You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[Banshee16]

And with every fiber of my being, I think you're wrong. The rules of D&D should be about the table experience, nothing else. World-building should be the province of frustrated fanfic writers and SimCity players.

I've never enjoyed campaigns where the DM *didn't* care about that stuff, and where it isn't included. Maybe I'm not the "stereotyped" D&D player that WotC seems to be aiming for, but I get bored with dungeon crawls and adventures that aren't rooted in an overall world that has interesting stuff going on all around us. I've never lasted in games like that more than a few sessions. But the DM who's got all these political machinations in the background, and takes the trouble to create player aids like false treasure maps he bakes in the oven and stuff like that? Those kind of DM's are awesome.

All in my opinion.

Maybe I'm just not the kind of player or DM that WotC wants anymore.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I remember this as well and was looking forward to it. I remember that race was going to make a difference for all classes so that an orc wizard was different than a human wizard which would be different than a dwarven wizard, etc. etc.

That's too bad it's not in there. It's just another reason for me to not buy the books. I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe. Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.

That's one of the things I was eager to see in 4E as well. It was one of the things keeping me interested.

As far as I can see, it's no longer there. Each race has a few race-specific feats. But they're really not that great. Like the Eladrin are supposed to be the mystical, terrible faerie lords, right? Their racial feats give them +2 to hit with longswords, and the other gives I think an AC bonus in the round they do their dimension step. It's very flavourless, and not very creative (to me). And really, does it make them *that* different than, say, a dwarf? Some races, I think, get more....like Dragonborn.

I was very disappointed. I kept looking through the book trying to find where all the racial abilities and things that make race matter all the way to 20 were hiding, and just couldn't find them. Maybe my friend's book has a misprint? But given others are mentioning similar findings, it doesn't sound like it. I'm not sure if it was something that was cut following playtesting, for space considerations (to be re-introduced with racial splatbooks), or if they just committed the sin over over-promising and under-delivering. I don't know.

Maybe it will all come out in splat books. Maybe the game is really just incomplete, and in another 2 or 3 years, once it's been developed through additional material, it'll seem more interesting to get into. I just feel that it's not nearly there yet.

Banshee

 

[Zil]

I just discovered that James Wyatt apparently said "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." in "Races and Classes" (pg. 34).

You play your game and I'll play mine. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people sounds loads more fun than combat.

He really said this? That makes me more than just a little bit sad and disappointed in the 4E design team. It certainly explains some things though.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm going to have to think about how to do this for 3.xe. Maybe I'll continue to use racial substitution levels or something like that.

I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".

I may read up on that a bit tonight...

Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".

I may read up on that a bit tonight...

Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.

They don't, but I had thought that if you give feats every odd level then that leaves 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level open to give characters things that are not dependent on class. I'm working on using the racial levels mixed with some of the continuing racial abilities from the Paizo Dark Sun to give characters racial benefits (I can also use at least the human evolved levels from Arcana Evolved for this purpose).

 

[Creeping Death]

I wonder how unbalanced things would be if one used the racial substitutions as "add ons" vs. "substitutions".

I may read up on that a bit tonight...

Edit - I think the Pathfinder Alpha has benefits for races as they reach certain levels, but I may be misremembering.

Arcana evolved has racial levels and evolved levels that seem to work well.

I would like to see something for weapons so that a sword and shield fighter is different than a sword a axe fighter. Like maybe the axe fighter can attampt to destroy his opponents shield where as the sword fighter has different moves that are available.

This reminds me of one more thing about 4e. It seems that the core books (from what I hear, haven't seen them yet) are incomplete. Like you are supposed to buy those and several supplements before you can really expand and play.

I know there are a lot of groups that play core only and get lots of variation in character and challenges. Is that possible with 4e core?

 

[billd91]

He really said this? That makes me more than just a little bit sad and disappointed in the 4E design team. It certainly explains some things though.

Now let's just take a step back here for a moment. It's true that you can do virtually anything with a refereed RPG as long as the players and GM are willing to do it, but I don't think it's untrue that games have a primary focus and that they should, above all, make sure they handle that primary focus well.

Feng Shui is about cinematic action
Vampire is about angsty bloodsucking
Cyberpunk 2020 is about getting along in a capitalist-tech dystopia
Mutants and Masterminds is about superhero action

For some games, there are multiple identities -
Traveller is a mix of D&D in space and mercenary merchants

D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing A Midsummer Night's Dream. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.

 

[Joshua Randall]

D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing A Midsummer Night's Dream. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.

I'm sorry, but your statement is far too level-headed and reasonable for me to appreciate. Such calm, rational arguments have no place in this thread.

Begone, I say. Begone!

 

[BryonD]

nevermind, edited out cause I didn't see the ban before.

 

[Psion]

D&D may be able to support traipsing through faerie worlds and meeting the little people... but that's a bit of an outlier along its path. D&D really has been more about slaying monsters and exploring old ruins than playing A Midsummer Night's Dream. So, I think James's statement is reasonably fair.

Oh, I don't think I can cop that. On the surface this statement sounds reasonable... and I wouldn't use the game for a midsummer night's dream. But at the same time, I wouldn't hesitate to include the intricacies of faerie magic and politics in a game. And the alternative James provides--kill things and take their stuff--seems to set forth as creatively limited and a prescription for a game I wouldn't want to run or play it.

And to think... back in 3e when he described his OA game, I was enthralled by the detail and flavor he put into the game, with cool little tidbits from folklore. This doesn't sound like the James Wyatt we see quoted here.