Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask the Designers of D&D Fourth Edition

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the i'll-take-the-beholder-to-block dept.

Role Playing (Games) 482

This past August, big news dropped in the tabletop gaming community: 2008 would see the release of a fourth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Since then the official D&D Insider site, and communities like the excellent ENWorld, have been doing their best to keep us up to date on the ins and outs of the newest way to dungeon-delve. With the release just five months away, we've been given a chance to put some questions to the team developing the game. One question per post, if you would, and we'll make sure to pass the best questions on to the designers. Don't forget to ask about the online version of the D&D tools as well! We'll get their answers back to you as soon as we get them, so fire away.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New spells? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943570)

Will this be the edition that finally sees the new "Escape Parents Basement" spell?

Re:New spells? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943784)

If I were you I'd be more concerned with whether it'll have "Summon Original Joke".

Re:New spells? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943982)

I used to play a lot of AD&D back in the day ... and a can say with complete honesty that I can count on one hand the number of games that did not take place in somebody's parents' basement.

Re:New spells? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943872)

Top Five Requests for Dundgons and Dragins

1 Spherical Dice
2 Non-linear board
3 Super space dragin square on every board
4 Squares with algorithms written on them
5 Squares which are underwater

Which multi-sided dice... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943594)

Which multi sided dice do I have to roll to move out of my parents apartment, get my license to drive, and lose my virginity?

Re:Which multi-sided dice... (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943770)

Which multi sided dice do I have to roll to move out of my parents apartment, get my license to drive, and lose my virginity?
Just a regular d20, but you have to roll a pi.

Re:Which multi-sided dice... (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944054)

I rolled a 22/7, does that count?

Re:Which multi-sided dice... (1)

AoT (107216) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944394)

Only if you're in Alabama.

Re:Which multi-sided dice... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944362)

I play with a house rule that sets pi equal to exactly three.

Re:Which multi-sided dice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943860)

Multi-sided dice are out in v4. It's all 1-dimensional, now.

One question (1, Funny)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943596)

Will your next version support DirectX?

Online PDFs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943604)

Will I need to have a paid subscription in order to download the PDFs of the 4th edition books that I buy?

Where are the Cheetos? (4, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943606)

Are there any girls there? []

Sorry - this just hits too close to home (self-proclaimed geek).

Critical Failure (4, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943608)

I know at the moment there is only house rules for critical failures (i.e. rolling a 1 on a d20). Will there be set rules for this in 4.0?

Re:Critical Failure (0, Troll)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943650)

I r not good with the englishs. ...*are only hose rules...

Re:Critical Failure (4, Insightful)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943662)

A well-played D&D campaign is just one house rule after another.

Re:Critical Failure (2, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943722)

First rule of D&D in the DMG is that these are only a ground work for you to make up whatever rules you see fit
The second rule is don't talk about fight club for some reason... I think it just slows down play when we all deny being Tyler Durdin.

Re:Critical Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944070)

A well-played D&D campaign is just one house rule after another.

Just as in a lousy campaign...

Re:Critical Failure (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944184)

well said. Many people forget that the rules are in place for a reason. You don't want the game to turn into one rules-lawyering session after another, but at the same time, the game should work in a way where you can predict the mechanics of your actions every time.

Compatability (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943614)

Will the 4.0 version of D&D be compatible with the 25 or so 3.5 edition books I currently own? I would hate to think hate eberron would be out of date already.

Re:Compatability (2, Interesting)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944328)

A better question is, how easily will the transition between 3/3.5 to 4 be handled for an average DM? I remember looking at the conversion guide produced when 2nd to 3rd was going on, and it was largely an incomprehensible mess (relative to straight 2nd or 3rd, that is). Will it be a matter of transcribing stats with some fudge factor from one sheet to another, or will it be excessively involved with complicated formulas and lookup tables?

Re:Compatability (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944346)

I'd assume only loosely. You could still use the general ideas, but might need to toy with the mechanics a bit.

Why 4th Edition? (5, Insightful)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943628)

3.5E had so many non-core sourcebooks that you could have easily respun and/or rebalanced the material into a new set of books if you had any need to sell more material (which you presumably do, as would anyone else in the same business). Based on what has been released and what I've read, 4E will be a radical departure of standards set back in 3E which were, in turn, meant to improve the game drastically.

Don't you think more work could have, and should have, been done to improve 3.5E? It seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:Why 4th Edition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943748)

and to add to this. What will you do when gamers don't by the crappy upgrade and stick to playing with what they have of 3.5E? Have you abandoned open gaming completely?

Re:Why 4th Edition? (2, Insightful)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943886)

So you mean they are going to fuck the game up even more? How about this, you scrap 3.0/5 and go back to 1st edtion? Then you work from there.

My friends and I had been playing AD&D for over 20 years. We started with chainmail. Went through basic, not the red and blue books, 1st editon and into 2nd. Frist edition was a mess. Inconsistan rules, typos, and shitty book construction but we had a fucking ball with it. 2nd edition was better, less rule problems and some needed rule changes.

