# Shadowfell Box set coming in 2011! (an other GenCon announcements)



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

And I was merely hoping for a hardcover.

Awesome I say. Awesome!


----------



## SquareKnot (Aug 7, 2010)

Details? Source? Pictures? Box contents? Cover art? Is this a new trend for settings? So many questions.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Aug 7, 2010)

So this the 4e Ravenloft?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Its info coming from GenCon... I am sure the bloggers will provide more info when they have the time. 

Thanks to davethegame and newbiedm amongst others for providing a live feed from GenCon.

Starting with Essentials, magic items will be grouped into common, uncommon, and rares. Rare more powerful and cannot be created by ritual. Giving the power back to the DM. Most current items will fall into the uncommon category. Only common can be created by the players.

The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond. Boxed set that includes poster maps.
Shadowfell includes a "despair deck." Cthulhu-esque insanities that the DM gives out that includes rp and rules.

Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. Box of monsters. Includes tokens, encounters, poster maps.

Conquest of Nerath strategy war game board game. 2-4 players fighting across the map of ruined Nerath. Plastic minis, with heroes and armies

Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier. Introduces themes for core D&D. New options, feats. Non-combat options like Blacksmith

Neverwinter Campaign Guide for Forgotten Realms, including the new bladesinger class

Hero Builder's Handbook. Aimed at players who want to tinker and build something detailed with your character. Not in development yet

Madness of Gardmore Abbey - new superadventure box, includes deck of many things.

4th Quarter: Ravenloft Roleplaying Game. Play vampires, werewolves, as well as other standard classes.

Q&A: Working on new minis set for 2011, nothing to announce yet. Ravenloft will be integrated into D&D and be in the Shadowfell

DDI updates... Dungeon and Dragon magazines continuing, nothing else to announce yet but updates in the works.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 7, 2010)

The theme is definately box sets with contents you cant match with the DDI.

Maps, cards, tokens.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

There is supposedly a new "RPG component" in the Ravenloft setting, to be revealed at a later date.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 7, 2010)

SquareKnot said:


> Details? Source?* Pictures*? Box contents? Cover art? Is this a new trend for settings? So many questions.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.





Picture:

Shadowfell box set. Woohoo!!!!! on Twitpic


----------



## Dannager (Aug 7, 2010)

These are some really killer announcements. More boxed sets, more secondary games (war game), decks of cards!, new and continued setting supplements, and a Ravenloft setting! I thought this was going to be a pretty boring GenCon as far as D&D announcements went. Clearly, I was not correct.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

In the DM kit and Rules Compendium there will be an alternative to the parcel system - such as Random treasure tables.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

There was a request for a book that is just a lot of different skill challenge options/scenarios - Bill told @mikemearls to get on that (from wizards_dnd twitter)


----------



## ggroy (Aug 7, 2010)

More pictures.

Twitpic / newbiedm


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Races will be retrofitted to have ability score choice in Essentials, like the PHB3 ones.

There will be new races in Heroes of Shadow.


----------



## deganawida (Aug 7, 2010)

Ravenloft where you actually play the vampires and werewolves as well as normal races?  Am I reading that right?  A bit of WoD in DnD?  That's actually really cool, and might serve to help break Ravenloft from the traditional "adventure" category/rut it's been stuck in and get people thinking that it actually could be a campaign setting/subsystem for DnD in a way the 2e boxed sets never did.


----------



## Insight (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Races will be retrofitted to have ability score choice in Essentials, like the PHB3 ones.




This is long overdue.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

deganawida said:


> Ravenloft where you actually play the vampires and werewolves as well as normal races?  Am I reading that right?  A bit of WoD in DnD?  That's actually really cool, and might serve to help break Ravenloft from the traditional "adventure" category/rut it's been stuck in and get people thinking that it actually could be a campaign setting/subsystem for DnD in a way the 2e boxed sets never did.




You can play a ghost as well!! (allegedly)


----------



## deganawida (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> You can play a ghost as well!! (allegedly)




_Wicked._


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

PDF and e-books: They are still working on it, but are not ready to say anything yet but will have news soon.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 7, 2010)

Hmmm ... no DMG3?

From twitter feeds:

maialideth:  "@Wizards_DnD @newbiedm @criticalhits Dungeon Master Guide 3?"

newbiedm:  "@maialideth no"


----------



## A Passing Maniac (Aug 7, 2010)

"DMG3 prob in 2012, not enough groups in epic yet, support for epic in ddi"

newbiedm (newbiedm) on Twitter


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

The DMG3 might come in 2012, but there are not enough groups playing in the epic tier yet. Instead epic tier support through the DDI.

Apparently they are trying to limit the use of stun and to a certain degree daze in their design.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Rules Compendium isn't an alternative to the core books. Core books will be reprinted "when the time is right."

(meaning when demand is right, I assume)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier. Introduces themes for core D&D. New options, feats. Non-combat options like Blacksmith




  Sounds good. I've been of two minds about 4E, and one of my complaints is that the mechanics are tilted too heavily towards the combat side--I'd like a little more robustness on the noncombat side, a la Star Wars Saga Edition. This may address that issue. I'd still like less grid-oriented combat, but that's a lost battle at this point--and with the tokens (and the _Castle Ravenloft_ board game) I should at least be able to get by without dropping thousands on miniatures, should I decide to take the plunge. 



> Hero Builder's Handbook. Aimed at players who want to tinker and build something detailed with your character. Not in development yet




   Sounds like _Player's Options: Skills & Powers_--but this time, with the better underpinnings and more rigorous development, it could be done *right*. (I always thought the problem with S&P was poor execution combined with bringing to light some hidden problems in the system--proto-CoDzilla, for example--rather than the core concept.)



> 4th Quarter: Ravenloft Roleplaying Game. Play vampires, werewolves, as well as other standard classes.




  Huzzah! Just when WotC ends one of my true loves this past year, they bring back the other!

  And it sounds like it's a stand-alone game. I was wondering about this as a possibility when Gamma World was announced, and I'm glad to see it happening. Part of that is because, while I think 4E's rules can work with Ravenloft, the 'core D&D experience' that early 4E was shooting for would clash with a lot of Ravenloft's assumptions. What I've heard about later products (DMG2's alternate rewards system, Dark Sun) suggests they're willing to move away from that, but making Ravenloft a stand-alone but compatible with D&D means that the core game can be more solidly Ravenloftian, but you can dip into it or mesh it with standard D&D as well.



Jack99 said:


> There is supposedly a new "RPG component" in the Ravenloft setting, to be revealed at a later date.




  Intriguing. They've got a madness system in the Shadowfell boxed set; with the new inclusion of monster PCs as standard, perhaps we'll see a new take on the Dark Powers checks and corruption rules of previous editions?



deganawida said:


> Ravenloft where you actually play the vampires and werewolves as well as normal races?  Am I reading that right?  A bit of WoD in DnD?




  The timing's right, since WW is largely abandoning print product and going to PDFs. This may make sense for their core audience, but it may also leave a hole that this new product can fill, in addition to the old fans and the core D&D audience.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

There will be more race based books- maybe. The Dragonborn and Tiefling books were a format that were difficult for stores, looking at new ways to present race books.

*Atari has an announcement coming about some kind of D&D video game but they can't talk about it here.*

Okay, that got a bit too big ><

Atari will make announcement on future #DnD digital games and products - is another version of the news, so...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2010)

I hope these boxed sets actually turn out to be, you know, boxed sets this time. The giants super adventure was supposed to be a boxed set and that was canned.

And I hope they are affordable boxed sets. Hard line to walk I imagine but...


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Fortune cards - not meant to be collected but they are randomized. Meant to be opened up at the table while playing. No deck-building.

Sounds to me like those random things that happen at encounters, via twitter. Probably (actually by far) the least interesting thing about what is coming the next year.


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 7, 2010)

... 

I am stunned, and baffled, and my head may a splode. Non-combat mechanics? Random tables? Reworking magic items? I-I-*POP*

Seriously? Why? I liked the material as written. I really did. I bought into the 4th Edition design asestetic, and now they're flipping it on its head.

Oi vay.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

There will be something for the Feywild, but no announcements yet.


----------



## deganawida (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> There will be more race based books- maybe. The Dragonborn and Tiefling books were a format that were difficult for stores, looking at new ways to present race books.
> 
> *Atari has an announcement coming about some kind of D&D video game but they can't talk about it here.*
> 
> ...




Given the Neverwinter book, most likely a Neverwinter Nights MMO.  Doubtful it would be BG3.  Would be better IMO if it were set in the PoL world, but that's a pipe dream.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Ravenloft wil be a campaign setting you can hook into your game AND is its own game (like gamma world for example)

Apparently, one of mearls's new job duties is reducing the amount of errata on new rules.

Also, it was mentioned that Bill S. told Mearls (live at the panel) to get to work on a Skill Challenge book.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Also, another of Mearl's goals is to make the new D&D books more appealing to read with more story instead of just rules in Compendium.


----------



## Pamela (Aug 7, 2010)

deganawida said:


> Given the Neverwinter book, most likely a Neverwinter Nights MMO.  Doubtful it would be BG3.  Would be better IMO if it were set in the PoL world, but that's a pipe dream.




I tend to think you're right about it being NWN-related too. PoLand is too 4e-related and the FR novels at least have a large following outside D&D; they'll want to attract those people to the game, is my guess.


----------



## deganawida (Aug 7, 2010)

Pamela said:


> I tend to think you're right about it being NWN-related too. PoLand is too 4e-related and the FR novels at least have a large following outside D&D; they'll want to attract those people to the game, is my guess.




