# Races and Classes--I has it!



## Reaper Steve (Dec 15, 2007)

Lucky score at the bookstore today!

Haven't had time to read it yet, but I will say the book is high-quality and gorgeous! 
I am impressed with the layout and hope it carries over to the 4E rulebooks.

A couple things:
The first few pages are the design timeline... if after you reading this, you are not convinced that 4E is helmed by a stellar team and that the game will be the best edition to date, then nothing will convince you.

Dragonborn look awesome, and the bits I've skimmed do a great job of making them a natural part of the game. 

BTW, the creature on the cover of H2 is not a dragonborn... it's features are much more similar to a tiefling's (but I don't think its one of those, either.)

More later!


----------



## Nyaricus (Dec 15, 2007)

More now!  

Anything, in particular, stick out that hasn't been covered in other previews we've been privy too?

cheers,
--N


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 15, 2007)

OK, I accomplished a cover-to-cover skim (while wrangling a 5-yr old and 2-yr old that were alternately fighting and watching _Cars_.) Full digestion is still in order.

Noteworthy:
The art is gorgeous! I particularly like the new look for Dwarves, especially their arms and armor.
I really like the Dragonborn and Tieflings. Very well thought out races that break the mold. Articles on Dragonborn society and family are genius, as close to a brand new innovation as possible in the genre. Brilliant moves, IMO. Excellent art again, as well.

I didn't read much of the class info... too hectic around here to properly digest.

I really like the stuff on heroic-paragon-epic. It neatly provides 10 levels o crawl the dungeon, 10 of save the kingdom, and 10 more of become an immortal legend.

Orcs and hobgoblins are balanced against the middle of the heroic tier. Gnolls and trogs received a significant increase in power. Gnolls have Abyssal allies (sweet! I love the Abyssal Maws, Skulkers, Ravagers, and Eviscerators in Chainmail 2.0)

Next time I'll try to read class stuff... and take notes!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 15, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I really like the stuff on heroic-paragon-epic. It neatly provides 10 levels o crawl the dungeon, 10 of save the kingdom, and 10 more of become an immortal legend.



Also got the book today! 

The tier stuff is very neat, to expand:

Paragon paths are basically what are prestige classes now (but I think we already knew that), and the epic destinies are supposed to give PCs a reason for retirement at the end (founding an academy or leaving the mortal plane are examples in the book). Really dig the "retirement" thing.

As with Reaper Steve, more to come later! (also ask questions... as with Reaper Steve! )

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Szatany (Dec 15, 2007)

Say more about humans, dwarves, elves and halflings. In particular, how they differ from 3e.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 15, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Orcs and hobgoblins are balanced against the middle of the heroic tier. Gnolls and trogs received a significant increase in power.



Great stuff. The humanoid progression - kobold, goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear - got left behind too quick in 3e.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 15, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Say more about humans, dwarves, elves and halflings. In particular, how they differ from 3e.



*Humans*
They've said that humans were difficult to design, because they have no "shtick", so they're now the most flexible race, and "all about dramatic actions and dramatic recoveries", coupled with their racial feats, they're going to be useful with all classes.
Fluffwise, they're people with an emphasis on jack-of-all-trades, and also "corruptible" (meaning they're more prone to temptations) - mainly because they wanted to give all races a negative trait, flavourwise (you know, elves are arrogant, dwarves are greedy and so on).

*Elves*
Taller now. Elves are now emphasising their grace and dexterity shtick, not said a lot about it.
Fluffwise, all Elves were the same, then they've split into three races - Elves, High Elves (which call themselves Eladrin) and Drow. Is interesting stuff to read and I really like Eladrin now.

*Dwarves*
They're getting rid of the Charisma-penalty, so they're now equally excelling as Fighter and Paladins. They're still sturdy and resilient, as before. Ah, and darkvision is going away, because it makes normal vision too weak (since everybody and their dog has darkvision in 3E) and makes the job easier on the DM, since he doesn't need to describe rooms for the normal-vision and the 60'-darkvision and the 120'-darkvision guys separately.
Flavourwise, they're quite similar, but live on surfaces to make them less sequestered from the world, are quite devout people, producing more divine characters (i.e. Paladins and Clerics) and... I like the new conception of dwarven women. The artist in the commentary strived to give them a more feminine look... and works pretty well.

Generally, they wanted to up the power of all races a bit, because they were very restrained with designing new races after the core races of 3E, since the power level was so low, forcing them to use LA (which is clunky), so all races are now a bit more powerful, mainly to open up design space.
They've made a comment about the Drow (which are not in the PHB, because tieflings are more compelling "evil-curious" characters)... in which they stated that not all Drow have the classic Drow abilities, but most have - by taking racial feats (which most NPCs are supposed to do), so they're seemingly putting higher LA stuff into feats and just say "NPCs always take these feats" to keep the image. Nice approach.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> *Humans*
> "corruptible" (meaning they're more prone to temptations)
> 
> *Elves*
> Taller now.



Tolkienesque.


----------



## withak (Dec 16, 2007)

I'd like to know more about Eladrin and how they fit into the world. Does it say anything about their connection to the Feywild, etc.?

I'm trying to figure out how to fit them into my homebrew world, and it's been tough without having any real info on them whatsoever...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Tolkienesque.



VERY! The elves give me a very Tolkienesque-vibe, as all elves were invited by Corellon into the feywild first, then were split apart into Eladrin, Elves, and Drow. Gives me a Nolder/Sindarin vibe.

More interesting tidbit: Eladrin are very feywild-ish and have cities there, that can shift into the mortal world and back at certain times. And their cities can be dark and dangerous during nights. They're really trying to include the amoral fey-concept into the feywild, which is highly interesting.


			
				withak said:
			
		

> I'd like to know more about Eladrin and how they fit into the world. Does it say anything about their connection to the Feywild, etc.?
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how to fit them into my homebrew world, and it's been tough without having any real info on them whatsoever...



Ah, just seen that... as said before, they're all Elves, invited into the Feywild by Corellon (god of magic now). They've split apart when the Drow were rising, and the elvish empires in the Feywild were destroyed.
Some elves then abandoned the ruins for a simpler, more natural lifestyle (and are now our Elves), while others strived to rebuild their cities (which are Eladrin now). They're relatively sequestered, but pass still the barrier "with nary a thought", even their cities can shift back and forth at certain times.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Szatany (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks!

What about halflings? Also, is the new skill list presented? If not, anything interesting on skills? Are skill challenges in game? Are ranks still in?


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

One interesting mention of skills on the Wizard page...

'skill feats add breadth to skills. Cherry-picking skill feats can enhance the know-it-all nature wizards exude'


----------



## Zurai (Dec 16, 2007)

Sounds like a more advanced version of Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel, which isn't surprising since 4E had been in the works since before it was started.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Thanks!
> 
> What about halflings? Also, is the new skill list presented? If not, anything interesting on skills? Are skill challenges in game? Are ranks still in?



*Halflings*
Also taller now. Because they're creepy small before, but we all know that. They're embracing the stuff 3E has began - they're more nomadic now, living as riverfolk. Mainly because it allows them to travel without the need for roads (it's the ultimate travelling network for them) and because it allows them to hide - so they've survived (as a culture), where other empires/cultures have fallen.
They are focused on being athletic and quick and courageous. But still sometimes kender-style curiosity thieves.

*On Skills*
They've definitely folded certain skills together, as the old skill list was to fiddly. And Tumble seems to be gone - because it allowed you to ignore a major part of the rules (AoO) that was important for balancing. And they've done that with other skills. Such impacting abilities are rather things you can "unlock" with feats or they're part of a class' power - and rogues are THE skill user.
Otherwise, they've said that SWSE contains some of their skill experiments, mostly auto-rising skills to avoid the "high maintenance" of skills.
An interesting tidbit about skills like Listen and Spot: They're pondering switching them around to static values (10 + skill) to allow DMs to roll against them, without asking the players to roll a check (which gives away a lot and due to the number of PCs, you can get a low and very high value, making hiding VERY hard) and in playtests it worked out well so far.
But it's still an "idea that's been bandied about lately", so no confirmation, it still sounds good, no?

Oh, and "Trapfinding" is a feat now, which happens to be a 1st level bonus feat for rogues! Hooray!

EDIT:


			
				eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> One interesting mention of skills on the Wizard page...
> 
> 'skill feats add breadth to skills. Cherry-picking skill feats can enhance the know-it-all nature wizards exude'




Missed that... but ties in pretty well with that "unlock" aspect...

Cheers, LT.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Sounds like a more advanced version of Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel, which isn't surprising since 4E had been in the works since before it was started.




Yeah, that's what I thought... there's also reference to Fighters having tricks, which makes me wonder if they're of a similar nature?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> An interesting tidbit about skills like Listen and Spot: They're pondering switching them around to static values (10 + skill) to allow DMs to roll against them, without asking the players to roll a check (which gives away a lot and due to the number of PCs, you can get a low and very high value, making hiding VERY hard) and in playtests it worked out well so far.
> But it's still an "idea that's been bandied about lately", so no confirmation, it still sounds good, no?




Heck, I've done that *forever* (i.e. since 3.0 launched), since it is basically just assuming that everyone 'takes 10' on spot and listen when they are just 'default' on watch


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> They're relatively sequestered, but pass still the barrier "with nary a thought", even their cities can shift back and forth at certain times.




Must... avoid... temptation... to call their city...

Brigadoon!


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 16, 2007)

Would it be possible to get a scan of a picture of a dragonborn so we know what they look like now? Or is that figure on the PH art indeed a dragonborn?

Much appreciated,
Bill.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

> Orcs and hobgoblins are balanced against the middle of the heroic tier. Gnolls and trogs received a significant increase in power.



Reminds me of what was said about 1e - you go up to face 2 HD monsters after fighting orcs, then 3. 

Though I sure hope that orcs and kobolds can be made viable foes once you're high enough to be fighting gnolls and trogs. 

And if Paragon is when you're defending the kingdom, are you defending it from gnolls and trogs, because they're paragon level threats?


----------



## Mercule (Dec 16, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I really like the stuff on heroic-paragon-epic. It neatly provides 10 levels o crawl the dungeon, 10 of save the kingdom, and 10 more of become an immortal legend.




Sweet.  I really like the sound of that.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to get a scan of a picture of a dragonborn so we know what they look like now? Or is that figure on the PH art indeed a dragonborn?
> 
> Much appreciated,
> Bill.



We haven't seen a dragonborn so far. They're very distinct with their blunt noses - a bit like a mix of lizardmen, half-copper dragons. I'd take a photo of a dragonborn picture (either a sketch or a coloured one), but since it's WotC's artwork, I'd rather wait for a heads-up from the moderators (and I guess it'll be a "No").

Cheers, LT.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Dragonborn are very similar in build to the troglodytes in this article:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071205


----------



## Toben the Many (Dec 16, 2007)

Nice. I was a gronard before, but much of this sounds very encouraging.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> Dragonborn are very similar in build to the troglodytes in this article:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071205



So they're built like an armadillo got drunk and slept with a tank?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Toben the Many said:
			
		

> Nice. I was a gronard before, but much of this sounds very encouraging.



Hehe, I had reservations about 4E before (though I intended to switch), but the book is mainly written by the designers and developers, so it has less of a marketing spin (still a bit), and more of a "designer talk" spin. I've enjoyed it so far, and their enthusiasm is infecting.

Also: I still like Mike Mearls style. And Rob Heinsoo said that Mike (and Andy Collins) established themselves as "leader"-types in the team. Hehe. I guess my Mearls-fanboyism has just increased by a magnitude.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> So they're built like an armadillo got drunk and slept with a tank?



No, they're much less "stocky" and look more "humanoid". And I don't see a lot of similarity (except for the blunt nose).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 16, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Must... avoid... temptation... to call their city...
> 
> Brigadoon!




... uh... time for a tinfoil hat. 

I have a plane-shifting Elvish city, Braeg-dùn. It's a bit like Cymril from Talislanta; big-time magic city.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 16, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to get a scan of a picture of a dragonborn so we know what they look like now? Or is that figure on the PH art indeed a dragonborn?
> 
> Much appreciated,
> Bill.




Much like this.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Much like this.





oOOOooo...


----------



## WarlockLord (Dec 16, 2007)

Tell us about the wizard.  If their enchantment and illusion are being nerfed, what's in Serpent Eye?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Much like this.




Thanks Scott! That's _great_!

(ducks)


----------



## Thaumaturge (Dec 16, 2007)

Thank you Scott.  That's pretty cool.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## bgaesop (Dec 16, 2007)

This sounds pretty fantastic. I'm gonna second the earlier request, is there any way we can get scans or photos of the pictures you're raving about?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Much like this.



So the armadillo slept with a dwarf.



Any info about racial feats/abilities, as examples? 

Any info on class abilities for rogues, fighters, or rangers? We've heard little about them.


----------



## Xethreau (Dec 16, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Must... avoid... temptation... to call their city...
> 
> Brigadoon!



NICE!
That's SO the name of my first Eladrin city


----------



## megamania (Dec 16, 2007)

Still too early to say but this quick review has me more open minded to 4e than I was.   Still.....  all those 3/3.5 books........


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Tell us about the wizard.  If their enchantment and illusion are being nerfed, what's in Serpent Eye?



The named traditions are not in the book at all. I guess that's a new addition since August - after all, we've seen the change of the web article.

For illusion, they've said that's still in the wizard's list, but "Still, much more are coming".

Also from the wizard section, they're trying to do less feats that require declaration of use. They should rather be stuff that's added to a character once and then he has it, so you don't need to track them all the time - because feats should enhance a character all the time, not just for some rounds - and to decrease the amount of tracking you have to due. I guess activated stuff are now mainly powers, so feats giving you new options are usually rather give you new powers (see below).

And I've found a really interesting bit in the wizard's feat section: There's seemingly a set of feats for each class that allow other classes to pick up stuff from a class. In the text is the example that a martial wizard can be a wizard picking up "Fighter Training" feats. And a rogue with some magic skills could be one taking "Warlock Training" or "Wizard Training" feats - these feats allow people to pick up some extras, without leaving their "original class's power and role".



			
				bgaesop said:
			
		

> This sounds pretty fantastic. I'm gonna second the earlier request, is there any way we can get scans or photos of the pictures you're raving about?