3rd edition is crap. Most of the soul of the game is gone. The books look nice but it's not D&D. It's a bad imitation with D&D on the cover. Come on, magic using dwarves, evil rangers, and wizards carrying swords. That goes against the very core of the game.

Like good little players we bought 3rd edition and tried to play it. We ruled that it sucked so much and went back to 2nd edition. 3rd edition might have been a good game if it stood on its own but its not D&D.

I don't play anymore because of that crap and I know a lot of old time players who have stopped playing too. Wizards should go back to the roots of D&D. 3rd edition isn't D&D and neither will 4th.

Re:Why 4th Edition? (4, Insightful)

CrashPoint (564165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944200)

Come on, magic using dwarves, evil rangers, and wizards carrying swords. That goes against the very core of the game.
Nonsense. The core of D&D is not, and never has been, "only play characters that fit pre-approved fantasy archetypes".

The Grognard problem (1)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944284)

This sort of question / rant comes up from time to time on enworld and every other D&D site. There are a few simple responses to your statements.

1) New edition does not mean you are any more obligated to buy it and play it than you are obligated to trade in WinXP for WinVista, (or your System 5 Unix for Linux).

2) Most rule changes are generally applied to elements of the game that nearly no one pays attention to anyway. Demi-human level limits were dropped because no one used them.

3) Nitpicking about flavor elements (dwarven wizards) is generally stupid. Flavor issues are the easiest thing to customize / change. The core of the game is not a pseudo tolkein world. The core of the game is "roll 1d20 to kill monsters and take their stuff".

4) People who are satisfied with the current version of any consumer project that choose not to upgrade are not the sort of customers that sustain a company. New material will be published whether you like it or not.

5) Despite the sneak peeks to the new rules being given, it is still way too early to know what it will be like to play the new edition. If your not a play tester or designer of the new edition, than your opinion is not based on all the facts.

From what I have read on Enworld, there are alot of players who tend to stick to earlier editions. You are one of the few that seems to like 2nd edition more than 1st or 3rd.


Miniatures (5, Interesting)

pryoplasm (809342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943630)

Will 4th edition use the same or similar systems for miniatures? Will a medium creature still fit in a 5' x 5' square? A friend of mine has a large collection of minatures and a decent sized third party map, and I am just hoping we do not have to move onto something else in order to satisfy the new rules...

A question of rules. (2, Interesting)

Kaffien (635219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943636)

Will d&d 4th, require a person to confirm critical hits, or will a mace
in the face be a mace in the face? (that is will a 20 be a critical hit)

Re:A question of rules. (3, Informative)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943916)

Already published on the site: a 20 is a 20 is a critical hit.

A critical hit automatically does maximum dice-plus-bonuses damage, plus additional dice apparently based on weapon type and enchantments. No crit ranges, no thresholds, no checks.

Re:A question of rules. (1)

Kaffien (635219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944438)

bout time~! We just ignored the 'threat of a critical' anyhow. Seriously there's a knife in your eye ... but did it hurt? I can't wait, coincidentally I'm having my first child in June. If he / she is born on the release day that poor child will be doomed!

Re:A question of rules. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944450)

In general, one of the design goals of 4E is to reduce extra rolls. Therefore, expect any "confirmation" rolls to be looked at harshly by the designers.

Also, they have stated that spells will now have "critical hits", which I assume results in a maximized damage as would a weapon crit.

Children? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943638)

Since you will never have a chance to procreate naturally, what are your plans (if any) for having children?

Re:Children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944042)

You are posting on Slashdot.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Go ahead, mod me flamebait....

Rules new in the 4th edition - many bugfixes (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21943664)