Yeah, and the Neverwinter Nights games have sold a lot of copies, and are probably the only reason that Atari is still somewhat solvent.

Any word on the release time-frame for Champions of the Heroic Tier?  That right there is something that I missed in 4e, and one of the reasons why we went back to 2e (though I'm going to put together an Essentials-only campaign).


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> ...
> 
> I am stunned, and baffled, and my head may a splode. Non-combat mechanics? Random tables? Reworking magic items? I-I-*POP*
> 
> ...



Feel free to ignore any and all of it. Presenting these options for people who want them doesn't have to affect your game.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 7, 2010)

Just more fuel to the fire.

Remember from the TRS Red Box unpacking that the intro blurb mentions _Neverwinter Nights_ alongside _Final Fantasy_, _Legend of Zelda_, _World of Warcraft_ and _Dragon Age_.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 7, 2010)

Man... I'm like a little kid who's just been told hints about what to expect for Christmas!  I want it all nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!


Now I'm hype for future stuffs!


----------



## Starglyte (Aug 7, 2010)

Do we know who the authors will be for the Ravenloft stuff? I am hoping for the likes of Ari Marmell and Steve Miller.


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Feel free to ignore any and all of it. Presenting these options for people who want them doesn't have to affect your game.




True, I just find this an odd direction to go with the game. Its almost as if they're admiting the design they chose was wrong. I've been happy with almost everything the edition has had to offer. Do we really need someone getting stuck with the bag of tricks again? Or under-water basket weaving skills? Most of the stuff people complained were lacking in the edition was stuff I felt was more than easily accounted for with decent role-playing skills. It just seems odd and is a little unappealing. I won't begrudge the people who felt like they needed or wanted that sort of stuff, and I'll take all the cool stuff that comes my way. This just is off-putting at first glance for someone who has really bought into the way 4th Edition works right now.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> True, I just find this an odd direction to go with the game. Its almost as if they're admiting the design they chose was wrong. I've been happy with almost everything the edition has had to offer. Do we really need someone getting stuck with the bag of tricks again? Or under-water basket weaving skills? Most of the stuff people complained were lacking in the edition was stuff I felt was more than easily accounted for with decent role-playing skills. It just seems odd and is a little unappealing. I won't begrudge the people who felt like they needed or wanted that sort of stuff, and I'll take all the cool stuff that comes my way. This just is off-putting at first glance for someone who has really bought into the way 4th Edition works right now.




I'm going to wait to see how it's done myself to pass judgement.

If they add it as an additional system, letting you select how you want it to work in your campaign I will be happy.

This would allow people who want the parcel system to use it, and those who want random to use it, or a judicious mixture of both.

Same thing with the "blacksmithing rules."


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Races will be retrofitted to have ability score choice in Essentials, like the PHB3 ones.
> 
> There will be new races in Heroes of Shadow.



Have we yet seen the details of which races will get which ability score choices?
(At the latest, those details should be in the DDI update for early October, right?)


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> True, I just find this an odd direction to go with the game. Its almost as if they're admiting the design they chose was wrong. I've been happy with almost everything the edition has had to offer. Do we really need someone getting stuck with the bag of tricks again? Or under-water basket weaving skills? Most of the stuff people complained were lacking in the edition was stuff I felt was more than easily accounted for with decent role-playing skills. It just seems odd and is a little unappealing. I won't begrudge the people who felt like they needed or wanted that sort of stuff, and I'll take all the cool stuff that comes my way. This just is off-putting at first glance for someone who has really bought into the way 4th Edition works right now.




Or you could look at their approach as "Our design direction was spot on for the early stage of a new edition. But now that we've covered most of those things (and who can honestly say there's tons left to do class and power-wise, we can expand the line to include _The Complete Mule_."

Just 'cuz those things shouldn't be first priority doesn't mean they should NEVER be looked at. At some point, campaign options are good things. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with _PHB 6: Ooze Heroes_, or something else equally retarded. Sounds like the "new direction" is basically "create more tasty story: with added crunch."


----------



## JeffB (Aug 7, 2010)

Lots of exciting stuff coming out- anyone see Moredenkainen's Magnificent emporium? in that link to pics?  Already been announced prior? I had not heard of it.

Coming from someone who started in the Lizard logo days,  WOTC is handling the product line more to my tastes than anyone has since 1983-ish. A "fun adventure game" emphasis, vs. "hardcore serious rpg".


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Have we yet seen the details of which races will get which ability score choices?
> (At the latest, those details should be in the DDI update for early October, right?)



No details afaiak, but I ain't there. But yes it should be in the DDI around Oct/Nov


JeffB said:


> Lots of exciting stuff coming out- anyone see Moredenkainen's Magnificent emporium? in that link to pics?  Already been announced prior? I had not heard of it.
> 
> Coming from someone who started in the Lizard logo days,  WOTC is handling the product line more to my tastes than anyone has since 1983-ish. A "fun adventure game" emphasis, vs. "hardcore serious rpg".




Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium: Each magic item has a flavorful story that goes along with it. Also includes other character options. From wizards' twitter.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 7, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Otherwise, we'd be stuck with _PHB 6: Ooze Heroes_, or something else equally retarded.




*I'd* buy a book titled _Ooze Heroes_.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 7, 2010)

Echohawk said:


> *I'd* buy a book titled _Ooze Heroes_.




They've basically got a book like that for Savage Worlds.  It's... interesting.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 7, 2010)

JeffB said:


> Lots of exciting stuff coming out- anyone see Moredenkainen's Magnificent emporium? in that link to pics?  Already been announced prior? I had not heard of it.




It appeared in the WotC Spring 2011 catalog:
[sblock]Few wizards know more about magic than the mighty Mordenkainen, whose arcane achievements are without peer.
He’s the Archmage of Adventure . . . and no stranger to unearthing hidden lore. Stand aside, Tenser! Back to the books, Otiluke! Few can match Mordenkainen’s collection of magic items. Still, he hardly seems the type to settle down and open a magic shop. And yet . . .

Welcome to Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, a wondrous collection of magic items—each one with a story to tell. This tome provides Dungeon Masters with a ready assortment of treasures to tempt greedy players, along with historical nuggets and alluring adventure hooks that set these items apart from your run-of-the-mill flaming sword or bag of holding. This book adds rich flavor to the treasures and trinkets presented within, and a dash of inspiration for Dungeon Masters looking to liven up a monster’s trove. Hold on to your magic hats—everything must go!

James Wyatt is the design manager for roleplaying games at Wizards of the Coast. His most recent work includes the Dungeon Master’s Kit boxed set and the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Starter Set.

Key Selling Points
• Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium strikes an excellent balance between rules content and story content, making it a fun read as well as a practical reference book for Dungeon Masters looking to sprinkle their dungeons with tantalizing treasures.
• This book provides an alluring collection of new magic items that players will desire for their characters, along with rich background information and adventure hooks that Dungeon Masters can use to add depth or story to the campaign.
• This product will receive online support at Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page.

Date: April 19, 2011
Format: Hardcover
Trim: 8-9/16” x 11-1/8”
Pages: 160
Carton: 20
Price: $29.95/$34.95 CAN[/sblock]


----------



## JeffB (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> No details afaiak, but I ain't there. But yes it should be in the DDI around Oct/Nov
> 
> 
> Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium: Each magic item has a flavorful story that goes along with it. Also includes other character options. From wizards' twitter.






Peraion Graufalke said:


> It appeared in the WotC Spring 2011 catalog:
> [sblock]Few wizards know more about magic than the mighty Mordenkainen, whose arcane achievements are without peer.
> He’s the Archmage of Adventure . . . and no stranger to unearthing hidden lore. Stand aside, Tenser! Back to the books, Otiluke! Few can match Mordenkainen’s collection of magic items. Still, he hardly seems the type to settle down and open a magic shop. And yet . . .
> 
> ...




Cha-ching- SOLD! 

Thank You both!


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 7, 2010)

I... uh... buw... 

I like nearly all of that.  I´d thought to see a Campaign Setting i´d buy, but nearly all of this is awesome! Time to hide the wallet.

Oh, and Neverwinter Campaign Book? Who called it, eh? City-based and all. 

New computer game, yes, please.

All in all = win


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm very interested in Conquest of Nerath. Rules for mass combat, 4e-style? Awesome. 

The only letdown for me is no DDI announcements regarding Adventure Tools. *sigh*


----------



## Nork (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> True, I just find this an odd direction to go with the game. Its almost as if they're admiting the design they chose was wrong. I've been happy with almost everything the edition has had to offer. Do we really need someone getting stuck with the bag of tricks again? Or under-water basket weaving skills? Most of the stuff people complained were lacking in the edition was stuff I felt was more than easily accounted for with decent role-playing skills. It just seems odd and is a little unappealing. I won't begrudge the people who felt like they needed or wanted that sort of stuff, and I'll take all the cool stuff that comes my way. This just is off-putting at first glance for someone who has really bought into the way 4th Edition works right now.




The problem is, experience has shown that there are a lot of players who _*will not roleplay*_ (bold and italics aimed not at you, but said players who *will not roleplay*), if the rulebook doesn't tell them to roleplay and how to do it.  It isn't that they don't know how to make the attempt, as I've seen them make the attempt in other systems that tell them to make the attempt and give them rules about it.  Even the existence of rules that they think are "dumb, and easily exploitable" prompts them to roleplay "better than the rules", while the absence of rules makes them sit there like a bump on a log.  Gamers are bizarre creatures and I pity whoever has to develop products for them.