I wish, but I don't really think that's okay... I wish I could get the picture on page 25 - it's a pretty cool picture of a dragonborn (if anybody happens to just skim through the book, take a look at that page, it's probably the best showcase of a dragonborn, due to the size).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> And I've found a really interesting bit in the wizard's feat section: There's seemingly a set of feats for each class that allow other classes to pick up stuff from a class. In the text is the example that a martial wizard can be a wizard picking up "Fighter Training" feats. And a rogue with some magic skills could be one taking "Warlock Training" or "Wizard Training" feats - these feats allow people to pick up some extras, without leaving their "original class's power and role".



By extras, do you mean powers, or just standard class abilities?

Meaning, if a Rogue picked up a Wizard Training feat, what happens? What would be an example of what he gets?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> By extras, do you mean powers, or just standard class abilities?
> 
> Meaning, if a Rogue picked up a Wizard Training feat, what happens? What would be an example of what he gets?



By extras I mean that: "...to pick up select class abilities, skill training, and even powers from another class."

But there's no example what the rogue would get.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Much like this.




Would you mind if LT scanned/photographed the image on page 25 of Races and Classes and posted it on the forum? That would probably be a better illustration than a miniature.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> By extras I mean that: "...to pick up select class abilities, skill training, and even powers from another class."
> 
> But there's no example what the rogue would get.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Okay, cool. Thanks.  

Does it say that you can get feats every other level, every level, what?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> And I've found a really interesting bit in the wizard's feat section: There's seemingly a set of feats for each class that allow other classes to pick up stuff from a class. In the text is the example that a martial wizard can be a wizard picking up "Fighter Training" feats. And a rogue with some magic skills could be one taking "Warlock Training" or "Wizard Training" feats - these feats allow people to pick up some extras, without leaving their "original class's power and role".




This sounds like what we've heard about 4e multiclassing. Does the book say this is replacing multiclassing, or are the class training feats in addition to a seperate multiclassing system?


----------



## breschau (Dec 16, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> This sounds like what we've heard about 4e multiclassing. Does the book say this is replacing multiclassing, or are the class training feats in addition to a seperate multiclassing system?




I don't have to book, but I'd imagine they'd do both. Some people want to dabble a bit (a few Wizards Training feats for the Thief) and other want to fully mix several classes.

These are great peeks.

Anyone want to give more details about the skills?

Thanks.


----------



## Vayden (Dec 16, 2007)

Awesome stuff, guys. Can I ask where you found the copies? I've been circling through my local FLGSs and Borders since Tuesday, and I haven't sniffed a peek yet.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay, cool. Thanks.
> 
> Does it say that you can get feats every other level, every level, what?



I don't think so, at least, I haven't read anything like that yet.


			
				Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> This sounds like what we've heard about 4e multiclassing. Does the book say this is replacing multiclassing, or are the class training feats in addition to a seperate multiclassing system?



Nothing about multiclassing. But they've said that no feats will require a class as prerequisite. Remember that Trapfinding is now a feat (i.e. a previous class ability). And don't forget that all classes will have an unified BAB/saves progression

[pure speculation]
Okay, that's pure speculation now, but I get the vibe that it's their new approach to multiclassing, especially if you keep in mind, that all classes have an unified progression - what do you get by multiclassing, if not BAB/Saves. The individual powers/class abilities and access to certain feats, right?

If all feats are class-independent (remember the Golden Wyvern adept? It just talked about _wizard powers_ - but didn't require you to be a wizard), and you can get class-specific stuff through the Class Training feats, why multiclass?

And considering the other evidence, it makes sense: Want to play a fighter/mage? Choose a fighter, start to pick up spells through feats, and get spell-modifying stuff through other feats (i.e. Golden Wyvern Adept).

Want to be a Warlock with roguish trap monkey bent? Pick up the Trapfinding feat, and perhaps stuff like Skill Focus.
[/pure speculation]



			
				Vayden said:
			
		

> Awesome stuff, guys. Can I ask where you found the copies? I've been circling through my local FLGSs and Borders since Tuesday, and I haven't sniffed a peek yet.



Picked it up at one of my two-and-half (the third one is really more a comic & everything geeky shop) local FLGS in Manchester, UK. Was the last book, though I don't know whether there were ones before or not. But I have visited it today for the first time for a week).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Vayden (Dec 16, 2007)

Curses. Probably going to have to wait until Tuesday then (traditional new book/music retail release date in the US). Thanks for all the good info though.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Anyone want to give more details about the skills?
> 
> Thanks.



Besides the stuff already said:
Folded Spot/Listen together, folded Hide/Move Silently together, folded Knowledge (arcana)/spellcraft/_read magic_ together (now just called "Arcana"). Profession probably gone, and new skill list is about half as long as the old one.

Most classes have at least some skills that are crucial to their function, but rogues, followed by rangers, are really the guys who get the most out of skills.


			
				Vayden said:
			
		

> Curses. Probably going to have to wait until Tuesday then (traditional new book/music retail release date in the US). Thanks for all the good info though.



I have no clue where Reaper Steve (who started the thread) lives, so it's probably not only in the UK.

Well, it's 5:21 am for me right now, and I guess I need some sleep! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 16, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Would you mind if LT scanned/photographed the image on page 25 of Races and Classes and posted it on the forum? That would probably be a better illustration than a miniature.





Puts down beer, takes off beanie, t-shirt, jeans.  Puts on suit, tie, cap-toe shoes and thinks... no sorry go buy the book. 

Dragon may have something in an article next week. I can't sanction our own guys getting scooped.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks, Scott.  You rock.

I'm still not really warming up to the dragonborn.  I culled halflings from 2E and 3E, though.  I can cull halflings and dragonborn from 4E.

Edit:  Hmm... That sounded wrong.  I'll give 'em a chance and I hope they do grow on me.  Just sayin' that it ain't exactly a catastrophe if they don't.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Puts down beer, takes off beanie, t-shirt, jeans.  Puts on suit, tie, cap-toe shoes and thinks... no sorry go buy the book.
> 
> Dragon may have something in an article next week. I can't sanction our own guys getting scooped.



Sure thing! By the way, if I'm talking too much about it, tell me - I certainly don't want to cause too much trouble, mkay?

And, at least for me, the artwork really made the book - I'll even look at it as "artwork book", when 4E is out, together with all these Designer tidbits, because, as said above, I like Mearls' writing style (though the other designers ain't bad at all!).

"Sleep is currently overrated", LT.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Sure thing! By the way, if I'm talking too much about it, tell me - I certainly don't want to cause too much trouble, mkay?
> 
> "Sleep is currently overrated", LT.




I love it. Thanks for promoting the book and thanks for the recaps while showing restraint in not doing the copy(scan) & paste spoiler.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> This sounds like what we've heard about 4e multiclassing. Does the book say this is replacing multiclassing, or are the class training feats in addition to a seperate multiclassing system?




One thing it says in the Tiers section is that each Paragon Path appeals to two classes, such as Wizard/Ranger, Cleric/Wizard etc, so one might presume that each path brings in some abilities from each class, even if only a smattering? Intriguingly, one keeps progressing in one's base class on top of that each level!

I got my copy on Wednesday from the FLGS, distributed via Estevium Games in the UK.


----------



## Lalato (Dec 16, 2007)

Once folks see the pictures of the dragonborn from this book I think some of the reservations about them will melt away.  I would also like to point out...  Dwarf chicks are hawt!  Yes, I said it.  

--sam


----------



## Xethreau (Dec 16, 2007)

Wow, Scott, you are sure one cool guy!  I'm not kidding, I know some business types who would freak out in this situation (my aunt  :\ )

Anyway, I will probably be getting the book next week, and also enjoying the possible Dragon article about it!


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I love it. Thanks for promoting the book and thanks for the recaps while showing restraint in not doing the copy(scan) & paste spoiler.



Data Point: I pre-ordered a copy because of this thread.

Which is another way of saying "This all sounds really cool."


----------



## Goobermunch (Dec 16, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Data Point: I pre-ordered a copy because of this thread.
> 
> Which is another way of saying "This all sounds really cool."




And Scott, given who's saying that, it's really quite impressive.

I've gotten the impression that Irda Ranger not so much on the fence as looking warily at it trying to decide whether it's worth the time to climb up on it.

I could be wrong about that, but that's been my sense from his posts.

--G


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 16, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I really like the stuff on heroic-paragon-epic. It neatly provides 10 levels o crawl the dungeon, 10 of save the kingdom, and 10 more of become an immortal legend.




This sounds a lot like the way the classic D&D game was set up with Basic, Expert, Companions, Masters and then Immortal levels.  I like it!

The "epic destinies" also sound a lot like the paragon paths classic D&D characters used to take to reach immortality.  Too much awesome!

Thanks Reaper Steve for the info!!  I'm jealously awaiting my copy preordered from Amazon to arrive!!!  Heh, if you spoil too much, at least I'll have the artwork!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm curious about the design notes the most.

But honestly? The book _I_ care about is the Monsters and Worlds book.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> And Scott, given who's saying that, it's really quite impressive.



You aint' just whistling dixie.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Dec 16, 2007)

Damnit ...

I wanted to stay away from 4e ... I have a lot of time and energy wrapped up in my current 3.5 campaign .... Nothing personal of course, but the startup costs are going to be high once again.

But ... it ... sounds ... so ... COOL!

I see a trip to the local game store in order to see if they have a copy of this tome of awesomeness yet.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 16, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> This sounds a lot like the way the classic D&D game was set up with Basic, Expert, Companions, Masters and then Immortal levels.  I like it!
> 
> The "epic destinies" also sound a lot like the paragon paths classic D&D characters used to take to reach immortality.  Too much awesome!



Definitely!  I wonder if, in a few years, we'll be seeing an Immortals Handbook, for levels 30+, in which characters become demigods or other higher beings.  Like  the D&D box set, but without the wacky, math-heavy mechanics.


----------



## Andor (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I don't think so, at least, I haven't read anything like that yet.
> 
> Nothing about multiclassing. But they've said that no feats will require a class as prerequisite. Remember that Trapfinding is now a feat (i.e. a previous class ability). And don't forget that all classes will have an unified BAB/saves progression
> 
> ...




Yeah. I'm getting that impression too. It's not that you can multi-class really, but you can kind of smear the border between your class and another one.

It's... odd.

One the one hand it seems to have an aspect of "Classes are similar enough that you don't _need_ to actually take levels in another class to have some functional use of their powers." On the other hand they also seem to be saying that your role is so important that they are preventing you from screwing it up by diluteing your core focus too much. On the gripping hand... the gripping hand is still gropeing in the dark. More data is needed.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> Definitely!  I wonder if, in a few years, we'll be seeing an Immortals Handbook, for levels 30+, in which characters become demigods or other higher beings.  Like  the D&D box set, but without the wacky, math-heavy mechanics.




The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2007)

eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...




Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!


----------



## Deverash (Dec 16, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!




Glad I'm not the only one who thought of that.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm loving everything I'm hearing.  I'm probably going to buy the book, based on what this thread and the other previews have said.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> One the one hand it seems to have an aspect of "Classes are similar enough that you don't _need_ to actually take levels in another class to have some functional use of their powers." On the other hand they also seem to be saying that your role is so important that they are preventing you from screwing it up by diluteing your core focus too much. On the gripping hand... the gripping hand is still gropeing in the dark. More data is needed.



It seems more like an elegant way to get rid of some of the bad parts of 3e multiclassing, while still allowing flexible character concepts.

Some of the things this fixes are:
- Multiclass spellcasters. 
- Too easy to make useless weaklings because character concept requires a sub-optimal combination of classes.  I once played with a druid/bard, who was a jack of a couple trades, master of nothing.
- In 3e, class balance was wonky, because what was ideal for a single class character could be broken in a multiclass.  Often, it was perfectly reasonable for a 1st level character to get a bunch of bonus feats or abilities that are useful to him at 1st level, but which become horrendously broken as a "1 level dip".

Plus, the unified progress of all classes in 4e makes it somewhat pointless to mix and match "class levels" like in 3e.  Just take some different powers or class options and be done with it.

In 4e, it seems like you gain the option of picking up some class abilities and powers, to blend together the abilities of the two classes.  This will neccessarily affect the claracter's "role", because a defender who takes some controller powers isn't as a good a defender who takes only defender powers.  But the foundation is good enough to make the character not terribly weak.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 16, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> The first few pages are the design timeline... if after you reading this, you are not convinced that 4E is helmed by a stellar team and that the game will be the best edition to date, then nothing will convince you.




Um.  The design team telling me about how stellar the design team is... that's not going to convince me of anything.  I'll have to wait till I see some more of the actual mechanics before I'm going to be convinced of much.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I love it. Thanks for promoting the book and thanks for the recaps while showing restraint in not doing the copy(scan) & paste spoiler.




I can imagine that you would love it.      Finally some good press (and unsolicitated at that) from Joe Gamer (no offense) actually praising 4e after seeing some of the changes.  I can't imagine why Mr. Rouse would object to this thread, given the beating 4E has taken in some quarters (including these very forums).  This is THE perfect advertising IMHO.

Once again, I'm in the pro-4E camp as most everything I've read has been about 4e crunch indicates simplifying the game rules, something I favor.  (Then again, I found AD&D was simpler in it's core than 3.x, and I liked 3.X better, go figure).

The fluff....well, I can be convinced.  But the FR changes had better be REALLY good.    

All in all, I'm looking forward to 4e.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 16, 2007)

eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...



That's what the Master set said too.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Reminds me of what was said about 1e - you go up to face 2 HD monsters after fighting orcs, then 3.
> 
> Though I sure hope that orcs and kobolds can be made viable foes once you're high enough to be fighting gnolls and trogs.
> 
> And if Paragon is when you're defending the kingdom, are you defending it from gnolls and trogs, because they're paragon level threats?




Orcs: the very next sentence states that orcs (and hobgobs) have "the flexibility to fight against adventurers from 1st to 10th level and even beyond."

Paragon level: many of D&D's "mightiest classic monsters--giants, demons and devils, beholders, mind flayers," ...

Oh yeah, rogues have a good bit of swashbuckler. I think it states something like: the ranger and the rogue split the swashbuckler's stuff. Point is, the rogue is supposed to get in there and mix it up.