1. Cannot base characters off the Ash from the Evil Dead movies.
2. A one man band is not an appropriate bard instrument.
3. There is no Dwarven god of heavy artillery.
4. My 7th Sea character Boudreaux is not the 'Southern' Montaigne.
5. Not allowed to blow all my skill points on 1pt professional skills.
6. Synchronized panicking is not a proper battle plan.
7. Nor is "Kill them all and let God sort them out"
8. Not allowed to use psychic powers to do the dishes.
9. How to serve Dragons is not a cookbook.
10. My monk's lips must be in sync.
11. Just because my character and I can speak German, doesn't mean the GM can.
13. Not allowed to berserk for the hell of it, especially during royal masquerades.
13. Must learn at least one offensive or defensive spell if I'm the sorcerer.
14. Must not murder canon NPCs in their sleep, no matter how cliche they are.
15. Ogres are not kosher.
16. Plan B is not automatically twice as much explosives as Plan A.
17. I will not beat Tomb of Horrors in less than 10 minutes from memory.
18. Collateral Damage Man is not an appropriate name for a super hero.
19. When surrendering I am to hand the sword over HILT first.
20. Drow are not good eating.
21. Polka is not appropriate marching music.
22. No longer allowed to recreate the Death Star Trench Run out of genre.
23. There is no such thing as a Gnomish Pygmy War Rhino.
24. Any character who has a sensitivity training center named after him will be taken away.
25. Even if the rules allow it, I am not allowed to summon 50,000 Blue Whales.
26. The green elf does not need food badly.
27. Valley speak has no place in a fantasy setting. Especially if you're the paladin.
28. I am not to shoot every corpse in the head to make sure they aren't a zombie in Twilight 2000.
29. The Goddess' of Marriage chosen weapon is not the whip.
30. I cannot have any gun that requires me to continue the damage code on back.
31. I am not to kill off all the vampires in the LARP, even if they are terminally stupid.
32. The backup trap handler is not whoever has the most HP at the time.
33. I cannot buy any animal in groups of 100 or over.
34. There is no such skill as 'improvised cooking'
35. I am not allowed to base any Droid off any character played by Joe Pesci.
36. I am not allowed to convince the entire party to play R2 units.
37. I am not allowed to convince the entire party to sit on the same side of the table.
38. They do not make black market illegal cyberweapons for rodents.
39. When investigating evil cultists not allowed to just torch the decrepit mansion from the outside.
40. Dwarves do not have the racial ability 'can lick their eyebrows'
41. Dwarves do not have the racial ability to hold their breath for 10 minutes.
42. Dwarves do not have the racial ability 'impromptu kickstand'
43. Having a big nose adds nothing to my seduction check.
44. No longer allowed to set nazi propaganda music to a snappy disco beat.
45. Not allowed to spend all 100 character points on 100 1pt skills.
46. My character names are not allowed to be double entendres.
47. Sliver rhymes with silver because the computer frelling says so.
48. They do not make Nair in wookie sizes.
49. The elf is restricted to decaf for the rest of the adventure.
50. Not allowed to blow up the Death Star before that snotty farm kid gets his shot.
51. Not allowed to use thermodynamic science to asphyxiate the orcs' cave instead of exploring it first.
52. No longer allowed to use the time machine for booty calls.
53. My bard does not know how to play Inna Godda Davida on marachas.
54. Not allowed to start a drow character weighing more than a quarter ton.
55. Cannot pimp out other party members.
56. Before facing the dragon, not allowed to glaze the elf.
57. No matter how well I roll, a squirrel cannot carry a horse and rider at full sprint.
58. In the middle of a black op I cannot ask a guard to validate parking.
59. Expended ammunition is not a business expense.
60. Not allowed to pose the Netrunner in embarrassing positions when he's on a run.
61. Not allowed to short sheet the bedroll of impotent dieties.
62. Can only taunt the ranger about his lack of swimming after my USCG E8 saves him.
63. I am not allowed to do anything I saw Han Solo do once.
64. No, I cannot buy 10,000 marbles even if I say please.
65. My paladin's battle cry is not "Good for the Good God"
66. There is no Summon Bimbo spell.
67. Not allowed to start a character that speaks every language except ones the party speaks.
68. There is no Kung Fu manuever "McGuire Swings For Bleachers"
69. Bring him back intact includes redundant organs.
70. There is more to wizardry than magic missile. Even if I can do 200 damage automatic with no save.
71. Not allowed to cook up nerve gas in the sink even if the target number is 5.
72. There is no 'annoy' setting on a phaser
73. Not allowed to start a character who is over 100 years old unless he's an elf or dwarf. Humans are right out.
74. Not allowed to name my cudgel Ceremonial Whoopass Stick.
75. My thief's battle cry is not "Run And Live"
76. Nor is it "You take care of the orcs, I take care of the traps"
77. I am not allowed any artistic license while translating.
78. I did not get my super powers from James T. Kirk.
79. Not allowed to commission a pistol that costs more than a sedan.
80. I am not liquid metal.
81. When accepting a challenge for a duel, I must allow the other guy time to find a pistol.
82. A picture of my ex-wife is not an acceptable backup weapon.
83. Victory laps after killing the dragon with my 1d2 bow is considered in poor taste.
84. My gnome does not like big butts and he cannot lie.
85. Not allowed to talk my fellow inquisitors into buying a 220lb pull crossbow.
86. Not allowed to talk my fellow inquisitors into buying an industrial strength flamethrower.
87. Not allowed to make a superhero with a 99% chance of dodging even after the -10 penalty for a successful called shot.