I've literally heard players when they get called on randomly killing npcs because they looked at them wrong, justify it by saying "well, despite all your logical reasons why this would be a 'bad and insane thing', you have to accept that this is still D&D".  Which to them was the most compelling argument in the world, and was convincing to half the table, while the other half of the table stood their with their mouths open in shock.

Especially because it has been my observation that these very same players will rake 4E over the coals for being a combat game that tells you how to play your character and won't let you have any originality.

I don't think they are admitting their design and direction of 4E was wrong.  It was a perfect design for players who will think of their characters as a persona driven by their background and own internal reasoning.   I think they are admitting that too many players can't handle being entrusted with doing the roleplaying aspect of the game for themselves.

So for those players that have difficulty conceptualizing the idea of saying "hey GM, my character is a blacksmith because it is part of my character's identity" and the GM saying "cool beans, when you want to do something blacksmithy, I'll give you a DC that takes that into account".  They are apparently going to give material to guide their thought process.  Which experience has shown me is actually needed for a lot of players.


----------



## alleynbard (Aug 7, 2010)

This upcoming year is going to be a great time for 4e fans.  Everything I saw in this thread is something I want, which is great.  I can't wait.  I think the excitement might kill me.  Like someone said earlier, I feel like I am waiting for Santa to come down the old chimney.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2010)

Nork said:


> The problem is, experience has shown that there are a lot of players who _*will not roleplay*_ (bold and italics aimed not at you, but said players who *will not roleplay*), if the rulebook doesn't tell them to roleplay and how to do it. It isn't that they don't know how to make the attempt, as I've seen them make the attempt in other systems that tell them to make the attempt and give them rules about it. Even the existence of rules that they think are "dumb, and easily exploitable" prompts them to roleplay "better than the rules", while the absence of rules makes them sit there like a bump on a log. Gamers are bizarre creatures and I pity whoever has to develop products for them.
> 
> I've literally heard players when they get called on randomly killing npcs because they looked at them wrong, justify it by saying "well, despite all your logical reasons why this would be a 'bad and insane thing', you have to accept that this is still D&D". Which to them was the most compelling argument in the world, and was convincing to half the table, while the other half of the table stood their with their mouths open in shock.
> 
> ...




Or perhaps because it is a roleplaying game... as opposed to a tactical combat skirmish game... some people would prefer that they had a mechanic(s) in place to enable them to achieve the results that they actually want from working certain things into their characters background, personality, etc. within the rules structure of the game. 

Or Perhaps when sitting down at different tables with different DM's they don't necessarily want to have to first play mother-may-I to even have a "background" in the first place and then continuously have to negotiate or get approval for what it is this supposed background can or cannot allow the PC to do within the game.

As a DM I like having these types of mechanics because they allow me to create conflicts and challenges, within the mechanical framework of the game I am playing, that are catered to the aspects of a character that don't directly deal with combat in a fair (hopefully balanced), interesting and mechanically robust way...

No, wait a minute I must be wrong...you're right it's that a large fraction of uncreative players apparently need their thought processes guided as mentally they can't handle roleplaying...  ...whatever.

Anyway, I for one applaud WotC for realizing that there was something tangible that many of their former and even current customers found lacking in much of 4e gameplay... I am happy they are changing the design and development to account for and correct this, as I wasn't a fan of the previous 4e direction or conceits. As far as whether it failed or not... no one but WotC knows that, though I don't think they would have changed anything if their current path had been doing perfectly from an economic stand point... but no one can know for sure.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 7, 2010)

Finally, something to look forward to after I get my Dark Sun books. The Shadowfell boxset is an _ingenious_ idea. Make one for the Feywild and one for the Nine-Hells and I will love you eternally Wizards. Bladesinger sounds like it could end up being an "Essential" type version of the Swordmage. They are clearly not afraid to double up on class concepts if they give them mechanical differences (Fighter and Slayer) now.

I can now actually relax for once about the direction the game is going. It looks to be going in a very sensible direction.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 7, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Finally, something to look forward to after I get my Dark Sun books. The Shadowfell boxset is an _ingenious_ idea. Make one for the Feywild and one for the Nine-Hells and I will love you eternally Wizards. Bladesinger sounds like it could end up being an "Essential" type version of the Swordmage.




I'd bet on it being the 'striker' version of the Swordmage (more so than even an assault swordmage), and an Int primary/Dex or Cha secondary class. Which is kind of what a lot of people want from a magical swordsman, even if it doesn't sub well for a fighter (excluding Essentials Slayers).


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Anyway, I for one applaud WotC for realizing that there was something tangible that many of their former and even current customers found lacking in much of 4e gameplay... I am happy they are changing the design and development to account for and correct this, as I wasn't a fan of the previous 4e direction or conceits. As far as whether it failed or not... no one but WotC knows that, though I don't think they would have changed anything if their current path had been doing perfectly from an economic stand point... but no one can know for sure.




Well, just because things are good, or even great, doesn't mean things can't get better. 4e could be a smashing success for all we know. Maybe it has attracted a lot of new players. We do not know. But if that is the case, it would make sense for WotC to try to regain those that they lost in the switch.

I don't know if it will work or not - and tbh I don't care at all. What I do know and care about, is the fact that prior to these announcements, I had a hard time figuring out which kind of future D&D releases could peak my interest.

I must admit they surprised me - in a positive way.


----------



## Stoat (Aug 7, 2010)

I don't like boxed sets.  In my experience, they're a pain in the ass to store, and the boxes tend to fall apart with use.  I like most of the content I'm hearing about, but I'm not happy that WotC is choosing to go back to boxed sets.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Its info coming from GenCon... I am sure the bloggers will provide more info when they have the time.
> 
> Thanks to davethegame and newbiedm amongst others for providing a live feed from GenCon.
> 
> Starting with Essentials, magic items will be grouped into common, uncommon, and rares. Rare more powerful and cannot be created by ritual. Giving the power back to the DM. Most current items will fall into the uncommon category. Only common can be created by the players.




This simply, is awesome.  Love it!  They're continuing to fix the issues I have with 4e.



> The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond. Boxed set that includes poster maps.
> Shadowfell includes a "despair deck." Cthulhu-esque insanities that the DM gives out that includes rp and rules.




Love it!



> Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. Box of monsters. Includes tokens, encounters, poster maps.




No Monster Manual 4, but two Monster Vaults with tokens!?!?  Love it!



> Conquest of Nerath strategy war game board game. 2-4 players fighting across the map of ruined Nerath. Plastic minis, with heroes and armies




Might be interesting, but chances are, there are so many other great board games out there, including Castle Ravenloft by this time, that I doubt I'll be getting it.



> Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier. Introduces themes for core D&D. New options, feats. Non-combat options like Blacksmith




This is very interesting, although not surprising given the Themes in Dark Sun.  It was inevitable they'd be introduced for the main game.  I'm liking the nod to the non-combat stuff, even though I don't think it's necessary.  I always love options.



> Neverwinter Campaign Guide for Forgotten Realms, including the new bladesinger class




I'm an Eberron guy, so FR doesn't pull me much.



> Hero Builder's Handbook. Aimed at players who want to tinker and build something detailed with your character. Not in development yet




Intriguing, but without many details.



> Madness of Gardmore Abbey - new superadventure box, includes deck of many things.




I guess they've decided that the appeal of 'boxed sets' is more likely to overcome their price point?  



> 4th Quarter: Ravenloft Roleplaying Game. Play vampires, werewolves, as well as other standard classes.




And here is our 2011 Campaign Setting.  Sorta.

Many people thought there wouldn't be a 2011 setting and for the most part they're right.  I wonder what this means for the other settings?

All in all 'interesting' items but not much that really gets me massively excited.  Mostly the new philosophy for magic items and more monsters is what I like.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> The DMG3 might come in 2012, but there are not enough groups playing in the epic tier yet. Instead epic tier support through the DDI.
> 
> Apparently they are trying to limit the use of stun and to a certain degree daze in their design.




This could be a chicken or the egg thing.  Part of the reason I'm not running Epic is that I don't have a good feel how to.  Which a DMG3 would help immensely with.


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 7, 2010)

In defense of box sets, I was talking to the purveyor at my FLGS last night and he brought up a good point. The "feelies" in a box set aren't something that can be put up on DDI. As convenient as DDI can be it can completely cut the throat of FLGSes. A year subscription costs about as much as two splat books. So if you're not into collecting dead trees there's no reason to pick up those books and instead just read their content on DDI. 

A box set tends to give gamers a little better return than just a paper splat book because they get minis/tokens, maps, a paperback splat book, and some dice and something to hold them all in. That's a nice package for $30. For something like say the new Monster Vaults it's a lot friendlier than saying "well pick up the $30 Monster Manual and then go find our Miniatures product and hope you get the minis you want for your campaign". This is especially true with 4E's reliance on grid-based combat. Maps and some sort of token on the map are really important and if you're not provided with tokens you have to figure something out.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> This could be a chicken or the egg thing.  Part of the reason I'm not running Epic is that I don't have a good feel how to.  Which a DMG3 would help immensely with.




I agree. Kinda an odd reasoning from WotC. I do not feel intimidated by playing epic (having tried it for a while), but I would pay good money for more help, as it certainly has some challenges - for me anyway.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 7, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> In defense of box sets, I was talking to the purveyor at my FLGS last night and he brought up a good point. The "feelies" in a box set aren't something that can be put up on DDI. As convenient as DDI can be it can completely cut the throat of FLGSes. A year subscription costs about as much as two splat books. So if you're not into collecting dead trees there's no reason to pick up those books and instead just read their content on DDI.
> 
> A box set tends to give gamers a little better return than just a paper splat book because they get minis/tokens, maps, a paperback splat book, and some dice and something to hold them all in. That's a nice package for $30. For something like say the new Monster Vaults it's a lot friendlier than saying "well pick up the $30 Monster Manual and then go find our Miniatures product and hope you get the minis you want for your campaign". This is especially true with 4E's reliance on grid-based combat. Maps and some sort of token on the map are really important and if you're not provided with tokens you have to figure something out.