As for where I got it... I live in Las Vegas and got it from a chain store in a mall. It was the only (or last?) copy. I don't want to be more specific because I don't  want them to get in trouble (but I doubt WotC would care at this point.)

I'm looking forward to a party without elves, dwarves, and halflings. Not that there's anything wrong with any of them (and the 4E versions are very well done) but suddenly a party with a dragonborn warlord, tiefling warlock, and a couple humans sounds really cool, and REALLY D&D, without the usual suspects having to be present.

Sorry, busy night. I'll see what other tidbits I can offer tomorrow.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 16, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> That's what the Master set said too.




I was going to say "36 used to be the end," but it's the same basic idea.

Odd thought: I'm betting that 14-year-old me, flipping through the Immortals box, asking my folks, "Hey, who's 'Old Nick,' anyway?  These stats read like that name should mean something to me," went a long way toward assuaging their concerns about the link between D&D and the occult.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 16, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Um.  The design team telling me about how stellar the design team is... that's not going to convince me of anything.  I'll have to wait till I see some more of the actual mechanics before I'm going to be convinced of much.




Maybe I should clarify: they aren't patting themselves on the back, it's just from the info presented it's very obvious to me how much they care about the game and how much effort has been (and continues to me) poured into it.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Odd thought: I'm betting that 14-year-old me, flipping through the Immortals box, asking my folks, "Hey, who's 'Old Nick,' anyway?  These stats read like that name should mean something to me," went a long way toward assuaging their concerns about the link between D&D and the occult.




The designers actually say that part of their inspiration for epic destinies was taking the stats for gods and having god grudge matches...


----------



## Ragnar_Deerslayer (Dec 16, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> In 4e, it seems like you gain the option of picking up some class abilities and powers, to blend together the abilities of the two classes.  This will neccessarily affect the claracter's "role", because a defender who takes some controller powers isn't as a good a defender who takes only defender powers.  But the foundation is good enough to make the character not terribly weak.




Remember that the way it's described, it'll use a FEAT to "multiclass."  And the non-multiclass feats, we have been told, are "general bonuses," not powers, which are pretty much reserved for class abilities.  This means that you can't become a useless character by being a "balanced" (read: mediocre) mix of two classes.  You ARE one class, and CANNOT miss out on your class powers.  This means you will ALWAYS be good at some role - you will just also be good at *another* role, if you take the cross-training feats, and only lose out on some general bonus like "Alertness."  And, with what we've found out on this thread about Paragon Paths, it seems like if you really want a balanced two-class hybrid, there'll be worthwhile Paths that will let you find your niche.

It's a different flavor.  I think I'll like it.  But then, I'm optimistic.

Ragnar


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

I think you sound spot on there, Ragnar! Muticlassing def. sounds very attractive in 4e.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, rogues have a good bit of swashbuckler. I think it states something like: the ranger and the rogue split the swashbuckler's stuff. Point is, the rogue is supposed to get in there and mix it up.



Tell us more; the "I hope Rogues can do swashbuckly things" crowd has been saying it.

Also, any info on the ranger? Are they just "Woodsman" just "Archer", what?


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Tell us more; the "I hope Rogues can do swashbuckly things" crowd has been saying it.
> 
> Also, any info on the ranger? Are they just "Woodsman" just "Archer", what?




I'll bet they put the range in ranger. Har har.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Tell us more; the "I hope Rogues can do swashbuckly things" crowd has been saying it.
> 
> Also, any info on the ranger? Are they just "Woodsman" just "Archer", what?




There isn't much on the Ranger; it's tacked on at the end...

They said that the main thing they did with Rogues was to make them balanced in a fight with all other classes, whereas in 3.5 they were weaker in a fight because they could do so much out of combat. In 4e all classes are theoretically equal in battle prowess and out of battle stuff...


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

looking up Ranger...

'precision with bow and blade'
'guerilla tactics... strike hard and move quickly'
'intuition and keen senses... you feel when danger is about to strike'
'surroundings can tell you where your foe has gone'
'agility and speed allows you to roam the battlefield'
'your body... not is it encased in steel armour'
'your talents are wasted on rabble'


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

> 'your talents are wasted on rabble'



Now that is curious.

If all classes are equal in and out of combat, then are we told at all what the Fighter can do out of combat?

That was actually one of my biggest issues with the fighter. He's useful in combat, but otherwise, just freaking boring.


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, the Fighter section has a lot on weapons, and seems to suggest that a Fighter can perhaps craft their own arms and armour (I may be over inferring here though...), but that's not immeadiately useful to the party I guess...

There doesn't seem to be much on these vaunted out-of-encounter abilies for any of the classes... shame, 'cause it sounds really interesting...


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 16, 2007)

Overall, that sounds great! I'll have to consider getting the actual book when it shows up here...


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, I just preordered it based on these reviews and insight. Thanks!


----------



## eve_of_dante (Dec 16, 2007)

Someone was asking about Rogues:

'extra specialization... stealthy rogues can stay hidden and deliver devastating attacks from the shadows. Mobile rogues jump and climb across the battlefield... tricky rogues use words as weapons'
'capable of delivering more damage to a target than  many other characters'
'can use their skills more effectively than other classes and can move in ways utterly impossible for other classes'
'at the highest end of the power list come difficult maneuvers that incorporate multiple attacks and tactical movement'
'a rogue with a high int. gains a flat bonus to all trained skill checks'
follow up attacks do extra damage after sucessful attacks, and do 'major penalties' to the target.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 16, 2007)

Ragnar_Deerslayer said:
			
		

> Remember that the way it's described, it'll use a FEAT to "multiclass."  And the non-multiclass feats, we have been told, are "general bonuses," not powers, which are pretty much reserved for class abilities.  This means that you can't become a useless character by being a "balanced" (read: mediocre) mix of two classes.  You ARE one class, and CANNOT miss out on your class powers.  This means you will ALWAYS be good at some role - you will just also be good at *another* role, if you take the cross-training feats, and only lose out on some general bonus like "Alertness."  And, with what we've found out on this thread about Paragon Paths, it seems like if you really want a balanced two-class hybrid, there'll be worthwhile Paths that will let you find your niche.



I think I've been assuming that a character with those feats would have to "swap out" some of his class powers for the other class's powers, like a 3e wizard being allowed to prepare a half dozen cleric spells in his wizard spell slots.  That definitely may not be the case.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 16, 2007)

Vayden said:
			
		

> Awesome stuff, guys. Can I ask where you found the copies? I've been circling through my local FLGSs and Borders since Tuesday, and I haven't sniffed a peek yet.



I picked it up at my FLGS last Tuesday on my way home from work. I'm glad I didn't have anything important to do that particular night - must have gotten into bed around three in the morning.


----------



## The Cardinal (Dec 16, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!




...in which case I would turn into a raving 4e fanboy...


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 16, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Yeah. I'm getting that impression too. It's not that you can multi-class really, but you can kind of smear the border between your class and another one.
> 
> It's... odd.
> 
> One the one hand it seems to have an aspect of "Classes are similar enough that you don't _need_ to actually take levels in another class to have some functional use of their powers." On the other hand they also seem to be saying that your role is so important that they are preventing you from screwing it up by diluteing your core focus too much. On the gripping hand... the gripping hand is still gropeing in the dark. More data is needed.



I'm fairly sure that the designers have talked somewhere about _actual_ multi classing. Those feats might be an extra option.


----------



## Najo (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Puts down beer, takes off beanie, t-shirt, jeans.  Puts on suit, tie, cap-toe shoes and thinks... no sorry go buy the book.
> 
> Dragon may have something in an article next week. I can't sanction our own guys getting scooped.




Scott,

I thought the release date was the 18th? When are the FLGS here in the states getting them?


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 16, 2007)

I think that one concern might be that unless racial talents are awarded differently, that racial feats and multiclass feats would be competing for limited space. For instance, if I wanted to play an Eladrin Wizard with a bunch of Warlord abilities, would this come at the price of me having a few of the cool Eladrin abilities? (Under this theorized single class system of course.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I think that one concern might be that unless racial talents are awarded differently, that racial feats and multiclass feats would be competing for limited space. For instance, if I wanted to play an Eladrin Wizard with a bunch of Warlord abilities, would this come at the price of me having a few of the cool Eladrin abilities? (Under this theorized single class system of course.)



Another question might be - how bad can that be? At some point, you have to decide your focus. In 3rd edition, if you wanted to play an LA races, you basically had to face a similar decision - do I want class abilities are racial abilities? (But in 3rd edition, it too often worked bad, because some of these abilities contained core aspects like BAB, Saves or Hit points and maybe most notably spell progression). 
It might be a problem (or at least a little "sad") if the base racial abilities don't really affect the uniqueness of the character in the long run without this feats...


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 16, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I think that one concern might be that unless racial talents are awarded differently, that racial feats and multiclass feats would be competing for limited space. For instance, if I wanted to play an Eladrin Wizard with a bunch of Warlord abilities, would this come at the price of me having a few of the cool Eladrin abilities? (Under this theorized single class system of course.)



The racial abilities might not be feats, but talents/powers.  If so, they wouldn't compete at all.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 16, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Scott,
> 
> I thought the release date was the 18th? When are the FLGS here in the states getting them?





The release date is the 18th so all these stores where people have picked up the book already have broken the street date.


----------



## reutbing0 (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott, thanks for you participation in this thread, and many thanks to the people spilling the beans on the contents of the book as well. This is really getting me excited about 4E.

Prior to this thread I hadn't really thought of picking it up, but now I've ordered it (and Worlds & Monsters) as well. It'll take Amazon a while to get it to The Netherlands though, so keep those juicy bits coming!


----------



## Knight Otu (Dec 16, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> The racial abilities might not be feats, but talents/powers.  If so, they wouldn't compete at all.



From what we've heard, there will be both racial powers and racial feats. So there may be some competition.

I'm curious about the eladrin - are there any references to the "old" eladrin, such as the Ghaele and Bralani? Any insights why the eladrin were remodeled?


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 16, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Maybe I should clarify: they aren't patting themselves on the back, it's just from the info presented it's very obvious to me how much they care about the game and how much effort has been (and continues to me) poured into it.




Still, the fact that this is coming through them and not some outside source (that observed them) makes me reluctant to believe them.  

If I write, say a module, I can certainly do a good job of talking about how great a job I did because I care so much and put so much time into it.  That doesn't mean it is a good module.


----------



## Quantarum (Dec 16, 2007)

Yep, I got it yesterday as well. Won't say where, I have friends that work there and I allready give them a hard enough time about what sections they have to put books in.

 After reading it into the wee hours of the morning I have to say this was a good idea. Reading so much about the debates that went on between the designers has evaporated some of my concerns. While I don't always agree with the conclusions, I understand their points of view. It all has the feel of a real labor of love. I can't say if 4th will be everything D&D should be, but my own hopes are raised.

-Q.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 16, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!




Which they no longer own. Bought by the original owner some time ago. I was hoping for a 3.0/3.5 book but alas....


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 16, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Which they no longer own. Bought by the original owner some time ago. I was hoping for a 3.0/3.5 book but alas....




Hmm... Peter Adkinson took TPO with Gen Con?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm just curious to put to rest arguments about power sources, which power source are Rangers in 4e since it's been mentioned they're already strikers, are they Martial or Divine?


----------



## AnonymousOne (Dec 16, 2007)

eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> Someone was asking about Rogues:
> 
> 'extra specialization... stealthy rogues can stay hidden and deliver devastating attacks from the shadows. Mobile rogues jump and climb across the battlefield... tricky rogues use words as weapons'
> 'capable of delivering more damage to a target than  many other characters'
> ...




Oh boy looks like sneak attack is still in.  I love Rogues ... love playing them and watching them in action at the table.  This sounds ... awesome.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The release date is the 18th so all these stores where people have picked up the book already have broken the street date.




It's referred to as a tactical leak.  Ya see, now that the sages on ENworld have consumed it and it has peaked a bunch of OTHER people's interest sales are guaranteed to go up.  

Okay ... maybe I'm giving Wizards too much credit there ... but still, who are we to complain?  This Thread has almost assured my purchase of the core books upon their release.

Oh and thanks Scott for helping us through some of the nit-picking ... I can't wait to see the final product.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The release date is the 18th so all these stores where people have picked up the book already have broken the street date.



Scott, if I'm not mistaken Najo runs a game store, so I think his question reflects his worry of not having it in stock for Tuesday's release.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> > 'your talents are wasted on rabble'
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is curious.



I think it makes plenty of sense. The ranger can strike at the elites and boss monsters with chirurgical precision, but he is better off if he lets the fighter cleave through the crowd of mooks to get a clean shot at the main target.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I think it makes plenty of sence. The ranger can strike at the elites and boss monters with chirugical presision, but he is better off if he lets the fighter cleave through the crowd of mooks to get a clean shot at the main target.



Oh. I was thinking something else.

Of course, if the ranger has mobility, he doesn't NEED to let the fighter cleave.

And, with 4e doing 'one monster per PC unless there are elites or solo monsters', I don't see that necessarily happening.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Oh. I was thinking something else.
> 
> Of course, if the ranger has mobility, he doesn't NEED to let the fighter cleave.
> 
> And, with 4e doing 'one monster per PC unless there are elites or solo monsters', I don't see that necessarily happening.



The minion rules have not been fully detailed, but they have given examples of 20 goblins vs first level PCs, so I'm betting crowded battlemats are not going to be unusual or uncommon.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I'm curious about the eladrin - are there any references to the "old" eladrin, such as the Ghaele and Bralani? Any insights why the eladrin were remodeled?



On that: They had the high elves in the Feywild first - which have that fey lords of the Feywild going on.
Then they had the current Eladrin, who are feyish-inspired outsiders on Arborea (which has a Faerie-like vibe as well), meaning both had a similar rough concept (fey lords on faerie-like plane), hence one had to go.

So high elves killed Eladrin and took their stuff (i.e. name).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

I will repeat what others have asked:

Ranger, divine or martial striker?


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2007)

The ranger could also be a striker based on the "nature" power source. I guess that could make him a "natural striker".


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 16, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Still, the fact that this is coming through them and not some outside source (that observed them) makes me reluctant to believe them.
> 
> If I write, say a module, I can certainly do a good job of talking about how great a job I did because I care so much and put so much time into it.  That doesn't mean it is a good module.