88. There is no such thing as a dwarven katana.
89. My bard does not get a bonus to perform if she is obviously not wearing anything under her tabard.
90. The elf's name is not Legolam.
91. My swashbuckling fop cannot take the flaw Dark Secret: Not Gay
92. A wet towel does not constitute an improvised weapon.
93. The name of the weapon shop is not "Bloodbath and Beyond"
94. I am to remind my DM that he must never, ever give my paladin a dire boar for a mount again.
95. I cannot base my ancient kung fu master on neither Gene Simmons or Bluto Blutarski.
96. I must not put the Thunder God on the spot again.
97. No making up polearms.
98. My one wish cannot be 'I wish everything on this piece of paper was true'
99. There is no such thing as Speed Polka.
100. Not allowed to see if Jedi can parry a shotgun blast with their lightsaber.
101. When any character from a d20 sourcebook is allowed, that doesn't include System Lords.
102. I am not allowed to pave ANYTHING.
103. I am not authorized to start any civil engineering project on the taxpayer's dime.
104. There is no such thing as a Club +3 of Cup Checks
105. Nor is there a +1 Longsword, +5 against party members.
106. I am not allowed to polymorph anyone into Abe Vigoda.
107. I do not have weapon profiency in cat.
108. There is no such game as Wereshark the Buffet.
109. No, I do not get XP for every single crewman on that Star Destroyer.
110. Not allowed to kill a vampire with any part from a DC-10 larger than my car.
111. Not allowed to serenade the party even if my character has an internal tape deck.
112. I did not pick the garrote skill last week from my grandmother.
113. If the gun can't fit through the x-ray machine, it doesn't go on the plane.
114. My Droid is not allowed to paraphrase any Jack Nicholson soliloquy.
115. The Demilich only falls for getting stuffed in the bag of holding once.
116. My musical instrument does not double as a personal flotation device.
117. Not allowed to take a coffee break during the final super villain showdown.
118. I am restricted to memorizing Floating Disc only once per day.
119. I will pick a more traditional paladin weapon instead of a sledgehammer.
120. My character's names cannot be anagrams of playboy playmates.
121. Not allowed to kill another party member with a boomerang again.
122. I am not a contractor for Dragon Cave Cleaning Services Inc.
123. The paladin's alignment is not Lawful Anal.
124. Not allowed to forget to mention traps when the powergamer has point.
125. I cannot insert the words "Kill Phil, Sorry Phil" into any list of instructions.
126. Lingerie can only snap coincidentally so many times per day.
127. Dwarves do not count as burrowing animals.
128. Not allowed to download Widows 3.5 on the Arasaka mainframe.
129. Polka Gnomes exist only in my mind.
130. Not allowed to name my ship The Antidisestablishmentarianism.
131. Gun Fu is not a martial arts discipline.
132. Not allowed to bet how many times the lich bounces.
133. There is no such feat called "Death Blossom"
134. My acrobat cannot balance on the warlord's head for more than one round.
135. The King's Guards official name is not "The Royal Order of the Red Shirt"
136. I cannot demand payment in electrum, backrubs or bubblewrap.
137. I cannot start the 7th Sea campaign with 3 confirmed Drachen kills.
138. I do not have a scorching case of lycanthropy.
139. If the mere thought of it costs the others sanity, I'm forbidden from doing it.
140. My bard is required to take levels in the perform skill and cannot 'just play by ear'
141. The Dutch language does not exist in the Forgotten Realms.
142. My maid does not know kung fu.
143. Not allowed to give a 4 year old a sugar rush just to jack up the CR later.
144. Not allowed to buy a holy symbol for every god just in case one of them is right.
145. There is no such thing as pleather armor.
146. I cannot go back in time to cut in line at the Declaration of Independence so everybody now is asked for their Terrence E. Woczinski when signing documents.
147. Not allowed to play an Australian in any game set before 1600.
148. Hobbits are not allowed to have Norse ancestry.
149. There is no Gnomish Deathgrip, and even if there was, it wouldn't involve tongs.
150. Looting the unguarded baggage train is not considered a glorious victory.
151. Not allowed to create recreational drugs in suppository format.
152. Halflings do not have a racial proficiency with the flamethrower.
153. When the guy is at -9 HP is not the best time for my cleric to convert him.
154. I will not propose to every noblewoman at the royal ball until I crit my charisma check.
155. I am not allowed to rub the monk's head for luck.
156. I am not allowed to rub any part of the elf chick for any reason.
157. When one person forgets to buy rations eating the half-elf is not our first option.
158. Any capital scale weapon is not 'my little friend'.
159. I will not declare myself a god just so I can grant myself spells.
160. Airlocks do not double as trash disposals.
161. I will not load any gatling weapon with nothing but paint rounds.
162. I will not nail every single female party member except for the elf chick played by that creepy guy.
163. What ever monster we just killed is not to be tonight's dinner.
164. Not allowed to try and make a dire version of any dog of the toy breeds.
165. I am not to tattle to the halfling assassin's mom about his career choice.
166. I am forbidden from replacing anything with folger's crystals to see if they notice.
167. Not allowed to bribe the enemy commander into withdrawing with a stolen Elvis LP collection.
168. I was not recruited by Star League for any reason.
169. I was also not recruited by 12 dwarves and a wizard to rob a dragon.
170. I am neither the pagan god nor goddess of fertility.
171. I cannot name my character Xagyg or any anagram thereof.
172. My character's dying words are not allowed to be "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur"