There's just "something" about a boxed set too...I still have my Dawn of the Emperors, Hollow World and Wrath of the Immortals Boxed sets...love 'em.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 7, 2010)

I love boxed sets!

They make a farting sound when you close them!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2010)

drothgery said:


> I'd bet on it being the 'striker' version of the Swordmage (more so than even an assault swordmage), and an Int primary/Dex or Cha secondary class. Which is kind of what a lot of people want from a magical swordsman, even if it doesn't sub well for a fighter (excluding Essentials Slayers).




I was thinking controller.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 7, 2010)

Starglyte said:


> Do we know who the authors will be for the Ravenloft stuff? I am hoping for the likes of Ari Marmell and Steve Miller.




I wish. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I e-mailed James Wyatt, saying how cool it would be if we made Ravenloft a standalone game like Gamma World. Great minds think alike--and apparently so do ours. 

But no, this thread is the first I've heard that this is actually happening. And if they're announced it for 4th quarter of this year, it's clearly already being worked on, if not already finished. So no, I'm not on it. 

I'll sure as heck be _getting_ it, though.

*Edit:* Wait. That's Q4 of 2011, not 2010, isn't it? (That'll teach me to skim.) Hmm... Maybe I _could_ still be on it. I think I need to make a phone call next week, when people are back from GenCon.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2010)

Credit due where credit is due:

Link to Critical Hits writeup who provided many of the tweets


----------



## Klaus (Aug 7, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> I wish. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I e-mailed James Wyatt, saying how cool it would be if we made Ravenloft a standalone game like Gamma World. Great minds think alike--and apparently so do ours.
> 
> But no, this thread is the first I've heard that this is actually happening. And if they're announced it for 4th quarter of this year, it's clearly already being worked on, if not already finished. So no, I'm not on it.
> 
> ...



You and me both, O Dark Rodent!


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> True, I just find this an odd direction to go with the game. Its almost as if they're admiting the design they chose was wrong.



Not remotely. The design they chose is not going away. They're just providing more options, in the hope of pleasing more players. I don't see an issue here. Different people like different things in their games, so they're providing more stuff, things that some players thought were lacking before. Good on them.


----------



## havard (Aug 7, 2010)

If Mousferatu is involved with the Ravenloft Boxed set, I will definately buy it! 



ArcaneSpringboard said:


> There's just "something" about a boxed set too...I still have my Dawn of the Emperors, Hollow World and Wrath of the Immortals Boxed sets...love 'em.




Me too! 


I know what you are saying about boxed set. I love opening those things, uncovering all sorts of surprises, like maps, charts and whatnot in addition to the books...

Havard


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> There will be something for the Feywild, but no announcements yet.



If they do a Feywild boxed set, I'd be stoked. The Shadowfell boxed set is already on my "must have" list.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2010)

Yeah Tweetdeck has been burning (thanks again The Weem!)

But Critical Hits website seems to have the best overall coverage, esp DnD stylee...

Gen Con 2010: D&D New Products Seminar : Critical Hits


Hopefully a full set of adventure tools? "Similarly, there will be new updates to DDI, but nothing to announce quite yet, but it was hinted that there will be something soon."


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 7, 2010)

Mind you, that was the 80s.  Now with the Internet we'll have a detailed description of all the contents, with hi-res photos and video.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 7, 2010)

havard said:


> If Mousferatu is involved with the Ravenloft Boxed set, I will definately buy it!



If Mouseferatu is involved with the Ravenloft Boxed set, I will buy it under the condition that it must include vampiric anthropomorphic rodents as a player race.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 7, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> The DMG3 might come in 2012, but there are not enough groups playing in the epic tier yet. Instead epic tier support through the DDI.
> 
> Apparently they are trying to limit the use of stun and to a certain degree daze in their design.






ArcaneSpringboard said:


> This could be a chicken or the egg thing.  Part of the reason I'm not running Epic is that I don't have a good feel how to.  Which a DMG3 would help immensely with.






Jack99 said:


> I agree. Kinda an odd reasoning from WotC. I do not feel intimidated by playing epic (having tried it for a while), but I would pay good money for more help, as it certainly has some challenges - for me anyway.



I just had a WILD thought!

We've been getting sourcebooks for all the planes and now a Shadowfell boxed set (with Heroes of Shadow) and a Feywild sourcebook (or box). Could there be a Heroes of the Fey sourcebook on the way too?

And, could this be the precursor to an Epic Level Planescape-like setting in 2012?

Imagine a Heroes of the Planes soucebook for the players, a Monster Vault box filled with paragon & epic planar creatures, and a Planar boxed set that use Sigil (or Union) as its starting point!

Planescape: Sigil and Beyond anyone? 

Perhaps a boxed set for The Abyss? Or Baator? Or Both?


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 7, 2010)

Apparently a lot of people took issue with what I said. Seems a lot of people are over reacting to my over reaction.



Fifth Element said:


> Not remotely. The design they chose is not going away. They're just providing more options, in the hope of pleasing more players. I don't see an issue here. Different people like different things in their games, so they're providing more stuff, things that some players thought were lacking before. Good on them.




Looking over the Critical Hits stuff, the book in question deals with themes and is being treated like an Unearthed Arcana deal. I feel better about this now, particularly since themes are going to be in that book as well. But when I hove no sleep and these things coming out of left field its a lot more... disconcerting.

I've had a lot of heated debates with people over the need for mechanics to support player roleplaying. Stuff like action-points for getting the awkward kid to RP a bit more just always seemed... iffy to me. Less like a genuine road to help, more like handing out a dog biscuit for doing a neat trick. My group has never been the most thespian of roleplayers, but their able to get by when it counts. Never have I had the issue of people randomly stabbing NPCs "because it's DnD."  

This book doesn't seem to have this kind of thing though, just some sort of profession sub-system. I might use that, or I might not. In 3.5 the only time I took profession skills was when I was playing a rogue with stupid-high intelligence and I had maxed out all of the other skills I wanted to take. They never came up in any campaign, but there is something amusing about being able to write operas and speak 11 languages.

Now that I've had some time to nap, and some more detailed information, this stuff seems pretty alright. This was not what I was expecting, and, for the first time in three years, I am unsure if all of this will be of use to me, but none of it seems inherently bad. I will probably pick up most of it in the long run.

Oh well, Cheers to another year of 4th Edition!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2010)

I'd give you more XP but I can't. Nice to see a re-considered reply on the internet, I think the web may implode!

Welcome to ENW BTW, 'over-reactions-R-Us'


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 7, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> Apparently a lot of people took issue with what I said. Seems a lot of people are over reacting to my over reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My consideration with these kinds of mechanics is always that they've been uniformly mediocre at best in every implementation I've ever seen (maybe somewhere there's a good one, plenty of systems I haven't played). The nice thing about the high generality skills, generalized backgrounds, and lack of formalized subsystems for things like performance and profession is just that it leaves the DM a lot of flexibility. 

I don't really buy the "lots of people need rules for that". I played OD&D and Basic, and 1e, and 2e, all of which lacked much at all in these regards (yeah, AD&D had an attempt so feeble it was pretty much non-existent). Players got along fine without it. None of the groups I've played in were some sort of incredible RPers, mediocre at best TBH, and yet were never held back by that.

Done well some optional rules for these kinds of things are OK, but they're still somewhat of a double edged sword. It's like Martial Practices, they're nice but what happens if you don't have practice X and you want to do the same sort of thing that's covered in practice X? It isn't all a net gain is the point. 

I've never been that much of a lover of boxed sets either. I mean if you want to give me a bunch of nice maps etc that's fine, and counters are handy and all, but after I've got 12 sheets of counters I might not really know what to do with more of them. For certain things boxed sets are great. I just wonder if they're going a bit overboard there. 

I guess we'll see anyhow. Lots of this stuff sounds interesting, though I think mostly I'd still like some more hardback source books.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Aug 7, 2010)

So, is the Shadowfell Boxed Set 4.5e?!?!?!??!?!?!1?1?1/1/


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 7, 2010)

Dungeoneer said:


> So, is the Shadowfell Boxed Set 4.5e?!?!?!??!?!?!1?1?1/1/



No. lol

Let's leave it at this, shall we? Jokes aside, we don't need to start any more ridiculous rumours for the 4E haters.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 7, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> No. lol
> 
> Let's leave it at this, shall we? Jokes aside, we don't need to start any more ridiculous rumours for the 4E haters.




To which I will add this from WotC at GenCon:


			
				http://twitter.com/newbiedm said:
			
		

> Essentials: "we've been accused of everything on this". #dnd
> about 9 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®


----------



## Obryn (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Anyway, I for one applaud WotC for realizing that there was something tangible that many of their former and even current customers found lacking in much of 4e gameplay... I am happy they are changing the design and development to account for and correct this, as I wasn't a fan of the previous 4e direction or conceits. As far as whether it failed or not... no one but WotC knows that, though I don't think they would have changed anything if their current path had been doing perfectly from an economic stand point... but no one can know for sure.



What is it with posts like this?

A book of new stuff and new options is neither failure nor a change in direction.  It's listening to fans, and adding more options.  Trying to interpret it that way just ... boggles.

-O


----------



## Kannik (Aug 8, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> Seriously? Why? I liked the material as written. I really did. I bought into the 4th Edition design asestetic, and now they're flipping it on its head.




