D&D 4E Is 4E winning you or losing you?

[w_earle_wheeler]

I think this is an unreasonable expectation, honestly. By the time 4E is out, 3E will have had over eight years, and 3.5 about five, to stack options upon options upon options.

Let's say there are around 300 prestige classes in the Complete, Races of..., Sequel and other non-setting specific 3.5 splatbooks. With a designers guidebook (I assume 4e will have something similar to the "how to design prestige classes" chapter in the 3e DMGs) and the mostly completed 4e PHB it should take at most two hours to convert a 3.5 prestige class to a 4e prestige class. That's 600 hours of work, or fifteen 40-hour work weeks (or about 4 months) for one full-time nerd.

Would each prestige class be fully playtested? No, but they would all be converted and redesigned in one lump based on the core guidelines set up by the core 4e books, and would be designed/converted by the same individual designers or group of designers. This would highly preferable to the way it was done in 3.5 -- multiple designers working independently of each other and sometimes seemingly in the dark about current or future class options.

The only other rules-based element that would need a 4e conversion are the feats. Like prestige classes, I certainly hope that the 4e designers have read over all the 3.5 feats in total, so that they know what worked and what didn't. Some feats would obviously be thrown out because of redundancy (for example, the +2/+2 skill feats might be obsolete in 4e), but there's no reason for a 3.5 feat to be unrepresented in 4e.

One conversion hardcover could do the trick, and it would encourage more 3.5 diehards to make the switch to 4e. Why spread those conversions over the course of 4 years through a pay distribution model only to have the next edition looming around the corner at that point?

If you don't believe this can be done, watch enworld in the first few weeks after 4e is released. If you were around the site when 3e came out, you saw how fast the community was able to convert almost every 1e/2e class, kit, spell and adventure.

Just imagine how much faster (and more consistently) it could be done with a small group of designers hired by WotC today!

 

[WayneLigon]

What DaveMage said... plus the fact that when several folks (loudly) asked Wyatt and Slaviscek to address backwards/forwards compatibility with 3.5 at the GenCon announcment, they were ignored in favor of more marketing fluff and advice to "start wrapping up your 3.5 campaigns."

Huh. One of the first three articles in print after The Announcement - pretty much that same day - was that straight conversion was not going to be possible or something to bother with. So I'd assume that was either from someone pre-interview, or info taken from the various Q&A sessions that day.

 

[Mouseferatu]

WeW, you are vastly underestimating both the amount of material that would need to be converted, and the amount of work that would go into converting it. (This is especially true of the material that doesn't really "translate" between editions, and would have to be reinvisioned from the ground up.) You are also underestimating the cost to WotC of such an endeavor, and overestimating both the project's own sales, and the impact it would have on sales of 4E.

In short, I understand why you'd like to see what you're asking for. But it's frankly not feasible, and certainly not in the allotted time frame.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

WeW, you are vastly underestimating both the amount of material that would need to be converted, and the amount of work that would go into converting it.

Really? I might be. I'll go over my list of prestige classes. The print outs run about 600 pages, and I was assuming an average of one prestige class per two pages.

As for the amount of work going into the conversions, I'm not talking about a Monte Cook or Robin Laws level of development or expertise. I'm talking about conversions made with one set of established core rules and without the need to write new fluff text. However, I didn't include the editorial process in the estimate.

Many feats and prestige classes might not even be needed in 4e. The idea is for 4e to allow as many options as 3.5 did. For example, if there's a gish style class, then that option from 3.5 has already been carried over, and there will be no need for the multiple gish style prestige classes. The same with feats: with the inclusion of talent trees along with 4e feats, how many 3.5 feats will need to be converted? How many can just become fluff text and how many won't work with 4e no matter what?

Like I said, the design wouldn't be perfect, but then again we've all seen some pretty terrible design decisions and mistakes made in 3.5. At least in this case, it could be contained (in the beginning) to one cohesive group.

 

[The Human Target]

I have hung up my 3.5 DnD books, and was fine with it. We had some good times, but the more I played the more the warts of the system got to me.

4E has me interested again. It doesn't sound like my perfect RPG, but by gawd I think it sounds neat.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

In short - no, monsters and PCs do not need to have the same creation rules because they serve different purposes.

Here's my argument in support of the Fourth Edition way of doing things, for what it's worth:

Both monsters and player characters need to be able to make skill checks. Unlike PCs, though, monsters don't need skill points* which they can spend on buying skill ranks in order to make those checks: they just need skill bonus values which are appropriate to the monster and its purpose in the game.

Third Edition already recognises this, in part: stealthy animals have racial bonuses to Hide and Move Silently, climbing animals have racial bonuses to Climb (and small agile creatures, such as small monkeys, have astronomical bonuses to Climb in order to compensate for their low Strength scores), aquatic animals have racial Swim bonuses, et cetera. Because the monsters need those abilities, but cannot earn them by following the system, designers have to sidestep the system; Fourth Edition simply allows designers to give the monsters what they should have, without forcing them to make up exceptions to the rules.

* I recognise that it's possible we won't have skill points for PCs in Fourth Edition, but the example holds for things like spell slots per level and whatever else.

 

[pemerton]

Here's my argument in support of the Fourth Edition way of doing things, for what it's worth.

<brief but excellent argument snipped>

I agree totally. Monsters need more or less the same stats as PCs, so as to interface with the action resolution system. But there is no reason at all for them to follow the same build rules. (And it's worth noting that in RQ monsters aren't built as PCs, although they are statted out in the same way.)

 

[Maggan]

Doesn't anyone find this a bit insulting?

Oh, I'm sure plenty of people find it insulting. But then again, some people are insulted by the mere thought of a D&D4e. Or the existence of D&D3e. Or D&D3.5. Or WotC. Or Dragonsfoot. Or AD&D1e. Or Gary Gygax. Or product cancellations. And so on, and so on.

They seem to be saying that, as DMs, we don't know how to use monsters effectively to challenge our PCs, we don't know how to give character levels to monsters to spice them up a bit and add a bit of an element of surprise to them! As PCs, they seem to be sying that we don't talk to the rest of our group about what we want to play when we design our characters.

For my part, they would be right. I need all the help I can get to make my D&D game better, and to better understand how to effectively use the resources of the game to challenge my players.

There is no way in the world I can spend as much time thinking about D&D as the people who work with it every single day. And I think I would be doing myself a disservice as a DM if I didn't listen to what they had to say.

Does anyone really not check what bases are covered? "We've got two fighters, and a paladin, a mage and a cleric, shall I play a rogue or a bard?"

Well, it depends. Sometimes we do, sometimes we show up with four bards all named Wilhelm. And it's a blast!

/M

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Hey Maggan, what're you doing in a 4E discussion thread?

Kidding, obviously.

Well, it depends. Sometimes we do, sometimes we show up with four bards all named Wilhelm. And it's a blast!

/M

Yeah, reminds me of the 2E game I was in once, where two people completely new to the game made albino elven fighter/mages with black, soul-sucking demon-swords...independently from each other.

 

[Maggan]

Hey Maggan, what're you doing in a 4E discussion thread?

Hehe, it's a gradual process ... can't shake the habit ...

/M