173. At no point can I justify spending force points on a seduction check.
174. I am not allowed to recreate Veers' March of the AT-ATs on Zhentil Keep.
175. There is no use of Shatner's spoken word album that doesn't require a humanity check.
176. I am not directly descended from either Huey Lewis or any member of the News.
177. I cannot make called shots to the plectrum, anvil, stirrup, hammer or Isle of Langerhans.
178. Stinking cloud is a privilege, not a right.
179. There are no profanities in Celestial.
180. Chummer means he is my friend, not that sharks find him tasty.
181. I have neither the touch nor the power.
182. I cannot quote Shakespeare in Crinos.
183. No figuring out the plot and killing the actual villain five minutes into the adventure.
184. There are no rules for cooking corn dogs in any d20 supplement.
185. A starting character has no need for 100gp worth of hemp rope.
186. My bard does not need roadies for a dungeon crawl.
187. No cutting line to be a god.
188. I cannot gain more than three drama die per session for making the GM pee.
189. I cannot play a elf with a scottish accent, nor a cajun dwarf.
190. Tourretes is not a flaw, it is a reason to kill the character at creation.
191. Duels wielding small animals are strictly forbidden.
192. My character is not related in anyway to Boba Fett. This goes double for Star Wars characters.
193. If the gun is best fired using the artillery skill, my character is not allowed to have it.
194. Not allowed to kill vampires with seismic charges.
195. When the other guy picks swords for the choice of weapons, that does not leave me pistols.
196. I cannot use a silent feat enambled power word stun and blame it on the dog.
197. I cannot name a character anything that I can't say politely in another country.
198. My epic level character cannot take on the minor goblin menace to his country just to stay sharp.
199. Not allowed to steal my own soul.
200. My third wish cannot be 'I wish you wouldn't grant this wish'
201. I cannot name my character cliche canon characters from other systems.
202. My thief is prohibited from speaking solely in Cant.
203. Character descriptions cannot contain two of the following words: Slavic, Tonedeaf, Karaoke, Musician.
204. My superhero's strength is not classified as snazzy, neato or bodacious.
205. I am not too sexy for the elf, too sexy for the elf, so sexy myself.
206. My 3rd ed. Red Wizard is not allowed to start a business named Thay Co.
207. I cannot forge a +1 sword of Brad's Min/Maxed Paladin/Monk Slaying.
208. The following weapons are not legal choices in a duel: Steamroller, Nerve Gas, Landmine, Midget.
209. I cannot whine about the crappy selection of magical bec de corbins.
210. My Paladin's heraldry is not a smiley face.
211. My Antipaladin's heraldry is not Mr. Yuk.
212. If at any point if my dwarf takes on the mannerisms of Macho Man Randy Savage, he dies.
212. If the party always starts the adventure in a tavern, I cannot opt to start in a brothel.
213. I am not the patron saint of common sense.
214. There is no prestige class Drizzt Slayer.
215. They do not make heavy weapons in pump action.
216. There is an upper limit to the number of Bozo boostergangers I can get in a Volkswagon.
217. If the weapon is capable of staking vampires hiding behind engine blocks, I can't have it.
218. No matter my alignment, organizing halfling pit fights is a violation.
219. In formal introductions to royalty, I must not introduce my companions as just "The Other Guys".
220. I am not the master of the low blow or the gang up.
221. If I get that Yugo up to 120mph again, that's gonna create some paradox.
222. Druids are not against my religion.
223. I cannot convince the Solo he has a cortex bomb when he really doesn't.
224. I cannot insinuate elf chicks are all easy, even though you never hear about a half gnome do you?
225. I am forbidden from monologuing.
226. Troll bubblegum...bad idea.
227. My last wish cannot be "I wish we were playing another game."
228. I cannot use my time machine to hire Hitler a hooker in 1920, thus avoiding WW2.
229. Not allowed to spontaniously check if the elf can take a punch.
230. There is no such thing as monofilament tooth floss.
231. I am not allowed to do anything that would make a Sith Lord cry.
232. Paul Watson and I are never allowed to create characters together unsupervised.
233. If I am the medtech it is generally assumed I am going to have skill in medicine.
234. My character does not get d34 HP a level.
235. My Samedi is required to have dots in obfuscate. Plural, as in more than one, two more than none.
236. My character has no need for 24,000 cartons of cigarettes, especially in his neighbor's garage.
237. Not allowed to use more than 3 words per game that the GM has to look up the definition.
238. My bard cannot play or has ever heard of the theremin, didgeridoo or glass armonica.
239. My rockerboy cannot play or has ever heard of the theremin, didgeridoo or glass armonica.
240. Any character with more than three skills specializing in chainsaw is vetoed.
241. Cannot use the jedi mind trick to get out of a speeding ticket.
242. Not allowed to give quicklings Mountain Dew.
243. Cannot cast haste on the king during a long winded speech to get him to hurry the hell up.
244. Not allowed to taunt the rest of the party in 8 different languages because they forgot to take any.
245. Not allowed to attend any opera whose name the GM confuses with a strip joint.
246. I cannot keep selling that creepy guy's always naked elf chick to nomads every chance I get.
247. If the king rewards me with a forest, I am to assume he intends for me to keep it a forest.
248. There is no Dwarven God of groin shots.
249. If a black op requires me to impersonate an employee, I cannot bill the target for overtime.
250. Superfluous Man is not a viable superhero concept.