I wouldn't say it is them flipping it on its head as simply expanding it to include more of the gaming styles and tastes out there.  4e as written gives rules for the combat/encounter side of things, and left everything else up to roleplay (Very 1e-esque).  Some would like to see some rules support to codify other aspects of the game.  I know my group did, which is why I crafted (pun intended) some rules for trade skills and put them in my rpgnow store.  I'm very excited that these will be getting support from within the 4e WotC tent!    (Just like the NWP of yore...)  

However they implement them I would bet that they too will keep it in the 4e design aesthetic.  Only broader...

Kannik


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2010)

> What is it with posts like this?
> 
> A book of new stuff and new options is neither failure nor a change in direction. It's listening to fans, and adding more options. Trying to interpret it that way just ... boggles.




Well, Nyronus's post was basically "they're making this for all the idiots out there!"

I read Imaro's post as saying "...or for the perfectly normal gamers who wanted it all along."


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 8, 2010)

Kannik said:


> I wouldn't say it is them flipping it on its head as simply expanding it to include more of the gaming styles and tastes out there.  4e as written gives rules for the combat/encounter side of things, and left everything else up to roleplay (Very 1e-esque).  Some would like to see some rules support to codify other aspects of the game.  I know my group did, which is why I crafted (pun intended) some rules for trade skills and put them in my rpgnow store.  I'm very excited that these will be getting support from within the 4e WotC tent!    (Just like the NWP of yore...)
> 
> However they implement them I would bet that they too will keep it in the 4e design aesthetic.  Only broader...
> 
> Kannik




I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.

When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 8, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.
> 
> When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.




I pretty much agree with the sentiment, but then we probably both started playing LONG before the people asking for a long list of non-combat rules. Obviously WotC has decided that assuaging disaffected 3.x players is a priority. There are times though when certain types of rules can be handy, like a lot of the stuff that WAS in the 1e DMG (costs to hire services and hirelings and how to calculate their morale for instance were pretty handy, they didn't replace any kind of RP but they did facilitate various things). 

I don't have too much problem either with a few fairly specific types of things like say blacksmithing. It will not come up OFTEN, but it is a story element that tends to come up in a fair number of games. The downside is always now its 'codified' and that tends to make a lot of DMs feel obligated to use that rule, even when it doesn't fit. Ironically IMHO it actually makes it LESS likely that the added element will be used, as it will fit the actual requirements of the situation less often. You can say DMs can ignore it, but equally players could live with its absence. Neither situation may be ideal, but it did SEEM like the original theory with 4e was not to drop that stuff in at all, a perfectly valid position to take.

Frankly I think they're just running out of ideas for stuff to fill more books with at this point.


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, Nyronus's post was basically "they're making this for all the idiots out there!"
> 
> I read Imaro's post as saying "...or for the perfectly normal gamers who wanted it all along."




Actually, I never said that. At best I said "Roleplay rewards systems are not really helping roleplay, or at least not as much as their more rabid proponents say they do." Which is, after I inspected it some, not the case here. Now, I feel that there is a good chance that the crafting/profession subsystem will probably be more or less ignored by a good chunk of people, but that's a separate issue.

I never felt 4e needed much else. The game was a framework from which you hang your narrative, not one used to encage it or supplant it. After looking things over and getting some sleep, I can see that the stuff here isn't going to do either of those things. Its just an extra bit of framework which I can ignore or integrate at my leisure. It sets up narrative bits which aren't particularly relative to my games, but its not like their going to take my atheist paladins powers away or force some convoluted morality system onto the game.

My only real concern at this point is the new magic item framework. I dislike random tables and have never really bothered with them. Their use usually just ends up giving everyone a bunch of sub-standard gear. With the manic tweaked balanced of 4e, there is no real reason to deny players gear. The wish-list idea is great. Then again, WotC hasn't failed me much at all, so I'll wait and see what's what.

Of course, that one probably won't effect me at all since I'm more or less planning on deconstructing the magic item system into boons and inherent bonuses. It just always seemed weird to me that my players keep stumbling on lightning Executioner Axes, and each new one was slightly stronger than the last. I've avoided that narrative clunk with a bit of creative story-telling, making the player's gear evolve as time went on, but that takes a little more effort to do right.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 8, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> Of course, that one probably won't effect me at all since I'm more or less planning on deconstructing the magic item system into boons and inherent bonuses. It just always seemed weird to me that my players keep stumbling on lightning Executioner Axes, and each new one was slightly stronger than the last. I've avoided that narrative clunk with a bit of creative story-telling, making the player's gear evolve as time went on, but that takes a little more effort to do right.



There is good stuff on that in DMG2 and the Char Builder inherent bonuses works fine.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 8, 2010)

Recording of Gencon WotC upcoming products seminar from yesterday.

The Tome Show » Blog Archive » Tome GenCon Special - The Big Announcement Part 1

The Tome Show » Blog Archive » Tome GenCon Special - The Big Announcement Part 2


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.
> 
> When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.




I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codify combat and provide a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.

I mean technically you don't need those powers, but players have fun implementing their mechanical effect in the game during combat... why is it so hard to understand some people would like to have the same type of fun using the mechanics in other areas besides combat?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codifies combat and provides a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.




Is there anything about 4e that you like?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codify combat and provide a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.
> 
> I mean technically you don't need those powers, but players have fun implementing their mechanical effect in the game during combat... why is it so hard to understand some people would like to have the same type of fun using the mechanics in other areas besides combat?




Actually I think giant.robot explained the logic quite succinctly. You NEED rules for conflict because something has to quantify how conflicting actions resolve in a reasonably objective way. Otherwise you're just playing an elaborate version of Cops and Robbers ("bang, bang! You're dead!"). There's no NEED to have such a set of rules for whether or not you can build a boat or bake a cake. In any case those kinds of actions are at most only indirectly contributing to conflict resolution, unless you subscribe to the theory that cake baking contests are a significant aspect of the game that warrants a whole subsystem like that.

No, you don't NEED powers, but that really isn't the point. You need some way to decide what cool combat maneuvers the players can do and how to resolve them because otherwise you just have no rules at all worth the name. You could simply use page 42 for everything, but given that it is already there as a fallback for whenever you want something outside the more specific rules you see that combat powers are simply a convenient way to arrange the game so that the typical types of things people will try have already been worked out.

Beyond that you have character background, skills, etc that can be used to define in general what sorts of things outside of combat which characters are good at. The thing is it need not be more precise than say background because "out of combat" covers a VAST array of possible situations which may or may not involve conflicts. The game could easily have subsystems for baking contests, wooing women, running a business, committing graft, building a temple, etc etc etc but for the vast majority of games 99% of those won't be used. Beyond that it is a lot less likely that a DM will want to use them as-is. Combat mechanics tend to be appropriate to all campaigns and settings. Other types of mechanics not so much. 

And then there's the issue of the oft-cited down side, that once you codify something into a skill, feat, practice, whatever then you've essentially created a converse rule that says everyone who lacks that element on their character can't do said thing. This applies to combat as well, but in combat everyone has a lot of things they CAN do and they all generally lead to the same ends, so it really isn't a big deal. Out of combat that isn't true at all and thus you have roadblocks tossed in the way of the story like "Oh, Joe Dwarf doesn't have 'swim', so I can't really force the party to try to swim the rapids." 

Personally I think there's a zone in there where some things that probably will come up pretty often, don't generally block progress if they can't be done, and are unlikely to need huge variation between settings CAN be given mechanics. I'm not sure what the amazing value of doing so is, but whatever.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Is there anything about 4e that you like?




What is the relevance of your question? If I didn't like the new direction they were going in I wouldn't be defending it against some fans who are against it. So really... what is your point? Or was this just an attempt at snarkiness that really isn't contributing anything to the discussion?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What is the relevance of your question? If I didn't like the new direction they were going in I wouldn't be defending it against some fans who are against it. So really... what is your point? Or was this just an attempt at snarkiness that really isn't contributing anything to the discussion?




It was your /boggle post that made me ask. You see, I am constantly boggled by your complaining about 4e. I am glad that after two years you have something positive to say (albight about a product we haven't seen yet) about 4e, but why play and CONSTANTLY post complains about it, in the 4e section, no less..

So in short, I am just curious. As for relevance, well lets just say it matters as to how much time I spend reading your post and possibly responding to them..

Cheers


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Actually I think giant.robot explained the logic quite succinctly. You NEED rules for conflict because something has to quantify how conflicting actions resolve in a reasonably objective way. Otherwise you're just playing an elaborate version of Cops and Robbers ("bang, bang! You're dead!"). There's no NEED to have such a set of rules for whether or not you can build a boat or bake a cake. In any case those kinds of actions are at most only indirectly contributing to conflict resolution, unless you subscribe to the theory that cake baking contests are a significant aspect of the game that warrants a whole subsystem like that.




Yep, I agree that you need rules to resolve conflicts, the problem arises when people assume combat = conflict... when conflict can encompass so much more. The fate of your party could easily rest in how quickly or how well you can build a makeshift boat... that's direct conflict resolution that has nothing to do with combat. IMO, a robust conflict resolution system (as opposed to a robust combat resolution system) allows you to decide how a conflict is resolved as opposed to pushing you into a certain direction because that is what is mechanically supported...YMMV of course.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> No, you don't NEED powers, but that really isn't the point. You need some way to decide what cool combat maneuvers the players can do and how to resolve them because otherwise you just have no rules at all worth the name. You could simply use page 42 for everything, but given that it is already there as a fallback for whenever you want something outside the more specific rules you see that combat powers are simply a convenient way to arrange the game so that the typical types of things people will try have already been worked out.