It's a preview, not a review. You'll have plenty of the latter once the core books come out, but those won't have any of the inside perspective or access to the designer's thinking during development like these books will, and I think that's what alot of people are interested in reading about. It's not just a book full of "We're great! We love this game!" without something to back it up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So they're built like an armadillo got drunk and slept with a tank?




Nah, that would be Tarkus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tarkus.jpg


----------



## Knight Otu (Dec 16, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> On that: They had the high elves in the Feywild first - which have that fey lords of the Feywild going on.
> Then they had the current Eladrin, who are feyish-inspired outsiders on Arborea (which has a Faerie-like vibe as well), meaning both had a similar rough concept (fey lords on faerie-like plane), hence one had to go.
> 
> So high elves killed Eladrin and took their stuff (i.e. name).
> ...



I guess I can see that. That probably means that higher ranks like Bralani and Ghaele are dead, unless they are achievable through racial feats, powers, or perhaps paragon paths...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I will repeat what others have asked:
> 
> Ranger, divine or martial striker?



Haven't found anything about it yet. Bear in mind that the ranger only has a half-page (or rather third-page) write-up in the "Other Classes" section, everything else about him is from occasional name-dropping in the context of the discussion of other classes.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 16, 2007)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I've gotten the impression that Irda Ranger not so much on the fence as looking warily at it trying to decide whether it's worth the time to climb up on it.



With respect to Races & Classes, you were right.



			
				eve_of_dante said:
			
		

> In 4e all classes are theoretically equal in battle prowess and out of battle stuff...



I want someone to elaborate on this.  It seems obvious to me that Leaders, Rogues, Spellcasters and Rangers will all have "stuff to do" outside of combat, but Fighters (based on the limited previews) still seem to be left with "stand around and look menacing" or "take a nap."  I've been trying to darnedest to think of something for them to do, too, and all I can think of is "build siege engines" or "fortify positions" or "train townspeople."  In a campaign that had a lot of mass combat stuff, that would be useful. But most people don't play those kind of games, so I'm not sure what the Fighter is left with.

Well, hopefully Amazon will ship my book tomorrow, or at least Tuesday. I'm going on vacation starting Friday and want to read it during the downtime.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> With respect to Races & Classes, you were right.



Huh. I thought you were hugely skeptical of 4e in general.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> but Fighters (based on the limited previews) still seem to be left with "stand around and look menacing" or "take a nap."  I've been trying to darnedest to think of something for them to do, too, and all I can think of is "build siege engines" or "fortify positions" or "train townspeople."  In a campaign that had a lot of mass combat stuff, that would be useful. But most people don't play those kind of games, so I'm not sure what the Fighter is left with.




I'm not sure if I'm remembering right, but I think I read something about 'intimidation skill being used to give orders', so maybe the fighter is also good at ordering people about?

As they said in 3e the rogue was less than stellar in combat because he had so much to do out of combat. The fighter was pretty much the other way around, being all about the personal combat and thus being given nothing to do out of combat.

If they have gone to effort of fixing the former, hopefully they will also have fixed the latter too!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Puts down beer, takes off beanie, t-shirt, jeans.  Puts on suit, tie, cap-toe shoes and thinks... no sorry go buy the book.




For goodness sake man! Step behind a screen the next time you change clothes! 

Seriously though - thanks Scott for giving us our first picture of a dragonborn (the mini) and your various responses in this thread. Much appreciated.

Cheers


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I will repeat what others have asked:
> 
> Ranger, divine or martial striker?




There is nothing (as far as I can tell) that even implies 'divine' in the little written on them. For those of us who have long wanted the ranger to be the huntsman/stalker/sniper/woodsman--yay!

There's also a blurb under warlocks about the PHB already having a _ranged_ striker and a _melee _striker, but additional strikers are good for party success, so the warlock seemed like a natural choice. (almost but not quite a verbatim quote.)

I take that to mean the PHB will have three strikers--ranger (ranged), rogue (melee), and warlock (arcane.)

The ranger blurb does start: "Precision with bow and blade..."

No mention of TWF anywhere I've seen... a quick art scan shows one ranger w/ a sword and a daggerish thing and three others wielding bows and carrying a single blade.

I would really like to see TWF having to be earned, like in SW Saga.  That's what I'm inferring, but I know I'm also seeing what I want to see.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 16, 2007)

The book was on the shelf at my local Book-a-Million.  I skimmed most of it and loved what I saw... the Dragonborn look FANTASTICLY BADASS.  

As a girlie girl, I loved the more delicate look of the female dwarves.  Very appealing.

However, my first 4e character is SO going to be a Halfling!  They're so awesome that my GM, a guy that usually forbids gnomes AND Halflings, was all about 'em.


----------



## breschau (Dec 16, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Scott, if I'm not mistaken Najo runs a game store, so I think his question reflects his worry of not having it in stock for Tuesday's release.




I work in publishing so I might be able to answer what's going on. Most stores get their shipments a week or so ahead of time so they can put the books out on the shelf on the day of release. Some stores don't honor that and simply put the books out when they are received. It's bad form but lets threads like this happen. Same thing with the last Harry Potter book that some guy got shipped before the actual release date. The bigger the book, the more this bothers the publisher.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2007)

People seem to go "Wow, this thread has made me want to get the book". I'm honestly curious how this thread is different from the other preview threads - I didn't see any of the about-face  in the other threads.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Dec 16, 2007)

Can we get a Hi resolution version of the mini?  I can barely see anything.


----------



## Xethreau (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> People seem to go "Wow, this thread has made me want to get the book". I'm honestly curious how this thread is different from the other preview threads - I didn't see any of the about-face  in the other threads.



For me, its the realization that there is more flavor to that book than what has been posted already.


----------



## IronWhim (Dec 17, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Tolkienesque.



Elves being taller also moves them more into the Sidhe of legends rather than the weird, not-very-elfy elves we've had for so long.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 17, 2007)

IronWhim said:
			
		

> Elves being taller also moves them more into the Sidhe of legends rather than the weird, not-very-elfy elves we've had for so long.




Yep. I get the picture they're aiming more for the Sidhe than the Sindar (at least for Eladrin), for which they'll get eternal love from me if they can pull it off. The Sidhe are one of my favorite mythologies.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Dec 17, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> For goodness sake man! Step behind a screen the next time you change clothes!
> 
> Seriously though - thanks Scott for giving us our first picture of a dragonborn (the mini) and your various responses in this thread. Much appreciated.
> 
> Cheers






> Can we get a Hi resolution version of the mini?  I can barely see anything.




This mini is not new. It came out in War of the Dragon Queen (July 2006) but it is an accurate representation of a Dragonborn.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Huh. I thought you were hugely skeptical of 4e in general.



I am hugely skeptical of a few design choices they've made (the non-good Warlock and the "Golden Wyvern Adept"-ness of feat names chief among them), but on the whole I am positive about 4E.  I guess I'm just not one to post to threads unless I think I have something to add, and I don't see "This is cool." as a real addition to the conversation.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Yep. I get the picture they're aiming more for the Sidhe than the Sindar (at least for Eladrin), for which they'll get eternal love from me if they can pull it off. The Sidhe are one of my favorite mythologies.



Yeah, I've definitely be getting a Sidhe vibe from them (particularly the Eladrin).  The nature of the Feywild has a lot to do with that.  For the record, I think this is really cool.

I'm also hoping there are some more "chaotic" or "evil" alternatives to the Eladrin who can flit between our world and the Feywild.  If none are provided, I'm going to use goblins for that.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 17, 2007)

IronWhim said:
			
		

> Elves being taller also moves them more into the Sidhe of legends rather than the weird, not-very-elfy elves we've had for so long.




Yes, and no. "Sidhe" is actually just a shortened form of "Aes Sidhe", or People of the Hills. The "Sidhe' part means "hills". In Irish lore, the Aes Sidhe could look tall or short, resemble animals, and seem old or young. They could be homely, or so sexy that you willingly give up your life for a kiss. They live _inside_ the hills,  and their realms are filled with illusion. Some have courts filled with pomp, and others don't. None have a morality that resembles humanity's at all. They are VERY unlike Tolkien's chaste, self-righteous elves, which is not surprising considering Tolkien's stated dislike for all things Celtic.

If you want to replicate the Sidhe, you have to cross 1st edition elves with 1st edition Illusionist Gnomes, and give them polymorph-like abilities. _Tallness_ has nothing to do with it, because the apparent height of the Aes Sidhe is an illusion too.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 17, 2007)

IronWhim said:
			
		

> Elves being taller also moves them more into the Sidhe of legends rather than the weird, not-very-elfy elves we've had for so long.




Vaguely reminds me of the Corum novels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corum


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just not one to post to threads unless I think I have something to add, and I don't see "This is cool." as a real addition to the conversation.



Nor is "This isn't cool".  I'm certain you can find something to say about the things that you _like_ that is beyond "This is cool". Like, how you plan on using it. Or why you think it's cool. Or whatever.



> I'm also hoping there are some more "chaotic" or "evil" alternatives to the Eladrin who can flit between our world and the Feywild.  If none are provided, I'm going to use goblins for that.



Kobold can also work for that. Kobolds are based on fey that live in deep caves. 

After reading Pathfinder, it occurred to me that goblins are the critters from the movie _Gremlins_. Little sadistic dark-humored bastards that live for mayhem. Casting them in the mold of Gremlins makes me not want to give them a culture, or even distinctive "females".


----------



## Najo (Dec 17, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Scott, if I'm not mistaken Najo runs a game store, so I think his question reflects his worry of not having it in stock for Tuesday's release.




Yes, I do own a game store. Yes I would like to make sure we are ready for Tuesday. Our tracking info says they are in route still and deliver tomorrow. I would prefer to get them earlier because when this happens and street date is broken, we can't react by selling them. Also, if there is a shipping issue, we can't correct it at the last minute and get the product fixed or adjust orders. 

I know WOTC does this because of the bad game stores that break dates and spoil product releases. But the good game stores need to be identified and then rewarded/ protected against this. I would have loved to have my shipment a week earlier. I could prep my sales team, plan displays and get ready to support a big release much easier.

For example, we get Magic from distributors the day before we get it from WOTC. We get it the day before release from WOTC, which means we have to entert he product into our database, prep the team, rip product for singles and set up displays all at once the night before everytime Magic releases. The only reason the sales team is ready for the set is because of the spoilers and the prerelease event. Anyrate, not trying to rant. Just hoping to offer insight for Scott to pass along to who it matters.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> After reading Pathfinder, it occurred to me that goblins are the critters from the movie _Gremlins_. Little sadistic dark-humored bastards that live for mayhem. Casting them in the mold of Gremlins makes me not want to give them a culture, or even distinctive "females".



What's your Maguai?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Dec 17, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What's your Maguai?




Bugbears.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What's your Maguai?



Well, I don't think that I'd have maguai. Goblins might actually breed when people have malicious or cruel thoughts. Every time you have a mean, hateful thought, a goblin is born in the Feywild.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2007)

Books-a-Million has broken the street date: I have it  OK, I'd originally planned to read this sucker in the store but I bought it because it has many more in-depth design stories than the Rules Compendium.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Yes, and no. "Sidhe" is actually just a shortened form of "Aes Sidhe", or People of the Hills.




Most modern fantasy, though, uses 'Sidhe' for 'tall elves that look like beautiful humans, maybe with pointed ears'. That's the image most readers are going to associate with the term.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2007)

Can anyone with R&C answer this:

Do they talk about Siloing abilities at all? 

Is Siloing like talent trees, where you have to focus on one of several options (Fighters being offense, defense or hinder/control), or is it more like 'You get one offensive, one defensive, and one utility power per level'?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Can anyone with R&C answer this:
> 
> Do they talk about Siloing abilities at all?
> 
> Is Siloing like talent trees, where you have to focus on one of several options (Fighters being offense, defense or hinder/control), or is it more like 'You get one offensive, one defensive, and one utility power per level'?



They haven't really talked about it - but at one point, Stephen Schubert uses the terminology "silo": He talks about the Tome of Magic Binder and calls the power acquisition method "silo" of powers, which are have a common theme.

In the same part, he also talks about the shadowcaster (and his tree-like powers) and the truenamer (and his repeatedly usable abilities) and also says that some of these concepts are incorporated into 4E, as the warlock will get a "small selection of thematically linked class abilities", which is a concept of the Binder.

And I've seen something else here, not sure, if that was mentioned before: Warlocks have as bargain types Fey, Infernal, Star (I know that we know of these three) and *Vestige*.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 17, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> And I've seen something else here, not sure, if that was mentioned before: Warlocks have as bargain types Fey, Infernal, Star (I know that we know of these three) and *Vestige*.




This brings up a good point--what is more current.... R&C or the design articles?

Th design article in Oct mentioned three pact sources... infernal, fey, or shadowy. That's pretty different than R&C. I thought I saw somewhere (maybe it was speculation) of an elemental pact as well.

EDIT: My guess is that R&C has the more current version. I base that on the Wizard entry in R&C matching the 2nd version of its design article (w/ orb, staff, and wand.)


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> EDIT: My guess is that R&C has the more current version. I base that on the Wizard entry in R&C matching the 2nd version of its design article (w/ orb, staff, and wand.)



The R&C was finalized in August. The warlock article was written in October.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The R&C was finalized in August. The warlock article was written in October.




Yeah, which is why my original guess was the Oct article as the more current. BUt since R&C matches the newer wizard article, it gave me something to hang my hat on.

Although, at this point, it does seem easier to scale back from 4 to 3 for space and/o time constraints.  Who knows?

[Commune w/ Scott Rouse]
Which is more current, the R&C Warlock info, or the Oct design article about the same?

(What, your R&C didn't come with a scroll of 5th level cleric spells?)


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 17, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> (What, your R&C didn't come with a scroll of 5th level cleric spells?)



It did, but Scott (despite how he answers inquiries on the matter) is not a god, so it doesn't work.


----------



## Voss (Dec 17, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> I work in publishing so I might be able to answer what's going on. Most stores get their shipments a week or so ahead of time so they can put the books out on the shelf on the day of release. Some stores don't honor that and simply put the books out when they are received. It's bad form but lets threads like this happen. Same thing with the last Harry Potter book that some guy got shipped before the actual release date. The bigger the book, the more this bothers the publisher.