Re:Rules new in the 4th edition - many bugfixes (3, Informative)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943940)

Full list of 1,025 (!!!) posted here [] and here [] .

Thank you, now stop (5, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943668)

First off, thank you for no more Gnomes as a basic race (or so is the rumor)

What exactly is happening to the wizard class? It sounds like it's becoming more like the Warlock and gaining spell casting like the CHA based casters or spell like abilities based on memorized spells? Are you able to expand on this or give us more information yet?

D&D and WOW (5, Interesting)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943682)

It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?

Re:D&D and WOW (2, Funny)

Aeonite (263338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943740)

You owe me a Coke.

Re:D&D and WOW (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943786)

I think that influences has come full circle. Computer RPG's (and MMORPGS) have been influenced by Tabletop RPGs to the point that now Tabletop RPGs are now influenced by some concepts that originated in computer games.

Same thing with movies being influenced by novels or comics and viceversa...

However, I don't really think that Wizards of the Coast is designing 4th edition D&D to "copy" WoW or any other online game.

Re:D&D and WOW (3, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944012)

Will there be a "mohawk" class, fool?

World of Dungeons of Warcraft (1)

Aeonite (263338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943696)

To a certain extent, it sounds as if D&D4e is mimicking a lot of the standards that World of Warcraft and other MMOs have laid down. To whit: The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party, Feat Trees, etc. Are you consciously and intentionally making D&D4e more like online MMOs to try and recapture some of that lost audience?

Re:World of Dungeons of Warcraft (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943834)

The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party
As opposed to the foursome of Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard thats been standard since the seventies?

Feat Trees
I think that "Feat Trees", "Talent Trees", etc. are an example of a good game mechanic that, regardless of where it originated, contributes to having a better game.

Re:World of Dungeons of Warcraft (1)

doug (926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943970)

The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party
As opposed to the foursome of Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard thats been standard since the seventies?
Actually, for us old farts that would be "fighter", "thief", "cleric" and "magic-user".

Re:World of Dungeons of Warcraft (3, Informative)

Aeonite (263338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943992)

The foursome of the Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster as roles within a party

As opposed to the foursome of Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard thats been standard since the seventies?
Yes, as opposed to. Warrior, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard obviously inspired Tank, DPS, Healer and Blaster, but MMOs have twisted the roles away from the original classes. To whit: Rogues are now the de Facto DPS class. In olden days, Rogues had backstab, sure, but they were never the primary damage dealers. They were stealthy pickpocketing thieves.

4e? Rogues are now the primary DPS class.

Wizards Presents: Races and Classes (a 4e preview), makes it explicit. []

To quote the author of that review:

"These are new specific "jobs" in an adventuring party that they designed for. They are defender, striker, controller, and leader. The defender is a typical MMORPG tank, with high defenses and abilities to cause foes to focus on him. The striker is a one-on-one damage dealer. The controller is oddly named - this covers damaging or affecting multiple targets (like with a Fireball). The leader heals, aids, and buffs."

If 4e was returning to roots, they'd have four classes and that's it. Instead, they're giving us four roles that are MMO-inspired and layering lots more than four classes atop those roles. That's not anything like D&D used to be.

Re:World of Dungeons of Warcraft (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944432)

I think those roles already existed, although not officially. The Fighter was usually the guy who soaked up damage. The Rogue was the guy who ran around stabbing things in the back for lots of damage, the cleric could heal and tank, and the wizard could blast and die really easily.

There's a book that added a Knight class, which was basically being able to control which monsters attacked who and being able to take on lots of damage. Basically an MMO Tank. But the general idea was there earlier.

The balance between easy and good (4, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943700)

How do you feel you've struck a balance between a desire to simplify/streamline rules to speed play and make the game more accessible, and a desire to preserve the strategy and general goodness of the game as it exists today? Details about proposed changes that were a tough call either way would be interesting.

What I would like to know more than anything (5, Interesting)

Steeltalon (734391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943714)

Why is there a need for a 4th edition? 3.5 wasn't released all that long ago (and the books were just as expensive as the 3.0 versions), so why do we need a 4.0? Is there a compelling reason or is this just a symptom of Hasbro casting "Animate Dead" on TSR's corpse?

MOD UP! (1)

H3lldr0p (40304) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943800)

This is the one question that came leaping to mind at GenCon this past year which really hasn't been answered to my personal satisfaction. I really want to move away from the cynical thoughts and hope that this more than just a video-game like (multi-)year cycle but the fact that they are selling preview modules (selling me an advertisement?) for the next edition does not leave me much hope.

Re:MOD UP! (2, Interesting)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944156)

I'm feeling pretty cynical about their reasons for doing this, too. The things I read about the new rules, up until I finally stopped reading in disgust, all seemed like a dumbening of the rules to appeal to attention span-challenged video gamers.

Re:What I would like to know more than anything (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943972)

After 8 years in the wild, I think WotC has a good idea of what in 3rd Ed simply isn't fun. Save or die is not fun. Critical confirmations are not fun. Gnomes and half-orcs are not fun. OTOH, there are tons of requests for things that are fun that aren't in the rules. I think WotC is chucking things nobody ever liked, anyway.

I, for one, welcome the change. I think the new rules are a vast improvement. Note that I say this as a convert; last year I swore I would not purchase 4th because I thought it was a crass, cynical cash-in. I changed my mind when I saw what they wanted to do.