I think you missed my point, I'm not saying I think the powers a re a bad thing, especially since we also have utility powers, some of which allow one to do things outside of combat, and surprise, surprise... players actually pick them and use them. In other words there is already a precedence for mechanical support of non-combat actions.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Beyond that you have character background, skills, etc that can be used to define in general what sorts of things outside of combat which characters are good at. The thing is it need not be more precise than say background because "out of combat" covers a VAST array of possible situations which may or may not involve conflicts. The game could easily have subsystems for baking contests, wooing women, running a business, committing graft, building a temple, etc etc etc but for the vast majority of games 99% of those won't be used. Beyond that it is a lot less likely that a DM will want to use them as-is. Combat mechanics tend to be appropriate to all campaigns and settings. Other types of mechanics not so much.




Or we could have a general framework that's a little more robust than a +2 to a skill or new class skill for the background you picked. Why do there have to be exact rules for every permutation of a background or skill? You're assuming a methodology that isn't necessarily how the system has to be implemented. And ultimately, just like with combat there will be a DM fiat space somwhere within the mechanics.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> And then there's the issue of the oft-cited down side, that once you codify something into a skill, feat, practice, whatever then you've essentially created a converse rule that says everyone who lacks that element on their character can't do said thing. This applies to combat as well, but in combat everyone has a lot of things they CAN do and they all generally lead to the same ends, so it really isn't a big deal. Out of combat that isn't true at all and thus you have roadblocks tossed in the way of the story like "Oh, Joe Dwarf doesn't have 'swim', so I can't really force the party to try to swim the rapids."




Yet again, most people claim this is not a problem with powers... so why would it be a problem with another area of the game? As far as the swim example... don't you run into the problem of Joe Dwarf without Athletics in the same situation? It's called adversity and problem solving, I'm not seeing the problem... everyone can't do everything.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Personally I think there's a zone in there where some things that probably will come up pretty often, don't generally block progress if they can't be done, and are unlikely to need huge variation between settings CAN be given mechanics. I'm not sure what the amazing value of doing so is, but whatever.




Again, a general framework... which is what most rpg's do anyway... with specific rules for the most common uses and the rest is left in DM fiat space.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> It was your /boggle post that made me ask. You see, I am constantly boggled by your complaining about 4e. I am glad that after two years you have something positive to say (albight about a product we haven't seen yet) about 4e, but why play and CONSTANTLY post complains about it, in the 4e section, no less..
> 
> So in short, I am just curious. As for relevance, well lets just say it matters as to how much time I spend reading your post and possibly responding to them..
> 
> Cheers




Well if we are being frank... it boggles my mind that, in majority of your posts all you do is hold 4e on some type of pedastal, as if it can't be questioned or criticized. It also boggles my mind that you read that post as negative towards 4e, when I didn't say anything negative at all... but instead was commenting on some fans lack of understanding that some of us want these types of options and mechanics in 4e... Hey but you know what... you keep on fighting the good fight and defending 4e no matter what.

As to whether you spend time reading my posts and responding... I pretty much know your M.O. so you do what you have to do, but the conversation with you only goes in one direction. I post my complaints because I want to see the parts of the game I am unsatisfied with go in a direction I enjoy (which it now seems to be doing), I don't see a reason to post about what I like because if I like it, apparently it works for me.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well if we are being frank... it boggles my mind that, in majority of your posts all you do is hold 4e on some type of pedastal, as if it can't be questioned or criticized. It also boggles my mind that you read that post as negative towards 4e, when I didn't say anything negative at all... but instead was commenting on some fans lack of understanding that some of us want these types of options and mechanics in 4e... Hey but you know what... you keep on fighting the good fight and defending 4e no matter what.
> 
> As to whether you spend time reading my posts and responding... I pretty much know your M.O. so you do what you have to do, but the conversation with you only goes in one direction. I post my complaints because I want to see the parts of the game I am unsatisfied with go in a direction I enjoy (which it now seems to be doing), I don't see a reason to post about what I like because if I like it, apparently it works for me.




Thanks. Now I understand. Your posts make more sense now. 

And trust me, I hold no game on a pedestal. Plenty of things about 4e that I do not like. You must not have read enough of my posts about the blandness of wizards, fights being too long, the exponential economy or a few other things. But you are right that I really like the game and often defend it when some people attack it without good reason or due to a lack of understanding of the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> You NEED rules for conflict because something has to quantify how conflicting actions resolve in a reasonably objective way. Otherwise you're just playing an elaborate version of Cops and Robbers ("bang, bang! You're dead!"). There's no NEED to have such a set of rules for whether or not you can build a boat or bake a cake. In any case those kinds of actions are at most only indirectly contributing to conflict resolution, unless you subscribe to the theory that cake baking contests are a significant aspect of the game that warrants a whole subsystem like that.




Unless such a thing becomes a point of conflict. If I'm playing a game where the Gods are sending a deluge to drown all the sinners and our party might be saved if we can construct a sturdy enough boat, you bet your behindus I want a solid set of rules for how well I make that boat. Likewise, if I'm trying to bake a poisoned cake for the evil king, or trying to bake a file into the cake for an incarcerated fellow PC, or trying to bake a delicious cake to win over the nobles at the big noble party, solid, tension-building cake rules are important.

Some people's games revolve around these things more than or as much as they revolve around combat. Combat is not the only important conflict that needs to be resolved. Skill Challenges don't really rise to the occasion, as they are. 

Really, a "better Skill Challenge system" would go a long way toward solving this. One where characters could contribute uniquely, do significant things, make significant choices, and spend significant resources to acquire success, a skill challenge system that encourages expansion and use, rather than one basically designed to get past the boring parts, tell you if you win or not, and get back to the "real game." 

Which, it sounds like, we may be getting, so Hurrah.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yep, I agree that you need rules to resolve conflicts, the problem arises when people assume combat = conflict... when conflict can encompass so much more. The fate of your party could easily rest in how quickly or how well you can build a makeshift boat... that's direct conflict resolution that has nothing to do with combat. IMO, a robust conflict resolution system (as opposed to a robust combat resolution system) allows you to decide how a conflict is resolved as opposed to pushing you into a certain direction because that is what is mechanically supported...YMMV of course.




There is a huge difference though. All groups are going to be relatively competent at combat. The DM can always place a combat encounter as an obstacle to be overcome. No other type of conflict falls entirely into this category. Because of the generalized skill system most of the problem was overcome though. If the PCs get into a diplomatic situation or a situation where they need to sneak around the chances of total party incompetence in that area is very low. OTOH when you introduce Boat Building as a game mechanic chances are most parties won't have that resource and thus by codifying it you have actually made it difficult or impossible to put into an adventure. Either the party is competent at building a boat or they aren't. Given the HUGE (infinite really) range of possible things like this that may come up making a specific resource needed to be competent in each one fails. The existing core 4e system was the most elegant solution, let the players invoke their skills and backgrounds to solve all these types of problems. At the very worst any given party will be reasonably capable in most of these things, making the situation much more analogous to combat where all parties are always competent.


> I think you missed my point, I'm not saying I think the powers a re a bad thing, especially since we also have utility powers, some of which allow one to do things outside of combat, and surprise, surprise... players actually pick them and use them. In other words there is already a precedence for mechanical support of non-combat actions.




Sure, but Utility powers are specific tricks. Virtually all of them ARE useful in combat, at least potentially. They (and even combat powers in some cases) may well be able to be purposed for things outside combat, but Utility powers are not a generalized mechanics for OO combat resolution. If they were then nothing else would be needed. Notice that in 99.9% of cases players choose the most useful IN COMBAT Utilities anyway. Almost nobody picks Jump instead of Shield for instance. 


> Or we could have a general framework that's a little more robust than a +2 to a skill or new class skill for the background you picked. Why do there have to be exact rules for every permutation of a background or skill? You're assuming a methodology that isn't necessarily how the system has to be implemented. And ultimately, just like with combat there will be a DM fiat space somwhere within the mechanics.





Except again there are a virtually infinite such non-combat situations and there is no 'one size fits all' way to create mechanics for all of them. Given that the system can't possibly anticipate all the situations and uses of any non-combat mechanic what's the point in having anything more elaborate than just "you can get a bit of a bonus to do this". I'm also not just talking about the +2 skill bonus for backgrounds. I'm talking about the way background can be used to justify additional competence at specific things. The son of the blacksmith may get +2 Athletics, but he also knows a good bit about how to make a decent sword. If it comes up he can justify to the DM that he knows how to do that and he can get some kind of situational bonus. Thus adding some kind of 'blacksmithing skill' isn't actually doing anything, except telling the players that if they don't have that 'skill' they can't do it at all. [/quote]



Yet again, most people claim this is not a problem with powers... so why would it be a problem with another area of the game? As far as the swim example... don't you run into the problem of Joe Dwarf without Athletics in the same situation? It's called adversity and problem solving, I'm not seeing the problem... everyone can't do everything.[/quote]

But again you fail to account for the difference between combat, a single specific type of situation that the game's core concept insures will come up very often, with all the other things that come up that are MUCH less common individually and which thus when they do come up the PCs also need to have some competence at (some chance of success). Notice how this works with skills. ALL PCs have some chance to climb, swim, etc. Half level bonuses insure that these capabilities will to some extent keep pace with the difficulty of challenges they face. A DM can confidently add these challenges to the game and the players can attempt to solve them. They may well indeed choose to have items, utility powers, etc to make it easier, and they may run into a few that they need to work out alternative solutions to, but the DM can at least anticipate that a difficult swim is not an insurmountable challenge to any party, until you toss a swim 'skill' in there and then indeed it does become an insurmountable challenge to some parties and thus no longer eligible to be a general obstacle. The DM now pretty much HAS to provide alternatives.[/quote]

Again, a general framework... which is what most rpg's do anyway... with specific rules for the most common uses and the rest is left in DM fiat space.[/QUOTE]

Which is EXACTLY WHAT 4E HAS HAD UP UNTIL NOW, and exactly what is being proposed to be done away with. It's not so much that it goes away in theory as that it goes away in practice as soon as you start saying that specific 'skills' are required to do specific things. When they aren't present either the DM has to go back to the present situation "well, you can do that anyway, you'd just be a bit better if you had Carpentry" or constantly tweak every module to provide workarounds for his specific party, or just never invoke these kinds of things and rewrite adventures so they aren't needed. 