Having worked in several bookstores, a 'week ahead' is a generous estimate, except in the case of really big name books.  With something like this, where chain bookstores will maybe get 5 copies (if that), the receiver probably won't even bothering looking at the street date lists, unless they happen to be a D&D fan.  No one involved will likely know or care that they weren't supposed to put it out.  Now that probably won't be true for the new core books.  If WotC's (and Hasbro's) PR people do their job, those should be noted as a fairly significant release, but it is always helpful if they ship in a box by themselves with big letters on the side saying 'Strict on Sale', xx/xx/xxxx.

More often than not though, for the decent chain stores that are on the major shipping routes, small stuff like this will actually arrive on the release date.  At least in my experience.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 17, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> It did, but Scott (despite how he answers inquiries on the matter) is not a god, so it doesn't work.




Shssh! Don't tell him!

Well, I'll blame the spell failure on the fact that I didn't phrase it as a yes/no question.
So here goes again:
"Of the following two articles on warlocks--the R&C version and the Oct Design and Development version--is the latter the most representative of the current state of the Warlock's design in 4E?"


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 17, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Yeah, which is why my original guess was the Oct article as the more current. BUt since R&C matches the newer wizard article, it gave me something to hang my hat on.



The wizard information posted from R&C matches the old website article more than the revised one.  R&C talks about matching certain types of effects with each implement, while in the revised one, implements were more like flavorful addition to the 6 named wizard schools.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Dec 17, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> The wizard information posted from R&C matches the old website article more than the revised one.  R&C talks about matching certain types of effects with each implement, while in the revised one, implements were more like flavorful addition to the 6 named wizard schools.




The original article had four implements (inc. tome.) the current has just three, like R&C. But I do agree that the R&C text about the purpose of the implements is closer to that of the original article.

I'm willing to bet that we'll see three versions: the design article, the R&C article, and ultimately the finished deal in the PHB. The latter is all that will matter, but following the course they take to get there is pretty awesome.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 17, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The R&C was finalized in August. The warlock article was written in October.




No, the warlock article was published in October. It may have been written long before that - I know they did that for SW Saga (but those releases had to be okay-ed by Lucas Arts, so that might affect timing).


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2007)

In some ways I wish they had kept some of the funny placeholder names. "I'm Batman" really should be a Rogue feat.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 17, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Most modern fantasy, though, uses 'Sidhe' for 'tall elves that look like beautiful humans, maybe with pointed ears'. That's the image most readers are going to associate with the term.




I know. But as someone of Irish ancestry, it's still somewhat annoying to see the lustful, wild, trickster Aes Sidhe reduced to such a boring, Victorian English conception.

Of course, maybe that's another one of the Good People's jokes...


----------



## Aage (Dec 17, 2007)

Got mine today  Dragonborn looks really cool, though I don't like the tieflings :\


----------



## Driddle (Dec 17, 2007)

I found some copies on the shelf Sunday at one of our major book store chains. It didn't seem right to read it yet, so I told a manager about the release date and he pulled them right away.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 17, 2007)

Ok, sold.  I've been a sucker for game developer notes ever since the one in Squad Leader.  I've haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I find the art to be more to my taste than that of 3e.  Maybe with the exception of the halflings though.  They don't look different from humans except in hairstyle.  Bring back hairy feet!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 17, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> "I'm Batman" really should be a Rogue feat.



"I'm the goddamn Batman" would be better.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 17, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> "I'm the goddamn Batman" would be better.



But what if there is a Batman hater in my group? How should he ever be able to enjoy the game? I'd have to rename the feat and hide the rulebook from him! And if he ever stumbles onto a D&D Messageboard?


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 17, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I found some copies on the shelf Sunday at one of our major book store chains. It didn't seem right to read it yet, so I told a manager about the release date and he pulled them right away.




Seriously?


----------



## Driddle (Dec 17, 2007)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Seriously?




He seemed pretty serious at the time, yes.
But he thanked me, too.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 17, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> He seemed pretty serious at the time, yes.
> But he thanked me, too.




I guess I'm just confused about the "didn't seem right to read it yet" part.  Why wouldn't you?


----------



## Driddle (Dec 17, 2007)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just confused about the "didn't seem right to read it yet" part.  Why wouldn't you?




The product has a scheduled release date, you know.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 17, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The product has a scheduled release date, you know.




And?  I get the feeling this is some sort of Lawful vs. Chaotic thing where we're talking past each other.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 17, 2007)

And people said actual alignment languages were unrealistic...here you can see the effect of a lawful vs. chaotic conversation life and in color!  

(Kidding obviously...just couldn't resist.  )


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Dec 17, 2007)

I bought mine today from Barnes and Noble in Kansas City, Missouri. It's already out here.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 17, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And people said actual alignment languages were unrealistic...here you can see the effect of a lawful vs. chaotic conversation life and in color!
> 
> (Kidding obviously...just couldn't resist.  )




I'm with you, and my duck-eyed flying platypus is gnarly!


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 17, 2007)

Saw it at my FLGS, but they polybagged it to prevent reading it in the store. This ain't a damn library ya know!

I didn't get it, I'm poor. Next time.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 17, 2007)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just confused about the "didn't seem right to read it yet" part.  Why wouldn't you?




It was just a joke, don't worry about it!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 17, 2007)

I am going out X-mas shopping tomorrow so gonna keep my eyes open for it. To simply look through quickly, don't have the money to buy yet. I hope the art will be to my liking, it may sound very shallow but art can be a real sticking point for me. 

Like... For example, the new Mage books, I like it... But the line-art style makes me less interested in reading it, but compare that too Vampire or Changeling and the art-style makes me want to read even more.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 17, 2007)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I am going out X-mas shopping yesterday so gonna keep my eyes open for it.





Wait...

You're going to do something yesterday?

Dude... You're awesome. You're like a tesseract or something.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 17, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Wait...
> 
> You're going to do something yesterday?
> 
> Dude... You're awesome. You're like a tesseract or something.




LOL, that is what 3-msn conversations, 2 forum-discussion and a headache create


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 17, 2007)

Well, it's certainly out in the UK now, and I've got a copy.

In the earlier poll about whether one would purchase or not, I think I said "I look at it and decide if I think it is worth it". I flipped through it and decided it was.

I've just finished reading it, and I'm happy that I made the purchase. I like the background to the design process, I like the races and classes information... No - more than that, I want to play a character of each of the races - and I want to play a character of each of the classes too! Arrgh!

It is a shame that some of the class write-ups are a little slim (ranger & warlord I'm looking at you - especially since rangers didn't get the thought they needed at the time in 3.0 and had to be revised thoroughly in 3.5, and warlords are so new in their leader (aka healer) niche that they would have benefited in as big a write-up as the warlock got for sure. I like the ranger characterisation as 'guerilla fighter' though)

It is interesting that they include sorcerer and druid in the class descriptions here even though we are pretty sure that they are not going to be in PHB1. Since I don't think I saw anyone else mention it, I'll just say a bit about the druid from here:

*Druid*
The current design for druids allows them to select wildshape a lot more often, but at a price(?). Druids select shapes they can assume in much the same way that other classes pick spells and manoeuvres {so presumably they may have 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'per day' shapes}. They designed different forms for different needs - hawk for spying, mouse for sneaking, bear for tearing the orc king apart. To give an incentive to walk around in human form there will be a selection of nature themed spells to give some utility and ranged attacks.
*
Stand-out comment *
One comment from Mike Mearls which stood out to me (amongst many stand-out comments throughout, I hasten to add), is one which gives me particular delight.

"As a rule, immunities are almost completely gone from D&D 4e. In their place we have damage thresholds to reflect resistances and invulnerability. A fire elemental might ignore a wizards fireball, but an elder red dragon can still blast it into oblivion with its breath weapon"

Huzzah! I've always hated outright immunities, and I think this is an excellent development. Long may it stand! BTW, the above comment came from something about sneak attack, how almost everything now has some vital points that can be attacked (e.g. joints on a construct).

*Art*

I love all the art direction, with two exceptions.

1) I don't like spurs on all the humans, I think it looks silly and would probably be hugely inconvenient; the assumption that humans live on plains and use horses is an OK one (although in honesty they ought to be riverside and coast dwellers too - plains are notoriously poor terrain for farming and everything else), but I don't think it means that we should see spurs everywhere!

2) Halflings. Almost all the halfling pictures are indistinguisable from humans because there is typically nothing for scale. The best picture is probably of some halflings on a boat because the angle of the picture is looking down on them. My 2cp for the art direction )) is to ask to have more of the halfling pictures displayed from a humans eye level, i.e. looking down towards them a little. This would visually accentuate their stature in a way which is seriously missing at the moment.

Cheers


----------



## NexH (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> "As a rule, immunities are almost completely gone from D&D 4e. In their place we have damage thresholds to reflect resistances and invulnerability. A fire elemental might ignore a wizards fireball, but an elder red dragon can still blast it into oblivion with its breath weapon"




This fills me with joy.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 18, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> "I'm the goddamn Batman" would be better.




*I'm the goddam Batman*

Prerequisite: I'm Batman.

Description:  In addition to being Batman, you're the goddam Batman.


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Druid*
> The current design for druids allows them to select wildshape a lot more often, but at a price(?). Druids select shapes they can assume in much the same way that other classes pick spells and manoeuvres {so presumably they may have 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'per day' shapes}. They designed different forms for different needs - hawk for spying, mouse for sneaking, bear for tearing the orc king apart. To give an incentive to walk around in human form there will be a selection of nature themed spells to give some utility and ranged attacks.



OK, I have to say it.  This is so "World of Warcraft".  Sorry, it is.



> "As a rule, immunities are almost completely gone from D&D 4e. In their place we have damage thresholds to reflect resistances and invulnerability. A fire elemental might ignore a wizards fireball, but an elder red dragon can still blast it into oblivion with its breath weapon"



Ironically they provide the one example where it seems like Immunity is good.  Seriously, killing a fire elemental with fire?  I don't care if it's dragon breath, fire elementals shouldn't take damage from fire.


----------



## grimslade (Dec 18, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> OK, I have to say it.  This is so "World of Warcraft".  Sorry, it is.




Sorry, you're wrong. WoW contains no druid forms of hawk or mouse and the bear form would be a defender not 'ripping up the orc king'. Not to mention the whole argument is specious as the WoW druid is stolen from the D&D druid. Say it if you like, but you're wrong.


----------



## Voss (Dec 18, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> OK, I have to say it.  This is so "World of Warcraft".  Sorry, it is.




Only because the WoW druid is lifted directly from D&D in the first place.  They could be recursively feeding on each other and I wouldn't care, but really,  The tree-hugging hippy shapeshifter with some healing and lightning bolts is a D&Dism thats been borrowed by other people (like WoW).  It sort of stands out, since it doesn't bear any relation to the Druid of history or myth.


I agree about the fire elemental, however.  I can't figure out how the dragon's breath is 'extra   flamey' enough to harm the walking, talking Incarnation of the Essence of Fire.


----------



## Elarid (Dec 18, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> I agree about the fire elemental, however.  I can't figure out how the dragon's breath is 'extra   flamey' enough to harm the walking, talking Incarnation of the Essence of Fire.




Think about it this way - it would be like putting out a match with a blowtorch. The dragon's breath is so overpowering that the fire elemental can no longer sustain itself. For a brief moment, the elemental exists as part of the breath weapon. When the breath weapon dies off, so too does the elemental.

That's how I see it, anyway.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 18, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Only because the WoW druid is lifted directly from D&D in the first place.  They could be recursively feeding on each other and I wouldn't care, but really,  The tree-hugging hippy shapeshifter with some healing and lightning bolts is a D&Dism thats been borrowed by other people (like WoW).  It sort of stands out, since it doesn't bear any relation to the Druid of history or myth.
> 
> 
> I agree about the fire elemental, however.  I can't figure out how the dragon's breath is 'extra   flamey' enough to harm the walking, talking Incarnation of the Essence of Fire.




Volume.  Throw a pitcher of water at a person, he'll just get wet and maybe a little angry..  Aim a fire hose at him though, and he be getting bruised and knocked around.  Aim a tidal wave at him and he's gonna get crushed.

EDIT: Whoops, typo.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Druid*
> The current design for druids allows them to select wildshape a lot more often, but at a price(?). Druids select shapes they can assume in much the same way that other classes pick spells and manoeuvres {so presumably they may have 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'per day' shapes}. They designed different forms for different needs - hawk for spying, mouse for sneaking, bear for tearing the orc king apart. To give an incentive to walk around in human form there will be a selection of nature themed spells to give some utility and ranged attacks.




Hmmm...

My grognardism might be showing here, but I definitely prefer the traditional type druid (nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator) to the shape-shifty battle beast.

I wasn't too fond of 3Es emphasis on shapeshiftig ability, but now to have that be their primary schtick?

Having them removed from the PHB might be a good thing now... as I will probably have to develop my own version anyway.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 18, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> OK, I have to say it.  This is so "World of Warcraft".  Sorry, it is.




What server does T.H. White play on?


----------



## tombowings (Dec 18, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> My grognardism might be showing here, but I definitely prefer the traditional type druid (nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator) to the shape-shifty battle beast.
> 
> ...




I think that a cleric of a nature deity may be able to take over the nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator types, while the druid is more feral.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 18, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> My grognardism might be showing here, but I definitely prefer the traditional type druid (nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator) to the shape-shifty battle beast.




Scholar, healer and arbitrator? Sounds like a good starting place for a 4e Bard.

A level or two of cleric could handle the Nature part, I suppose.


----------



## kennew142 (Dec 18, 2007)

tombowings said:
			
		

> I think that a cleric of a nature deity may be able to take over the nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator types, while the druid is more feral.




I agree. I've never felt that the Druid class in D&D was very good at portraying quasi-historical druids. I'm using the name in my upcoming 4e campaign, but expect that I will use clerics to model them


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 18, 2007)

tombowings said:
			
		

> I think that a cleric of a nature deity may be able to take over the nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator types, while the druid is more feral.






			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Scholar, healer and arbitrator? Sounds like a good starting place for a 4e Bard.
> 
> A level or two of cleric could handle the Nature part, I suppose.




IMC druids had the Bardic Knowledge ability... no singing and prancing though.

As I'm not sure how cross-class power dipping / multi-classing works in 4E, I can't foretell how I would reproduce the druid. I assume the cleric will be the base for my build.