Why do we need a whole new rules system? (3, Interesting)

flaming-opus (8186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943716)

It seems to me that the fun of table-top Role Playing Games is the storytelling. It's the plots, and the character development, and the mythical settings that make RPGs so exciting. Do we really need to further refine the game rules, or is this a simple cash grab for the publisher, when all the gamers out there update to the new rules?

New content for old Settings? (5, Interesting)

andphi (899406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943728)

I know that some of the old settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammers, Dark Sun, Planescape) have been transitioned to other companies or have been quietly kept alive by their fans with knowledge bases and efforts at rules translations between old rulesets and 3.5. Will any of these old, orphaned settings being making a comeback in 4.0? (Planescape. Please, Planescape!) If not, are the 4.0 rules being written to make these on-going translation efforts easier?

Negative Press (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943734)

Short intro, I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi. Play a lot of computer games. Enjoy reading up on lore and the like.

But I never got into D&D. I had friends that played it but I was never into it. I tried playing it a few times and had some fun experiences. But there's always been a sort of negative stigma associated with it among ... well, the general populace. What are you doing to break free of this? Or do you embrace it? What are your thoughts & opinions on this strange negative publicity that popular movies push onto D&D players? Do you ever try to break free of that?

Newbie alert (me) (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943758)

This might also be a good question for fellow readers here.
Having never played D&D, What is the appeal of this game?
It sort of looks like it's mostly about mathematics, not trying to be flamebait here, I'm genuinely curious.

If I should start playing, where to start and with which version of the rules?

Re:Newbie alert (me) (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943930)

It was nothing short of interactive story telling. I had friends who were geeks and artists, and it was really fun for a while. I had a character whom I role played his entire family. If I had taken some serious notes, I really could have written a book!

  Mind you, I quit playing after 2nd edition. And my playing time was a good 15-20 years ago. (Man, am I getting that old?).

People who dwell on the rules, or have little bickering fights wanting to annoy someone who they didn't like (not all the geeks liked the artists and vice-versa) really kinda ruined it.

What I got out of it, was imagination, a weak form of acting, and the ability to shape my dreams into reality while playing by the rules. It's nice to set personal goals and then work hard to achieve them.

Anyone else who doesn't really benefit from it in some way, or get something positive out of it is wasting their time. I never really got the appeal of the computer versions, either. (I have all the old gold box games for C64 and Amiga in their original packaging), even MMORPGs of today, seem kinda ... lacking. Everyone is playing the same revision of about the same story.

Where's the imagination, or creativity in that?

Re:Newbie alert (me) (3, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944128)

The game is only as fun as the people you play with.

Re:Newbie alert (me) (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944146)

If I should start playing, where to start and with which version of the rules?
If you want to start playing you really have two options, hang out at the game shop and talk to people there to find out if anyone needs a player or talk to your friends. That's how I got into the campaign I'm in: My girlfriends, friends, husband is in a campaign and told me they needed a good mage. It's taken me a few sessions to get back into the swing of the game but if you get in with an experienced group you'll learn a lot quickly.

As for "which version" the big jumps are from 2nd to 3rd (Thac0 to d20) but ask the GM what version they're playing. I won't start the war of 2nd v. 3rd but personally I think 3 or 3.5 is a good starting place and have been able to teach first time players the rules for d20 faster that Thac0.

Evasion (1)

poet (8021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943762)

Have you fixed Evasion so that a character must have a place to evade too? It is odd that a character can Evade Fireball in a 10 foot wide tunnel. Further I would suggest that rules be put forth about movement availability in that scenario. If I just ran (4x move) on my turn, I find it unlikely I could then evade 40 yards.

Re:Evasion (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944230)

Evade while odd always makes me think of the bullet dodging scene from the matrix... He evaded the bullets without moving an inch. That's why evade buffs your AC, even in leather your AC is damn good because you are just so hard to hit.

Undo (0)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943766)

How much of the damage that you did in 3.0 are you going to undo in 4.0? Are you going to fix the errors like wizards being able to use swords, magic using dwarves, and fixing the part where you left out the good alignment restrictions on rangers?

Re:Undo (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943836)

Why should rangers have to have a good alignment restriction?

Re:Undo (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944368)

Because that was the way it was written in 1st and 2nd edition by Gary himself. Anything else is Bullshit.

Yeah, lame answer but its supposed to be funny.

Re:Undo (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944310)

Just as in 1st Edition, 3rd edition wizards aren't proficient with swords.

Don't like magic-using dwarves or non-good rangers? Don't play one, or if you're DM, disallow those combinations. Problem solved. Those always seemed to me examples of things that should be determined by the specific campaign world, not the rule system.

Re:Undo (1)

CensorshipDonkey (1108755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944366)

These are all opinions. If the developers decide wizards can use swords, they use swords. Find me a wizard, and then we'll talk about what's "right".

One word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944420)


Re:Undo (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944434)

Okay guys your supposed to be agreeing with me. Not beating my bullshit with logic and reason.

Common guys, lets get with the program.

