearthed Arcana rule about spellcasting levels for non caster classes might work.


Also, I feel that most of the "multiclass zipper" classes do work pretty well. Some better than others. Arcane Trickster for instance does a pretty good job. Eldritch Knight is ok, but Spellsword I think is better. My answer to the issues the Mystic Theurge is trying to solve is simply to let Wizards be what they really should be anyway...the arch spellcasters. Wizards should be able to heal a little, and should have spells like Spell Resistance and Death Ward and Find the Path.

Ranger and Barbarian, especially, stand out to me as shades of the same archetype -- which is probably why the Ranger class is still not particularly satisfying

Barbarian needs to go, and it needs to be made possible for Ranger and/or Fighter to fit the niche of a savage warrior

I'm pretty ok with the current ranger, but I think it would be nice for more of the abilities to have multiple choices. Perhaps options for stealth, melee, and archery at each instance would be good.

Either make Fighter work as a functional Swashbuckler, or adjust the Monk class so that it handles any light, skilled warrior

I wouldnt object to a swashbuckly base class (like the Unfettered in Arcana Unearthed) but it should be made easier for Fighters to persue different paths

I think the Monk is pretty good as is. I'd just remove the alignment restriction and make the second Ki Strike ability simply emulate the Monk's chosen alignment.

Make the cleric a caster and a priest. If someone wants a warpriest, let them multiclass

This I agree with wholeheartdly. The Cleric needs to either be a primary spellcaster with little to no physical/melee ability, or have medium ability at both as they used to.

Reintroduce clerical spheres or something similar. Having a cleric of the god of fire and one of the god of night perform identically except for a very limited handful of spell slots is absurd. Also, ditch the whole positive/negative energy thing. Clerics channel the divine. And, let the exact for of that channeling be open-ended -- basically any of the channeling feats from the various books should be fair game at the get-go, rather than requiring everyone to start out by putzing with undead. Maybe tie things into the domain/sphere system.

On the level of personal taste, I dislike the extremely heavy element of "divine" stuff in D&D and really wouldnt be sad to see the Cleric...or any character class based of being a "priest" go out the window. To me "priest" is a cultural role not a character class archtype...and even if you have a system of gods etc in a game, they would recruit their "priests" from apropriate classes...fighters rangers etc for war gods, mages and bards for gods of knowledge and magic etc etc

However since D&D is bent on having a spell casting "priest" class it should 1) be balanced and 2) as you say try to actually reflect the differences in different gods. There are many easy and balanced ways by which this could be accomplished.

I'd like to see most of the x/day or slot mechanics

Including spell slots? I dont really have a problem with spell slots, or with x/day abilities. I just have some issues with the rigid and rather fantasy-illogical Vancian "memorization/preparation" system that links the number of spells you can cast in a day to which specific spells you have availble in a day

Make character power somewhat less based on upgrading loot. But loot is preferrable to manga/anime style superpowers

I wouldnt have a problem with classes having more class abilities, as one way to reduce magic item dependency. Most of the AU classes have more class abilities than most D&D classes, but its not done in an overly dramatic way.


I find the current level of magic item dependency both stylistically distasteful, and a big bookeeping headache and would really like to see it changed.

Fighters should stay inherently mundane

But their options do need to be expanded. I think Feats should be allowed to encompasses a wider range of abilities. Some of the things that are class features in D&D such as Rage, Uncanny Dodge, most of the high level rogue abilities, and others should be availble as feats. I also think some more possibly almost non-mundane feats for fighters to help them defend themselves from magic might be good.



Overall, I'd like to see balance, ease of use, and the ability to create a wide range of characters and situations take precedence over legacy issues, more than anything.

Also I'd like to see it being reinforced to players and DMs especially that the rules are not a Bible, and if you need or want to change something to fit a character concept or a campaign idea, you should do so.