If I get the book that inlcudes the Beornling-type 4E "druid", it will get another name.


----------



## Khaalis (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Must... avoid... temptation... to call their city...
> Brigadoon!



Shhh....  you're dating yourself (and those of us who got it)...


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Dec 18, 2007)

Forbidden Planet released it here yesterday, I glanced/read through some interesting sections but my bank statements and impending Christmas turned me against actually buying it.

Tieflings seemed to have enormous.. tails..


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 18, 2007)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> Shhh....  you're dating yourself (and those of us who got it)...



Dating yourself?!!?? That would make you... 75? 85?


----------



## Najo (Dec 18, 2007)

I am so sold on 4e. Races and Classes is awesome.

The absolute most powerful thing that struck me...

Humanity's flaw is corruption. Just wow. Deep, powerful, epic, true.


----------



## Najo (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 1) I don't like spurs on all the humans, I think it looks silly and would probably be hugely inconvenient; the assumption that humans live on plains and use horses is an OK one (although in honesty they ought to be riverside and coast dwellers too - plains are notoriously poor terrain for farming and everything else), but I don't think it means that we should see spurs everywhere!




I don't think we will. But the commentary about the horse and man having a close relationship, like a biker and his bike and their relating the D&D human adventurer to the wild west cowboy and the sense of adventure, free sipirit and rugged lifestyle was just inspring and awesome. A very powerful mythological theme is now tied to the D&D humans that justifies the points of light setting and the sense of exploration and dangerous lifestyle of the adventurer. 

It is very cool.


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 18, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Sorry, you're wrong. WoW contains no druid forms of hawk or mouse and the bear form would be a defender not 'ripping up the orc king'. Not to mention the whole argument is specious as the WoW druid is stolen from the D&D druid. Say it if you like, but you're wrong.



Actually, WoW does have a bird form.  But I didn't mean the specific uses of the forms, I just meant the idea of making shapeshifting into a suite of specialized animal forms the primary focus of the class.  Originally Druids were just nature priests.  I didn't say it's bad, but oh yes, it is very World of Warcraft.  Bank it.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 18, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> OK, I have to say it.  This is so "World of Warcraft".  Sorry, it is.



Probably, but we're it's a coincidence, because it's a coherent development of the 3E druid. He could already do that, but had spellcasting on top. Splitting these two classes apart (shapeshifter and nature cleric) is very logical.
Besides, D&D had shapeshifting druids _before WoW_, so you're just saying that WoW has ripped off D&D before, so D&D becomes WoWish, if it uses its own concepts!?


			
				Dormammu said:
			
		

> Ironically they provide the one example where it seems like Immunity is good.  Seriously, killing a fire elemental with fire?  I don't care if it's dragon breath, fire elementals shouldn't take damage from fire.



Here, I have to agree with you. Elementals are the ONLY creatures where immunities are sensible. On the other hand... fire fighters fight fire with fire - you'd say that a dragon's breath is so hot, that it burns out the oxygen in the area... which is unfortunate for an elemental (but that's a pseudo-scientific explaination, that doesn't hold true if fire elementals are pure fire, that burns without any oxygen).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## StarFyre (Dec 18, 2007)

*ok..*

Immunities is one of the first things I'm houseruling back in...I'm sorry, but if The Devil isn't immune to fire, I'd sigh *grin* 

A balor also, should be immune to fire IMHO, as are elementals....being magical fire, one could say the oxygen requirement is meaningless...however, I can see the point of a dragon's breathe snuffing out all energy/air in the area.  

Still, for planar creatures, immunities I think make sense.  

However, at least most of 4E sounds really cool 

Still looking forward to it.

On a side note, was there any indication if the Druid is in the PHB or in next years PHB 2?

I also hope the psion gets put into PHB 2 instead of a separate psionics book. It would make more sense, and also make the psion like the wizard of phb 2..(with the most powers, etc, taking up most of the book)

Sanjay


----------



## ShinRyuuBR (Dec 18, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> My grognardism might be showing here, but I definitely prefer the traditional type druid (nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator) to the shape-shifty battle beast.
> 
> ...




Thinking in 3.x terms I would agree with you. Since we don't see the whole picture of 4E yet, we might be wrong in this thinking. See, multiclassing is said to work a lot better in 4E and, by what I've heard, I think it's reasonable to assume that you can, if you will, multiclass your druid into cleric for more healing/buffing spells to complement the druid's nature spells, and into wizard for some elemental damaging spells as well, and this might work smoothly. If this is the case, I think it's really better that each class focuses in its own thing and let multiclassing fill in these kind of blanks.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 18, 2007)

Wow, just wow.  This is the best book wotc has put out in years IMHO.  I'm totally onboard for 4e now and really, really want to see the default setting in its own campaign book.


----------



## Zweischneid (Dec 18, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Besides, D&D had shapeshifting druids _before WoW_, so you're just saying that WoW has ripped off D&D before, so D&D becomes WoWish, if it uses its own concepts!?




Yup.. sorry, but in that regard WoW killed D&D and took it's stuff. Lamentating the fact that you did it first wont change that. If it would, a certain Gary Gygax would still be helming the D&D franchise now. 

Shapeshifting druids simply is WoW now!  Live with it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 18, 2007)

No more WoW comments in this thread please, I don't want to see it derailed.

Thanks


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 18, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> I work in publishing so I might be able to answer what's going on. Most stores get their shipments a week or so ahead of time so they can put the books out on the shelf on the day of release. Some stores don't honor that and simply put the books out when they are received. It's bad form but lets threads like this happen. Same thing with the last Harry Potter book that some guy got shipped before the actual release date. The bigger the book, the more this bothers the publisher.




I work in publishing as well, and boy, do we come down like a hammer on stores that break those titles with a strict street date.  Usually they don't get the next one early, and if they are a repeat offender they don't get them ever.

It usually keeps stores in line.

Anyway, back on topic.  I have this reserved at my local game shop and hope to go pick it up tonight.


----------



## Liryel (Dec 18, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Volume.  Throw a picture of water at a person, he'll just get wet and maybe a little angry..  Aim a fire hose at him though, and he be getting bruised and knocked around.  Aim a tidal wave at him and he's gonna get crushed.




How does throwing a bit of paper with a drawing of water on it get someone wet?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

You guys convinced me to buy a copy, sounds very interesting so far.  Thanks.


----------



## IanArgent (Dec 18, 2007)

Well, this thread may have convinced my wife to let me get it (with a gift cert to B&N, probably)


----------



## Roman (Dec 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Druid*
> The current design for druids allows them to select wildshape a lot more often, but at a price(?). Druids select shapes they can assume in much the same way that other classes pick spells and manoeuvres {so presumably they may have 'at will', 'per encounter' and 'per day' shapes}. They designed different forms for different needs - hawk for spying, mouse for sneaking, bear for tearing the orc king apart. To give an incentive to walk around in human form there will be a selection of nature themed spells to give some utility and ranged attacks.




Sounds great - I am looking forward to the druid. 



> *Stand-out comment *
> One comment from Mike Mearls which stood out to me (amongst many stand-out comments throughout, I hasten to add), is one which gives me particular delight.
> 
> "As a rule, immunities are almost completely gone from D&D 4e. In their place we have damage thresholds to reflect resistances and invulnerability.




Also good! 



> A fire elemental might ignore a wizards fireball, but an elder red dragon can still blast it into oblivion with its breath weapon"




And here comes the bad part.  

If there is one sort of critters that ought to retain immunities it should be creatures actually composed of the given energy type. I find it ridiculous that a fire elemental will be vulnerable to fire. A red dragon being vulnerable to 'stronger fire'? Sure, not problem. But it is ludicrous to have fire elementals that can be directly harmed by fire.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 18, 2007)

I can believe that fire elementals can be hurt by fire. What if two elementals fought? No way one could defeat the other?

I think of elementals as creatures formed from a bit of some element that is inhabited and animated by a spiritual entity.

Its not that dragon's fire hurts the fire that composes the elemental. Its that it is simply so overwhelming that the elemental's life force can no longer maintain any cohesion against the onslaught. The spiritual "bond" that animates the flame and binds the spirit to the fire disintigrates and thus the elemental is destroyed.


----------



## Commonblade (Dec 18, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I can believe that fire elementals can be hurt by fire. What if two elementals fought? No way one could defeat the other?
> 
> I think of elementals as creatures formed from a bit of some element that is inhabited and animated by a spiritual entity.
> 
> Its not that dragon's fire hurts the fire that composes the elemental. Its that it is simply so overwhelming that the elemental's life force can no longer maintain any cohesion against the onslaught. The spiritual "bond" that animates the flame and binds the spirit to the fire disintigrates and thus the elemental is destroyed.




You know, I agreed with elementals being immune to their element. Right up until this post. Nice thought processes on this Dragonblade.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 18, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> My grognardism might be showing here, but I definitely prefer the traditional type druid (nature priest, scholar, healer, and arbitrator) to the shape-shifty battle beast.



That is not and has never been the character of the _D&D_ druid, not even in First Edition.

Not that it's always been so shapeshifting-oriented either, but you're arguing for a fiction.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 18, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I can believe that fire elementals can be hurt by fire. What if two elementals fought? No way one could defeat the other?
> 
> I think of elementals as creatures formed from a bit of some element that is inhabited and animated by a spiritual entity.
> 
> Its not that dragon's fire hurts the fire that composes the elemental. Its that it is simply so overwhelming that the elemental's life force can no longer maintain any cohesion against the onslaught. The spiritual "bond" that animates the flame and binds the spirit to the fire disintigrates and thus the elemental is destroyed.




Yeah!

Besides, it's not like we humans are immune to damage from fleshy things.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 18, 2007)

$20 for such a thin paperback is steep, _especially _ as a marketing promo book. It's not worth the price. $10 easily. $14 maybe. But not $20.

And I'm offended that they blatantly admitted they can't define the gnome race well enough to include in the PHB. I blame it on a lack of effort and creativity.


----------



## Roman (Dec 18, 2007)

Unlike elementals, humans are not the essence of flesh... 

I don't really find the arguments of why fire elementals should be harmed by fire very compelling. They are plausible, depending on game world,  and would be justifiable if immunities did not exist at all, but remember that immunities are not completely gone from the game and in such a case, elementals should have them. 

This is certainly not a dealbreaker for me as far 4E is concerned - it is just a nitpick. Sure, if necessary I could cook up a reason to justify fire elementals being vulnerable to fire. For example, it could be that fire elementals need fuel to burn, of which they have a certain inherent amounts stored. Being subjected to a fire of higher intensity than themselves burns their fuel up and thus harms them. Indeed, this could be a justification of why fire elementals just loooove to burn forests - they not only spread their element, but they also replenish their fuel supply! 

That would work and perhaps even be quite cool, but for a creature made up of say acid - well it may be more difficult to justify why acid hurts it. I guess it could be a chemically different type of acid, but still, it just seems arbitrary.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Its not that dragon's fire hurts the fire that composes the elemental. Its that it is simply so overwhelming that the elemental's life force can no longer maintain any cohesion against the onslaught. The spiritual "bond" that animates the flame and binds the spirit to the fire disintigrates and thus the elemental is destroyed.



I was going to make a dumb joke about "If I can hurt humans with a big enough piece of meat ...", but this is a lot better.

Besides, in Elder Wyrm v. Fire Elemental showdowns, the Elder Wyrm wins.  That's just the way it is.  Explain it however you like.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Besides, in Elder Wyrm v. Fire Elemental showdowns, the Elder Wyrm wins.  That's just the way it is.  Explain it however you like.




Spells of course! Oh wait, dragons no longer have spells, because that makes them complex and less dragon-like.   
This despite the fact that spellcasting combined with physical prowess and breath weapons defined a unique category of D&D dragons. 
I guess we have just hit another area of 4E where I am not keen on the decisions made...


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 19, 2007)

Roman said:
			
		

> Spells of course! Oh wait, dragons no longer have spells, because that makes them complex and less dragon-like.
> This despite the fact that spellcasting combined with physical prowess and breath weapons defined a unique category of D&D dragons.
> I guess we have just hit another area of 4E where I am not keen on the decisions made...




Dragon + Wizard class levels = Problem solved


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Dec 19, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> $20 for such a thin paperback is steep, _especially _ as a marketing promo book. It's not worth the price. $10 easily. $14 maybe. But not $20.
> 
> And I'm offended that they blatantly admitted they can't define the gnome race well enough to include in the PHB. I blame it on a lack of effort and creativity.



Now is your chance to write a 3rd party gnome supplement. I look forward to it, but, somehow, I don't expect it.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

*I has it too*

I got R&C today. No time to read it, but I thumbed through for the art.  There sure is a lot of art, so I imagine the printing costs were not negligible.  The paper is thicker than rulebook paper (to support the heavy printing on each page?).

First and foremost, there is no obviously bad art in book, but I do have a few comments:

*THE BAD*
I am not feeling the Tiefling's tail or horns (in concept its fine, but not as drawn).  They are both way too large for a creature with an otherwise perfectly normal human physiology.  They both feel "tacked on", rather than part of an integrated whole.  As I mentioned in another thread, the horns look like carnival masks or funny hats instead of part of their body.  And the tail (which is larger than either of their legs) should force them to walk at an angle or something, but somehow doesn't effect their center of balance at all? This is obviously a "design" issue though, and not a problem with any artist.

Whoever drew the "Human on horseback" on page 19 only has a passing familiarity with what horses look like.  The human on the horse looks awesome though.

There's something wrong with the boots humans wear in 4E.

*THE MEH*
Halflings still look just like humans. Without any kind of context I can't tell what it's a picture of without the caption.  I'm not sure if that's good or bad; and I'm not sure what I'd do differently; but it's on my mind.

Dragonborn boobs. I'm still not sure I buy that.

In an effort to give every race's weapons and armor a distinct "look" I think they made some of the weapons just unusable looking.  The tiefling (too flamey) and the dwarven (too heavy) weapons are what I'm thinking of here.  The elven weapons on the other hand are a good example of "different, but not impractical."

*THE GOOD*
The Dragonborn look good. I'm glad that the weird things on the arms of the dragonborn in the Michelle Carter interview are not a standard feature.  Maybe they're some kind of bracer?