So basically these kinds of subsystems have again and again proven to be mostly a waste of ink. You CAN get away with having them and gain considerable value out of some of them IF they are going to be covering very common things that are part of the core theme of the game, much like combat is in D&D. Shadowrun has all sorts of rules for 'deckers' because its a cyberpunk themed game and it's assumed you'll be hacking computers constantly in the course of play. It's a justified subsystem. Carpentry, and Boat Building, and Cake Baking OTOH aren't useful or justified in probably any RPG I've ever played. It's the concept of 'you need a resource to be competent at this' which is just a crappy idea. Once you introduce it then it becomes ubiquitous and pernicious.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Which is EXACTLY WHAT 4E HAS HAD UP UNTIL NOW, and exactly what is being proposed to be done away with. It's not so much that it goes away in theory as that it goes away in practice as soon as you start saying that specific 'skills' are required to do specific things. When they aren't present either the DM has to go back to the present situation "well, you can do that anyway, you'd just be a bit better if you had Carpentry" or constantly tweak every module to provide workarounds for his specific party, or just never invoke these kinds of things and rewrite adventures so they aren't needed.
> 
> So basically these kinds of subsystems have again and again proven to be mostly a waste of ink. You CAN get away with having them and gain considerable value out of some of them IF they are going to be covering very common things that are part of the core theme of the game, much like combat is in D&D. Shadowrun has all sorts of rules for 'deckers' because its a cyberpunk themed game and it's assumed you'll be hacking computers constantly in the course of play. It's a justified subsystem. Carpentry, and Boat Building, and Cake Baking OTOH aren't useful or justified in probably any RPG I've ever played. It's the concept of 'you need a resource to be competent at this' which is just a crappy idea. Once you introduce it then it becomes ubiquitous and pernicious.




I just want to address this particular part of your post... 4e is suppose to have a general framework... *WITH EXCEPTIONS*. 4e is suppose to be exception based, yet the only time we see this is with combat... and I believe therein lies the biggest problem with all things out of combat, there are little to no rules exceptions that allow players the mechanical robustness that combat currently has.

I find it irritating that you keep holding up "cake baking" as an example yet avoiding other examples such as crafting, profession skills, or the tons of genre appropriate backgrounds that figure in fantasy fiction. 

IMO, this is how it should be done, those things that are genre appropriate is where you concentrate your exceptions while the things outside those are where you create something like pg. 42 and DM fiat to deal with.


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Again, a general framework... which is what most rpg's do anyway... with specific rules for the most common uses and the rest is left in DM fiat space.




I didn't want to quote your entire post but I'll respond to bits of it. In the 4E system skills work very differently than they did in 3E. Training only gets you an additional +5 to a check and you're likely to have only a handful of trained skills. Your class grants you some and it takes a feat to get more. Your can get a higher skill check bonus by taking the Skill Focus feat but even then you're probably only to do that once in the heroic tier. This system doesn't have room for specific skill training like underwater basket weaving. If you need to build a boat that's something better left to a skill challenge than a whole new set of skills. That's why skill challenges were introduced, they can take the place of overly specific skills. 

2E's non-weapon proficiencies got a little out of hand as did 3E's long list of skills. It didn't make sense to make a difficult skill check if you didn't have pips in that skill. In 4E you at least get a level bonus to checks (and a sliding DC scale) so you've got some impetus to make skill checks even if you don't have training. My Wizard with Skill Focus in Arcana might figure out what a magic item is more often than your Fighter with a lower INT score and no training in Arcana but you're still encouraged to make the check.

I think 4E's skill system works pretty well most of the time. The general framework for doing off-the-wall things are skill challenges. Doing an important dance might be Acrobatics, History, and Stamina checks while building a boat could be Knowledge, Strength, and Wisdom checks. Once you start adding codified rules for all sorts of secondary and tertiary skills players are going to focus on those and request instances where they get to use them. The campaign might be taking place in a dormant volcano but they'll really want to use Profession: Shipwright because they wasted two feats to get it.

I think 4E really needs to bring back the Sage/Hireling rules. They would solve a lot of your complaints and make a simple system for getting non-combat chores done. Players don't want to play Cobbler: The Roleplaying Game, they want to kill monsters and take their stuff. Instead of letting them waste a feat getting Profession: Cobbler they can just go to a cobbler's shop and get their boots mended. If they need to know the history of the local lich they could hit up a Sage in his reclusive study rather than go through a boring hunt in a library. The Sage might require something other than gold for his services and voilà you've got the recipe for adventure. A character making a History check in a library is boring.

As an aside, I've posted maybe ten times on this forum yet you were more than happy to make all kinds of assumptions about my opinions and motivations and best of all my history with 4E. You created some sort of 4E loving straw man you felt comfortable arguing with rather than ask me what I actually thought about the various rules. Don't do this in the future. If you want to contradict something I actually said feel free but don't decide to attack your personal boogeymen through me.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons.



You don't have to understand them to realize that they exist, and accept that they know what they like. I've seen enough posts here at ENWorld to know that there is a proportion of the gamer community that felt these things were lacking in 4E.

That's one thing that D&D players really need to realize: not every product is going to be targeted at you. There's more than enough stuff out there already dealing with detailed combat rules, there's no harm in providing other stuff for other people.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codify combat and provide a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.



I'm with Imaro on this one. It's one thing to have your own preferred playstyle, but it's quite another to not realize or recognize that other people have other playstyles that they prefer, and that this is not the result of them not understanding something, or not 'getting it' like you do, or whatever.

You don't have to like playing that way yourself, but to be puzzled that other people do like to play that way...well, I don't know what to say. There's a sniff of BadWrongFun there.


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm with Imaro on this one. It's one thing to have your own preferred playstyle, but it's quite another to not realize or recognize that other people have other playstyles that they prefer, and that this is not the result of them not understanding something, or not 'getting it' like you do, or whatever.
> 
> You don't have to like playing that way yourself, but to be puzzled that other people do like to play that way...well, I don't know what to say. There's a sniff of BadWrongFun there.




I'm fully cognizant that people exist who play the game differently than I do. The reason I'm confused about the particular idea of lots of non-combat skills is that area has been provided for in the 4E rules. Skills in 4E are not doled out like they used to be in 3E. There's a relatively steep cost to get additional skills in 4E. If it's not on your class skill list you don't get it "for free" at first level and have to use a feat for Skill Training.

It's not so much about styles of play but adding overly complicated rules. Say you add a Profession skill. If it become a class skill or provided by a Background players will be tempted to go ahead and take it. Now they've got Profession: Blacksmith to carry around with them. If they took that instead or Survival they're royally screwed crawling around a dungeon. They'll also want to use Profession: Blacksmith a lot because they wasted a skill slot on it. In D&D are characters more likely to be crawling around dungeons or sitting around a forge making horseshoes? 

If Profession: Blacksmith isn't a class skill or provided by a background players need to waste a feat to get it. Even with such a skill they're only getting a +5 bonus to a check. That's a small bonus for such a rarely useful skill that's eating up a skill slot.

A D&D game doesn't need to be and really shouldn't be combat oriented. In all types of games I want players to get into their characters and think of interesting things for them to do. They're not constrained by the engine of a video game or the strict play of a traditional board game. At the same time I don't see adding tons of non-combat rules and prescriptions adding a lot of fun to the game. Some stuff should just be left to the players and DM to improvise and the "rule" should be "improvise and have fun".


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> It's not so much about styles of play but adding overly complicated rules. Say you add a Profession skill. If it become a class skill or provided by a Background players will be tempted to go ahead and take it. Now they've got Profession: Blacksmith to carry around with them. If they took that instead or Survival they're royally screwed crawling around a dungeon. They'll also want to use Profession: Blacksmith a lot because they wasted a skill slot on it. In D&D are characters more likely to be crawling around dungeons or sitting around a forge making horseshoes?



You're assuming quite a lot about how these things are going to be implemented, that it's going to be just like 3E. Leaving aside the fact that many people like how 3E handled these skills, I doubt they'll just be adding a bunch of new skills to the list. That would not fit in well with the rest of the system.



giant.robot said:


> Some stuff should just be left to the players and DM to improvise and the "rule" should be "improvise and have fun".



Perhaps it should be, but the line between what should be codified and what should be left to the DM is completely arbitrary and personal.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 8, 2010)

Can we either fork this to a new thread or stop?  Because the conversation is definitely not about future D&D releases anymore.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 8, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> Can we either fork this to a new thread or stop?  Because the conversation is definitely not about future D&D releases anymore.



Haha, I was just about to say, "Are you guys just about done being boring?" Seriously, speculating about the Shadowfell boxset will be much more fun than arguing about who likes 4E more or who's reading everyone elses' minds correctly.