The Dwarves and Elves look good too, and the Eladrin's subtle difference relative to the Elves are well done.  I think that as DM I will make a point though that anyone not an elf or eladrin will have a great deal of difficulty telling them apart (meaning, if you met one on the road you couldn't say what race it was).

The armor, weapons and clothes all look good.  No buckle fetishists to be found.  As mentioned above the boots on some pictures are weird (the heel is way too big and heavy), but that's minor.  Although there are a few instances were the armor makes me go "WTF?" (like the Dragonborn on pg. 17 and the "Voltron Dwarf" on page 31 (you know which one I'm talking about)) this is the minority.  We still have the occasional "chainmail bikini" issue (and you might think that a chainmail bikini on a dwarf-lady is a bad idea, but it's really more of a chainmail miniskirt and is not unattractive), but for the most part this stuff looks practical; something a "real adventurer" would wear.  Even the examples of the "Epic Tier" characters make you think of something the personal Champion of the Emperor of Rome would wear in battle: fancy, really expensive and possibly magical, but in no way inhibiting his ability to kick your ass.

The rest.  As I mentioned, there is no "bad" art in the book.  Every picture is a more than competent rendering of fantasy art.

*OVERALL GRADE: A*
The only thing between R&C's art and an A+ are the problems I mentioned with the Tiefling.  If all of the Tieflings had a tail like the tiefling warlock on page 70 (we've seen him before .. GenCon?) and better horn-skull matching, there would literally be nothing to complain about.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Dragonborn boobs. I'm still not sure I buy that.



Dude. Medusa in 3e had boobs. Pretty much anything humanoid and female has boobs in fantasy art.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dude. Medusa in 3e had boobs. Pretty much anything humanoid and female has boobs in fantasy art.



I'm aware. I'm surprised that they didn't draw Warforged with boobs.

But if they're going to make a reptilian, egg-laying PC race, I would think they'd make the effort to "sell the audience" on the idea that males and females look darn similar; and that they don't have boobs.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

Ah.  Someone forgot to mention that lizards weren't mammals, and therefor by definition, they lacked certain features?

Classic.

Out of curiousity...


> The Dwarves and Elves look good too, and the Eladrin's subtle difference relative to the Elves are well done. I think that as DM I will make a point though that anyone not an elf or eladrin will have a great deal of difficulty telling them apart (meaning, if you met one on the road you couldn't say what race it was).



You could tell them apart, so why consider this rule?  Or was the art distinction mostly clothing based?


----------



## Driddle (Dec 19, 2007)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Now is your chance to write a 3rd party gnome supplement. I look forward to it, but, somehow, I don't expect it.




Thanks for recognizing that I'm already tied up by other writing commitments.
Still, though, your support is appreciated. I didn't expect it.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ah.  Someone forgot to mention that lizards weren't mammals, and therefor by definition, they lacked certain features?



Pretty sure yaun-ti are reptilian, and have boobs. 

But then, I being a furry, don't mind the reptilian with boobs.


----------



## Voss (Dec 19, 2007)

Making the same mistake repeatedly doesn't make it any better.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Making the same mistake repeatedly doesn't make it any better.



You're welcome to interpret it as a mistake if you like.

I don't think reptiles walk up right and wield clubs either. But hey, I guess I'm just less of a stickler for reality.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 19, 2007)

Even though they don't nurse their young they still need boobs to... get guys to look at their fantasy art?  Hmmm...  maybe the females evolved with them to help them better wear protective chain mail bikinis?


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 19, 2007)

Doesn't really make sense, IMO, for a fire elemental to be immune to fire just because it's composed out of fire.  Throw one rock at another and the weaker one will break.  Send a wave crashing into another wave, and the less powerful one will be negated.  Throw two fireballs at one another and the bigger one would, logically, blow through the less powerful one.

So while a fire elemental is a big bad blaze; a big enough Dragon's fire breath is an even bigger blaze.

Now if it was, like, the god-king of the fire elementals or something, I could see where'd the complaint would come in.  Otherwise, if you're not the hottest thing in the universe, then there IS going to be something hotter than you.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 19, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Send a wave crashing into another wave, and the less powerful one will be negated.




Dr. Science says that this is not, generally speaking, true.   

I agree with the rest of your post, though!


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 19, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Dr. Science says that this is not, generally speaking, true.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post, though!




Well, I was speaking more of Tidal Wave kind of waves..  they'll crash into each other and the bigger wave will be the one with enough "oomph" left to keep going while the smaller one will have pretty much killed itself on the bigger one.

Though, I suppose I could be wrong on that.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 19, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Well, I was speaking more of Tidal Wave kind of waves..  they'll crash into each other and the bigger wave will be the one with enough "oomph" left to keep going while the smaller one will have pretty much killed itself on the bigger one.
> 
> Though, I suppose I could be wrong on that.




More than you ever wanted to know: If the tidal wave has crested (which is to say, its amplitude is less than the distance from sea-level to sea-bed), then it's more "falling" than "traveling", and all sorts of destructive crud can happen.

But out where they're able to cross (since, at land, who sends a tidal wave back *out*?) -- nope, they just nod hello to each other as they pass, each intent on wreaking devastation on some small island.

Or so my physics teachers have lead me to believe.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 19, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> More than you ever wanted to know: If the tidal wave has crested (which is to say, its amplitude is less than the distance from sea-level to sea-bed), then it's more "falling" than "traveling", and all sorts of destructive crud can happen.
> 
> But out where they're able to cross (since, at land, who sends a tidal wave back *out*?) -- nope, they just nod hello to each other as they pass, each intent on wreaking devastation on some small island.
> 
> Or so my physics teachers have lead me to believe.



My bad then.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Send a wave crashing into another wave, and the less powerful one will be negated.



Lackhand is right. They'll pass right through one another, undiminished.  Waves are energy moving through a medium, not two "chunks" of medium like in your rock example.



			
				UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> if you're not the hottest thing in the universe, then there IS going to be something hotter than you.



A fact which Lindsay Lohan would do well to remember.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> You could tell them apart, so why consider this rule?  Or was the art distinction mostly clothing based?



I could tell them apart because of the captions.  There's a "comparison" picture of "Elf, Eladrin and Drow" on pg. 39, and if you reversed the color on the drow you could be forgiven for thinking it was the same chick in three different outfits.

Somewhat more seriously though, I expect the elven and eladrin races to have some amount of variation in bone structure and build; at least I assume they're not all clones of the iconic (Platonic?) representations in R&C.  A "square jawed" Eladrin would be indistinguishable from an elf.

And it's not a "rule", just one of those things I mention to players, like "By the way, humans in Korelia refer to both Elves and Eladrin as "Pointies" because they can't tell them apart."  Sort of the same way some Westerners can't tell the differences between any two kinds of Sub-Saharan African or between Chinese and Japanese.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> But then, I being a furry, don't mind the reptilian with boobs.



How is your being a furry relevant to your opinion about a reptile?  No fur.  



> Even though they don't nurse their young they still need boobs to... get guys to look at their fantasy art?



Warforged seem to make do without.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm curious, does RC give a sample of how classes are structured? As in, when class abilities/bonus feats are metted out?

So far all I know is that at 11th you gain a prestige path, and at 21st an epic destiny...in addition to your standard class abilities.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 19, 2007)

> RPG_Tweaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




!?!?

Sure it is:



			
				AD&D Players Handbook (The Druid) said:
			
		

> Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest.




The ancient Druids fufilled all the roles I listed.

They weren't exactly book scholars, but they were repositories of history, and sages to kings. This is exactly why, IMC, I gave them Bardic Knowledge (even in 1E).


----------



## am181d (Dec 19, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> They weren't exactly book scholars, but they were repositories of history, and sages to kings. This is exactly why, IMC, I gave them Bardic Knowledge (even in 1E).




I don't think "I gave them an extra ability to make them better fit a role" is great evidence that a class fit that role to begin with.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 19, 2007)

Okay, here's another thought on the Fire vs Fire Elemental idea.

What would happen if you dropped a Fire Elemental onto another Fire Elemental?  Would the grounded Fire Elemental just shrug off the damage from the dropped Elemental, since it was essentially a ginormous fireball being shot at him from above?

Heh, I was trying to figure out why my spell checker was hitching on ginormous until I realized it was technically a word until recently.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 19, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Pretty sure yaun-ti are reptilian, and have boobs.
> 
> But then, I being a furry, don't mind the reptilian with boobs.




Yuan-ti are aberrations, not reptiles.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 19, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yuan-ti are aberrations, not reptiles.




Types exist independent of class - you can get reptilian aberrations, mammalian aberrations, and so on. By the same token, I could say: dragonborn are humanoids, not reptiles. 

Yuan-ti, dragonborn and dragons have reptilian and mammalian features. Yuan-ti and dragonborn have breasts despite their reptilian features, dragons do not have breasts despite their mammalian features.

P.S. Yuan-ti were monstrous humanoids in 3.0. Did that change in 3.5?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 19, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> !?!?
> 
> Sure it is:



Nope. That's what Gary wrote in the book, but it's not what the class *was*, or *did*, as a collection of mechanics in the game, which is why you *had* to give them Bardic Knowledge as a house rule.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 19, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> The ancient Druids fufilled all the roles I listed.
> 
> They weren't exactly book scholars, but they were repositories of history, and sages to kings. This is exactly why, IMC, I gave them Bardic Knowledge (even in 1E).




The fact that you had to alter the rules to fulfill that role kinda indicates that maybe the game never _mechanically _supported the role of the "ancient Druid." 

The good news is, you'll be able to house rule 4e druids into 'classic' druids just as easily.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

Quickleaf said:
			
		

> I'm curious, does RC give a sample of how classes are structured? As in, when class abilities/bonus feats are metted out?
> 
> So far all I know is that at 11th you gain a prestige path, and at 21st an epic destiny...in addition to your standard class abilities.




No mechanical details like that in the book, I'm afraid.


----------



## Intrope (Dec 19, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ah.  Someone forgot to mention that lizards weren't mammals, and therefor by definition, they lacked certain features?
> 
> Classic.



Well, boobs (meaning nulliparous breasts--those present before first pregnancy) aren't a feature of female Mammals: they're a (delightful!) feature of female Humans only. 

For my part, the 'every fantasy quasi-humanoid female has boobs' schtik is purely a convenience for Human players (100% of the games I've ever been in! ) to make it somewhat easier to think/characterize them. (And makes for hotter art!)

And I agree with Irda Ranger's thoughts on the tiefling art: those tails are silly fat, and the horns are really not well integrated into the skulls.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 19, 2007)

For some reason, I'm getting a Trogdor vibe off the Dragonborn. I'm really not sure why but something about looking at some of their pictures makes me want to scream "TROGDOOOOOOR! TROGDOOOOOOR!"


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 19, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Nope. That's what Gary wrote in the book, but it's not what the class *was*, or *did*, as a collection of mechanics in the game, which is why you *had* to give them Bardic Knowledge as a house rule.




With the exception of "scholar" the 1E druid class *was*, and *did* what Gary wrote in the description. As a collection of mechanics in the game they _were indeed_ a nature priest, a healer, and (as absolute neutral) reliable arbitrators.



1E had no skill rules, so there where no mechanics to effectively cover class-related areas of knowledge, implied talents, or their non-adventuring function. There was nothing but what was extrapolated from the class name and a meagre description. It had to be assumed that a fighter knew about warcraft, a wizard knew about arcane lore, and a cleric knew about religion.

I knew little about Druids at that time, so I read up on them. From that, I learned they functioned as sages, which allowed me to assumed they knew about  history.


My personal tweak to the Druid was only tangentally applied to the argument, and not intended as evidence to support my claim. It was mentioned merely because of an OCD that compels me to speak about "my solution" to the non-existant skill rules. If we were talking about any of the other classes, I probably would've mentioned the comparable "professional knowledge" skills I'd given them.



So, when I said, my 1E perception of Druids included all the things I claimed, it is all backed by the 1E PHB... except for scholar*, which was a non-mechanical implication of the _official_ description in the book. 






* Rather than scholar, I should've used historian as a better term.


----------



## ShinRyuuBR (Dec 19, 2007)

> can believe that fire elementals can be hurt by fire. What if two elementals fought? No way one could defeat the other?




In 3.5, only half of a fire elemental's damage from blows is fire-typed. The other half, plus STR, is bludgeoning. That's how a greater elemental beats a lesser one: its form is consistent enough to break and be broken. Not by coincidence, that's how the PC's steel break them as well.



> What would happen if you dropped a Fire Elemental onto another Fire Elemental? Would the grounded Fire Elemental just shrug off the damage from the dropped Elemental, since it was essentially a ginormous fireball being shot at him from above?




No, the dropped fire elemental would deal crushing damage, since its a corporeal creature.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 19, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> For some reason, I'm getting a Trogdor vibe off the Dragonborn.




Well, Trogdor WAS a man, he was a Dragon-Man... No he's just a dragon.... but he is still TROGDOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 19, 2007)

Note that the crushing damage is very little: as I recall, doesn't a fire elemental weigh something like Small: 1 pound, Medium: 2 pounds, Large: 4 pounds, Huge: 8 pounds, Gargantuan: 16 pounds?

So, no damage, much shrugging. It's like being softly bludgeoned to death with feathers.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Dec 19, 2007)

> Races and Classes--I has it!




I don't - my FLGS apparently sold out by 6pm last night when I called them.  Yes, I could get it somewhere else, but Im morally opposed to buying outside gaming stores. Now Im on hold for their second shipment. 

I'll continue to read the exerpts here, and see if the wave of option changes, I felt burned on complete Psion, the prerelease opinion was positive, but it swung the other way in the following weeks. Lets see how this book fares.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Dec 19, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Types exist independent of class - you can get reptilian aberrations, mammalian aberrations, and so on. By the same token, I could say: dragonborn are humanoids, not reptiles.
> 
> Yuan-ti, dragonborn and dragons have reptilian and mammalian features. Yuan-ti and dragonborn have breasts despite their reptilian features, dragons do not have breasts despite their mammalian features.




So is this why Bibblioboop the goddess of the Kuo-toa has breasts?  That's bugged me for a long while.  (1st ed dieties & demigods artwork)


----------



## SCMrks (Dec 19, 2007)

I got the book last night and looked through it some, mostly looking at the art which is good. Some of my observations are:

You can tell halflings apart from humans because halflings now have corn rows and braids.
Dragonborn do not have tails but Tieflings have huge tails.
Dragonborn seem to add wings to their outfits. Some of the Dragonborn pictures have wings that look like kites or gliders attached to them. I think they are made and not real wings because it looks like they have stitches and seams in them.
I counted 33 pictures of females of which 16 have outfits that expose their midsection. Just on observation, I know sex sells better than practicallity.
Most weapons look impractical and cartoonish by being oversized.
I was wondering what that one suit of dwarven armor reminded me of and an earlier poster mentioned it, voltron dwarf.
There is a great picture of a female elf warlock in the forest that makes me think the fey pact warlock will be a druid substitute until PHB2 comes out.

In the human section a new god named Ioun is mentioned. At least it is new to me.

The Ranger description mentions the ranger needs a defender best friend in combat to block for him and healing. Sounds like the ranger won't have many hit points.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

SCMrks said:
			
		

> In the human section a new god named Ioun is mentioned. At least it is new to me.




Originator of the Ioun stones, I guess? I was surprised that in the text they refer to Ioun as feminine though - I've always imagined Ioun as masculine (latterly influenced by Congenio Ioun from Piratecats storyhour, naturally)


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 19, 2007)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> So is this why Bibblioboop the goddess of the Kuo-toa has breasts?  That's bugged me for a long while.  (1st ed dieties & demigods artwork)



Well, the weirdness of that is that Blibdoolpoolp isn't represented as a kuo-toa; she's represented as a female _human_ with the head of a lobster. I always assumed that was a remnant of the kuo-toa's human origins (aren't they a degenerate human "race" that moved first to the seas, then to the lightless waters of the Underdark?) or to some sort of "found art" (the kuo-toa based Blib's idol on a human statue they found; they just stuck a lobster head on it to make it more aquatic and thus comfortingly familiar).


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Originator of the Ioun stones, I guess? I was surprised that in the text they refer to Ioun as feminine though - I've always imagined Ioun as masculine (latterly influenced by Congenio Ioun from Piratecats storyhour, naturally)




Ioun is not a new invention, he was a Netherese Archmage and the inventor of Ioun stones or "Congenio's pebbles."  If you have any of the 2e Arcane Age products that's where you'll find him.  In the Netheril Age of Magic one I think.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Dec 19, 2007)

Ioun should not be used since the IOUN stones are actually from Jack Vance's dying earth series.  They should not try to ursurp the property of Vance by making their own backstory, IMO.  

AFAIK, Vance gave implicit permission to use this from Gary Gygax or was flattered and didn't care about IP stuff at the time, so I think Wizards should respect that and not try to explain where the stones came from.


----------



## Howndawg (Dec 19, 2007)

I picked it up yesterday and read through it. A few observations:

Dragonborn: Think Garr in Breath of Fire III without wings at first, but can grow them later, and you've got a good idea what they look like.

Humans: Stylistically a cross between classical and Dungeonpunk.  Medievalpunk sounds like a good name.

Dwarven armor looks Kirbyesque.  These guys would fit well in Asgard.

PHBII confirmed on page 10.  Barbarians and druids mentioned as going into it.  

Paragon paths mentioned:  Vigilant Defender, Arcane Archer, Veiled Assassin, Weaponmaster, Mystic Theurge, Prince of Knaves, Cavalier, and Battle Captain.  Not class specific but aimed primarily at two classes.

Gods mentioned (I hope I spell all these right):  Bahamut, Tiamat, Moradin, Correllon, Sehanine, Obad Hai, Avandra, Asmodeus, Pelor, Kord, Bane, Vecna, Ioun, Erathis, The Raven Queen, and the god of night whose name starts with "Z" but I can't remember it right now.

There is a picture of an elf primal blaster in the back.  What is a primal blaster?  An upcoming class?  If so I hope its a placesetter name.  Looks like an arcane archer.

From hints in the book, looks like the Swashbuckler got mugged by the ranger and rogue.

The wizard section mentions illusionists and conjurers as possible upcoming classes or paragon paths.

The dwarf section mentions elementalists.  Another possible class or just flavor text?

That's all I can think of for now.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 19, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> Gods mentioned (I hope I spell all these right):  Bahamut, Tiamat, Moradin, Correllon, Sehanine, Obad Hai, Avandra, Asmodeus, Pelor, Kord, Bane, Vecna, Ioun, Erathis, The Raven Queen, and the god of night whose name starts with "Z" but I can't remember it right now.



Zehir.  He was likened to Set in an early form of the Human creation story (which was dropped, but I'm not sure this means Zehir won't resemble Set).


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 19, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> Dwarven armor looks Kirbyesque.  These guys would fit well in Asgard.



Y'all thought I was enthusiastic BEFORE?

You ain't seen NOTHING yet.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 19, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Y'all thought I was enthusiastic BEFORE?
> 
> You ain't seen NOTHING yet.



Careful there, buddy. The internet can only handle so much fanboyism and partisanship.

Wait, what am I saying? I think the internet has a pretty much unlimited capacity in that respect. Have at it.


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 19, 2007)

SCMrks said:
			
		

> The Ranger description mentions the ranger needs a defender best friend in combat to block for him and healing. Sounds like the ranger won't have many hit points.



Or that they are pushing archery over two-weapon fighting and archery still penalizes you when used within melee range of an enemy.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Dec 19, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> > Dragonborn: Think Garr in Breath of Fire III
> 
> Who?
> 
> ...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 20, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> > Humans: Stylistically a cross between classical and Dungeonpunk.  Medievalpunk sounds like a good name.
> 
> Lame. Sick of "punk" garbage in RPG (and companies wonder why rpg lost its market)




Don't worry, it's not really punky. 

The art direction for Humans is that with their relatively short lifespan compared to the other races they tend to 'carpe diem', and are less concerned about whether all their equipment and armour match up, so long as it works.

I think it works as a rationale and as a direction. Almost all the human pictures look like 'adventurers' to me.


----------



## Dormammu (Dec 20, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> > The wizard section mentions illusionists and conjurers as possible upcoming classes or paragon paths.
> 
> Conjurer and Necromancer as a class would be good. Necro could have a "undeath" power source.



Illusionist would be ok as a Paragon path imo (a class might be cooler, but it also might be too little to base a 4E class on).  Necromancer is IDEAL as a later path.  Necromancers are traditionally always magic-users who later delve into the dark arts of death.  Much cooler than a pure class where they are conjuring the dead at level 1.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 20, 2007)

I love that they put Weapon Master back in as a Paragon path. That was one omission from 3.5 that I missed from 3.0.


----------



## Intrope (Dec 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't worry, it's not really punky.
> 
> The art direction for Humans is that with their relatively short lifespan compared to the other races they tend to 'carpe diem', and are less concerned about whether all their equipment and armour match up, so long as it works.
> 
> I think it works as a rationale and as a direction. Almost all the human pictures look like 'adventurers' to me.



 What's curious about that is the only two other races actually *mentioned* there lifespans: Dragonborn (same as humans, but grow faster--than modern humans anyway!) and Eladrins (~300 years IIRC; I've already loaned my R&C out). 

For that matter, gray elves (==Eladrin) were the really long-lived ones; 300 years is quite a bit shorter than older editions' ~1000 years or 3.5's 550 year span. On the other hand, we can dispense with the 100 years of childhood bit too (and good riddance to rubbish).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 20, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> *Dwarves*
> They're getting rid of the Charisma-penalty, so they're now equally excelling as Fighter and Paladins. They're still sturdy and resilient, as before. Ah, and darkvision is going away, because it makes normal vision too weak (since everybody and their dog has darkvision in 3E) and makes the job easier on the DM, since he doesn't need to describe rooms for the normal-vision and the 60'-darkvision and the 120'-darkvision guys separately.




I hope, for the sake of continuity, they are at least getting Low-light vision.

I like what they did with Darkvision in Star Wars SAGA.  Darkvision basically gives you normal sight in darkness (basically all they did was remove the arbitrary range limit).  So if you can normally see X feet in front of you when it is light out, you can see the same distance when it is dark out if you have Darkvision.



			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I like the new conception of dwarven women. The artist in the commentary strived to give them a more feminine look... and works pretty well.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I wonder what the law is about scanning an image (art) from a book and posting it on the web for all to view?


----------



## withak (Dec 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I wonder what the law is about scanning an image (art) from a book and posting it on the web for all to view?



There's a sketch of a dwarf woman in one of the four-page teasers Wizards put up for R&C: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pr/20071218a

Find the link that says "Dwarves"; it's a zipped PDF.


----------



## SCMrks (Dec 20, 2007)

In the write up about Tieflings it says they have thin tails so the art may be an old version that has been changed.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I hope, for the sake of continuity, they are at least getting Low-light vision.
> 
> I like what they did with Darkvision in Star Wars SAGA.  Darkvision basically gives you normal sight in darkness (basically all they did was remove the arbitrary range limit).  So if you can normally see X feet in front of you when it is light out, you can see the same distance when it is dark out if you have Darkvision.
> 
> ...




Yup, Low-light vision is confirmed for Dwarves.
My question is, is it still confirmed for Elvadrins, or do they get something new and different?

And it's naughty to scan-and-post, and besides, *The Rouse* asked us not to. While wearing a tie. Ah well, I'm sure they'll post an art gallery soon, right?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2007)

Intrope said:
			
		

> What's curious about that is the only two other races actually *mentioned* there lifespans: Dragonborn (same as humans, but grow faster--than modern humans anyway!) and Eladrins (~300 years IIRC; I've already loaned my R&C out).
> 
> For that matter, gray elves (==Eladrin) were the really long-lived ones; 300 years is quite a bit shorter than older editions' ~1000 years or 3.5's 550 year span. On the other hand, we can dispense with the 100 years of childhood bit too (and good riddance to rubbish).



Oh, I hope they "fix" the long times as child/adolescent for the humanoid races. I always disliked that, it seemed to be make little sense having humans and elves living side by side, but humans being grown-ups at 18 years, and elves needing half a century. I can see Elves considering mere 30 year olds still as a child, but this shouldn't mean that these "childs" aren't as mentally, physically and emotionally developed as 30 year old humans


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 20, 2007)

Personaly, on that account, I 'shadowruned' a bit and cut the lifespan of the longer-living races... One milenium for an elf, nah...


----------



## Clavis (Dec 20, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Personaly, on that account, I 'shadowruned' a bit and cut the lifespan of the longer-living races... One milenium for an elf, nah...




Personally, I always thought anything less than 1000 years for an elf was too short.

An truly interesting idea (IMHO) for elves would be to make them actually be immortal, but only able to remember the last 20 years or so of their life. It would explain why every elf isn't epic-level (because they are constantly forgetting their old skills and identities). Something in me likes the idea of elves as immortal adolescents, aware that they are going to live forever, but never becoming any wiser for it.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Personally, I always thought anything less than 1000 years for an elf was too short.
> 
> An truly interesting idea (IMHO) for elves would be to make them actually be immortal, but only able to remember the last 20 years or so of their life. It would explain why every elf isn't epic-level (because they are constantly forgetting their old skills and identities). Something in me likes the idea of elves as immortal adolescents, aware that they are going to live forever, but never becoming any wiser for it.




I am not so attached to the tolkienesque vision, so I want to divorce them a bit more - plus, hugely long lifespan are kind of... for me, they should be reserved for entities like dragons.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 21, 2007)

In my first 3e campaign, Bards were all elves and all elves were bards. It was "their" magic. The bardic knowledge skill then became a reflection of how long they had lived, because in the last 200-400 years they had picked up all kinds of interesting information.

I'd got quite a detailed world history worked out too, so parties would often come across ruins and the elf would remember being at the siege which had destroyed the castle 200 years earlier.

It gave a nice 'feel' to that game.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 21, 2007)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> I am not so attached to the tolkienesque vision, so I want to divorce them a bit more - plus, hugely long lifespan are kind of... for me, they should be reserved for entities like dragons.




I agree with you as far as elves being Tolkien-like. I don't personally like his chaste, self-righteous take on them. I like my elves more like the fay of medieval stories: lusty, petty, irresponsible, tricky, arrogant and drug-addled.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I agree with you as far as elves being Tolkien-like. I don't personally like his chaste, self-righteous take on them. I like my elves more like the fay of medieval stories: lusty, petty, irresponsible, tricky, arrogant and drug-addled.



So, elves are the celebrities of the D&D world?

I can see an elven Cortney Love. And Tommy Chong makes a perfect wood elf.


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 21, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Originator of the Ioun stones, I guess? I was surprised that in the text they refer to Ioun as feminine though - I've always imagined Ioun as masculine (latterly influenced by Congenio Ioun from Piratecats storyhour, naturally)



I thought Ioun was the god that got cut in half by the primordials, and who's halves rose again  Tiamat and Bahamut?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 21, 2007)

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> I thought Ioun was the god that got cut in half by the primordials, and who's halves rose again  Tiamat and Bahamut?



I think you're thinking of Iuz?


----------



## UndeadScottsman (Dec 21, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I think you're thinking of Iuz?



Possibly.  The story was mentioned in the Dragonborn section, IIRC.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 21, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Raven Queen?? (lame name) Half the gods sound like good choices, other half....



I think it's a great name. I've already decided that the deities of my Fourth Edition homebrew aren't going to have names, but rather titles. "The Raven Queen" or "The Broken Tomb" are much cooler names than "Sehanine" or "Corellon".


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 21, 2007)

Io, I think. Io's a draconic deity with a long pedigree, but it has been mentioned that Bahamut and Tiamat arose from Io's death.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 21, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, elves are the celebrities of the D&D world?
> 
> I can see an elven Cortney Love. And Tommy Chong makes a perfect wood elf.




I don't have a problem with that. Meet an elf in my campaign, and they will probably be stoned, will try to get you stoned, and will try to have sex with you, regardless of gender.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I like my elves more like the fay of medieval stories: lusty, petty, irresponsible, tricky, arrogant and drug-addled.




Another nice (and surprisingly traditional) take on elves is in Terry Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies". You could sum it up as saying that elves are like cats (lovely to look at, etc)... and all the rest of the world are mice...


----------



## SCMrks (Dec 21, 2007)

Barbarian may be replacing the ranger as the druid's paladin. Barbarians are described as becoming like totem warriors. And as paladins are to clerics, barbarians are to druids.


----------