I guess if this thread doesn't turn around within a page or two, it'll be time to point it out to a moderator.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 8, 2010)

Too late. The thread is already dead. Pity. And both sides will claim that _"i just defended my opinion - THEY started this vicious circle!"_ Sigh. Thats why you can´t have nice things.


----------



## falcarrion (Aug 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Finally, something to look forward to after I get my Dark Sun books. The Shadowfell boxset is an _ingenious_ idea. Make one for the Feywild and one for the Nine-Hells and I will love you eternally Wizards. Bladesinger sounds like it could end up being an "Essential" type version of the Swordmage. They are clearly not afraid to double up on class concepts if they give them mechanical differences (Fighter and Slayer) now.
> 
> I can now actually relax for once about the direction the game is going. It looks to be going in a very sensible direction.




If I'm not mistaken there was book of the Harper series called "Bladesinger"


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 9, 2010)

falcarrion said:


> If I'm not mistaken there was book of the Harper series called "Bladesinger"



Is that a recent novel? (I don't read any of the novels, myself.) If so, maybe there's some "flavour hints" in that book about the 4E Bladesinger, a class with some history.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 9, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Is that a recent novel? (I don't read any of the novels, myself.) If so, maybe there's some "flavour hints" in that book about the 4E Bladesinger, a class with some history.




No, its very old - from 2006 

link

Never read it though.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 9, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> No, its very old - from 2006
> 
> link
> 
> Never read it though.



Hmm... In that case, it's no doubt not at all about 4E's Bladesinger, just an older version of it, isn't it?

(For anybody reading this who isn't familiar with Bladesingers, IIRC they're a kind of elven "magic swordsmen" -- more graceful than brutish, as you might imagine -- and they go back at least as far as 2E AD&D.)


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Which is EXACTLY WHAT 4E HAS HAD UP UNTIL NOW, and exactly what is being proposed to be done away with. It's not so much that it goes away in theory as that it goes away in practice as soon as you start saying that specific 'skills' are required to do specific things.




From the sounds of it, isn't the book with 'non-combat skills' and the like going to be having elements presented as entirely optional?

I mean, I think that the previous situation - of having non-combat skills and combat skills competing for the same resources - was a terrible situation, and moving away from that was a good thing. 

I think that the default for 4E - that the DM basically decides how to handle non-combat skills - is functional, but what the game could really use is some suggested systems so that the DM has some guidance for doing so. 

Prior to now, I've used backgrounds to fill that role in some games, handwaved it whenever character appropriate in others, and I've recently looked at implementing something along the line of the "Traits" system I saw linked from Enworld.

It sounds like that's the sort of thing this book will be doing - providing several possible approaches for DMs that _do_ want to codify that. For those who don't... it remains much easier to those who don't want these rules to not use them, than it would be for those who do want them to create them on their own.

I mean, we'll have to wait and see the final product to be sure. And I do get what you are saying - they could end up setting a bad precedent, and making it harder for people to flesh out their backgrounds if they feel they _have_ to represent it mechanically, and need to meet annoying prereqs to do so. If, as giant.robot fears, you have to spend a feat or skill slot to become a Blacksmith... then yeah, the system will be an utter failure. I always will be _very _surprised if that's the case. 

WotC has already moved away from those sort of limitations, and if they can produce a refined and robust system of themes, backgrounds, and non-combat skills and options, I think that can be an excellent tool for the DMs who want it.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 9, 2010)

Fork Fork fork Fork.....


Anyway, WoW.. I didn't check EW over the weekend and I'm flooded with new things to buy. Well done WotC. I really don't know what to do now, get a second job I suppose.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 9, 2010)

Klaus said:


> I love boxed sets!
> 
> They make a farting sound when you close them!



Klaus, that's just you.




Imaro said:


> I find it irritating that you keep holding up "cake baking" as an example yet avoiding other examples such as crafting, profession skills, or the tons of genre appropriate backgrounds that figure in fantasy fiction.



Yeah, but would you rather have a horseshoe or a well-made cake?


----------



## Insight (Aug 9, 2010)

I would hope that non-combat stuff like crafting and professions could be handled like rituals or martial practices.  Or better yet, make it part of a skill challenge.  Or both.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 9, 2010)

I think I figured out what it is that REALLY interests me a lot about the upcoming products... Yeah a lot of them sound cool, but they're also not like the "norm."

When they release stuff in a regular cycle of PHB1, DMG1, MM1, >> Splatbooks, Setting Books, PHB2, MM2, DMG2 >> Spaltbooks, Setting Books... those books might contain tons of awesome sure- but it's too umm, expected?

Say whatever you will about TSR, but I think part of the fun back in my "heyday" of gaming was never knowing exactly what to expect next.

Reading the twitter feeds, and board announcements about what the future holds was like that all over again... Each thing I heard was kind of unexpected. 

THAT I think peaked my interest in the stuff even before I thought about how useful it might be in my games. (Then I just started drooling...)


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Aug 9, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Huzzah! Just when WotC ends one of my true loves this past year, they bring back the other!
> 
> And it sounds like it's a stand-alone game. I was wondering about this as a possibility when Gamma World was announced, and I'm glad to see it happening. Part of that is because, while I think 4E's rules can work with Ravenloft, the 'core D&D experience' that early 4E was shooting for would clash with a lot of Ravenloft's assumptions. What I've heard about later products (DMG2's alternate rewards system, Dark Sun) suggests they're willing to move away from that, but making Ravenloft a stand-alone but compatible with D&D means that the core game can be more solidly Ravenloftian, but you can dip into it or mesh it with standard D&D as well.




These were exactly my thoughts... a "Gamma World" style Ravenloft self-contained game would be quite nice.

The Neverwinter thing is kinda meh for me, since I have never been a huge FR fan, and the Bladesinger kit was a "Warning: Munchkin!" signal in my days of AD&D 2nd ed, but I can admit that a Striker version of the Swordmage would be a great idea.

The new focus on fluff sounds good, it seems that WotC is keen in reversing some of its earlier positions in order to please the fanbase

...of course, with a notoriously unpleasable fanbase such as this, lets hope this works out! 

Still, I'm hopeful


--

Finally, also count me in into the "if Ari Marmell is in, then I'll buy it" camp!


----------



## ravenheart (Aug 9, 2010)

Not sure if this was mentioned, but one of newbiedms twitpics suggest that hybrid class features such as _combat challenge_ and _sneak attack_ are going to be usable on basic attacks in the upcoming errata. Which I already houseruled them to be, so this just confirms the intent. 

Though I wonder if this will allow stacking up on extra striker damage (ex. rogue/ranger)?


----------



## ninefold_one (Aug 10, 2010)

Now some of this stuff looks REALLY interesting.  A Shadowfell boxed set?  Ravenloft?  Nice.  Good year for D&D next year.


----------



## hafrogman (Aug 10, 2010)

deganawida said:


> Ravenloft where you actually play the vampires and werewolves as well as normal races?





Jack99 said:


> You can play a ghost as well!! (allegedly)



I was thinking about this yesterday, and a thought came to me.  Do we know they're doing these things as races?  Some of these things that used to be templates could work really well as classes.  It's a bit of an odd way to describe them, but it could work out interestingly.

Your race is whatever base creature you were before you were bitten/turned/died.  Then your class powers are built around your newfound abilities.  Perhaps were-creatures have a hybrid and beast forms and powers similar to the druid.  Then if you want your previous life to have some bearing on your tainted existence, multiclass.  That ancient vampire mage took paragon multiclassing and augments his charmy and bloodsucky powers with a few blasts from his staff.  The reverse (multiclassing into vampire) could be a neat way to represent vampire spawn.

Heck, I could see a whole line of lycanthropes (power source: lunar)
Werewolves (and possibly rats): Strikers
Werebears (boars?): Defenders
Wereravens (remember them?): Leaders
Weretigers (Rakshasa!): Controllers


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 10, 2010)

hafrogman said:


> I was thinking about this yesterday, and a thought came to me.  Do we know they're doing these things as races?  Some of these things that used to be templates could work really well as classes.  It's a bit of an odd way to describe them, but it could work out interestingly.




I'd like to see it done with a combination of extensive feat support, and a multiclass-only class, similar to Spellscarred from FR.


----------



## Starglyte (Aug 10, 2010)

Just a thought, maybe only  "Outlander" characters are created using the normal D&D rules and if you want to create a character from Ravenloft itself, you use the new box set with the character opitions there. This would be similiar to early 2nd edition Ravenloft where it was the Weekend of Terror setting.


----------



## ninefold_one (Aug 11, 2010)

"Weekend of Terror" was totally appropriate to my experiences.

On a previous note I'm not sure if they would work best as classes or races.  Certainly they shouldn't be a race.  Templates were an excellent idea and I wish they were still in use in 4E.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 19, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> *Edit:* Wait. That's Q4 of 2011, not 2010, isn't it? (That'll teach me to skim.) Hmm... Maybe I _could_ still be on it. I think I need to make a phone call next week, when people are back from GenCon.




Well, it was an exchange of e-mails, not a phone call. Definitely productive, though.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 19, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Well, it was an exchange of e-mails, not a phone call. Definitely productive, though.




Nice!!!... Grats?


----------



## angelababy (Aug 19, 2010)

This thread is the first I've heard that this is actually happening. in the hope of pleasing more players. I don't see an issue here.things that some players thought were lacking before.there will be new updates to DDI, but nothing to announce quite yet.This book doesn't seem to have this kind of thing though, just some sort of profession sub-system.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Aug 19, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Well, it was an exchange of e-mails, not a phone call. Definitely productive, though.




good!


----------