Class homogenization? (4, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943778)

It sounds like, in an effort to balance classes better, they've all become a lot more alike. That is, a wizard and a warrior will have a very different list of abilities, but they'll all have X abilities to use at will, X abilities to use once an encounter, and so on. Do you feel this is a fair assessment? If so, is there any concern that in making the classes more alike you'll have essentially created one well-balanced class that no one wants to play? In 3E, a lot of the classes require very different kinds of strategy and in my experience all players have different favorites for reasons that seem to be going away.

Roles: choices or straightjackets? (1)

flymolo (28723) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943780)

If a player makes a 4th edition fighter will it automatically be able to fill the role of defender and no other role, or will that depend on the feats and talent choices made for that particular fighter?

How long will this edition last? (4, Insightful)

Erwos (553607) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943790)

It upset quite a few folks when D&D 3.0E transitioned to 3.5E relatively soon after release, and made some people's investments in D&D become basically worthless overnight. While I appreciate that it's sometimes time to spawn a new edition that's incompatible with the old, it felt like 3.5E should have been an errata to 3.0E, rather than a totally new set of books.

I understand that WotC can't commit itself to any firm "we will not release another edition for X years" guarantee, but it would be nice to hear some sort of assurance that we won't see a repeat of the 3.0E->3.5E debacle. What's the plan? What lessons have you learned?

Re:How long will this edition last? (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944044)

I wouldn't call it a "debacle," given that there was no economic backlash for WotC whatsoever. People grumbled, but they bought the books. The game still flourished. Everyone who swore they wouldn't buy 3.5E (people like me) ended up getting it eventually, anyway.

The only "lesson" to be learned is that, when given the chance to vote with their wallets, gamers will vote for WotC.

Re:How long will this edition last? (1)

CensorshipDonkey (1108755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944406)

Almost the entire 3.5E ruleset was released for free as part of the public SRD, under the Open Gaming License. You didn't have to buy a thing (my group didn't), and there were only a few rule changes to learn. Treat like an errata if you wish, or buy the books. The company simply made updated books available, if you had the cash, or perhaps starting after the 3.5 update.

Open Gaming License (5, Interesting)

egg_green (727755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943826)

With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?

Re:Open Gaming License (2, Informative)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944190)

There will be both a new OGL license and and SRD (system reference document [aka "D&D For Free"]). The new OGL may incorporate language to allow you to advertise 4th Edition compatibility, something that was previously only obtainable as part of the onerous d20 STL (which may be going away according to Scott Rouse).

Re:Open Gaming License (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944240)

From what I've heard, the OGL is not sticking around for the 4.0 release. This has independent producers scrambling to find alternatives to the D20 system or just rolling their own. While the D20 system has it's flaws and clunky bits, it's usually better than homebrew systems.

Re:Open Gaming License (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944392)

Where did you hear this?

Scott Rouse has said, "There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period. No d20 STL (tiered or otherwise) to be even more clear." Indicating there will be the OGL.

Also, "We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like 'Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game...'"

Further, on the release of the SRD, "July 2008 at the latest but some publishers will get it early so they can develop products in advance."

There will be both and OGL and an SRD. 3rd party publishers can continue writing new content for 4th Ed.

Complexity vs. other gaming systems (5, Interesting)

Mechagodzilla (94503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943854)

Has there been any thoughts or discussions on reducing the amount of books needed to play? Donating a bookshelf to every new edition is getting a little ridiculous for the casual gamer. I have 40+ books from first and second edition. I bought the Player's Handbook from the third edition, read the first thirty pages and went "bleh".

To reference another gaming system, I can generate a character in GURPS (Steve Jackson Games) in under an hour, have a little better feel for advantages and disadvantages, arm and clothe the character, and do it all from one book. Now there are other books available, but not necessary. Also, their magic system seems a lot more reasonable than memorizing spells. I always thought of spells more like skills than chunks of memory.

I know it goes against the business model, but can you actually make a game that can be played with less than four books?

Re:Complexity vs. other gaming systems (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944090)

Also, their magic system seems a lot more reasonable than memorizing spells. I always thought of spells more like skills than chunks of memory.

I believe 4th Ed addresses this. The quote I heard went something like this: "After a wizard uses all his spells for the day, he is still at 80% combat effectiveness." I think this means you can designate certain spells as "per round" usage using the new "magical implements" rules.

Re:Complexity vs. other gaming systems (3, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944198)

What? You didn't find The Complete Potato Farmer v 3.504.321a to be worth the 30 USD?

Sadly, and I know that someone will probably bitch at me, the WotC business model is based on people consuming what they normally don't need at an alarming rate. They gained wide popularity in the business of CCGs. Anyone who's ever spent any serious time playing CCGs knows that it's a scam; a monetary blackhole where rules are made up to make perfectly good cards obsolete and create an atmosphere where players (normally teens) beleive that their cards are going to be worth big money and are, in fact, an investment instead of a gaming supply. Come on folks, enough already.

I felt that this would be the case with D&D when Wizards got their hooks into it and the speed with which 3.5 was announced only confirmed my thoughts. And this isn't even to mention the meager software offerings that went toes-up before the bittorrent could even be completed.

While I still maintain and interest in the game and still play with the same small group I have for the better part of the last decade, I still clutch onto my 3.0 core rules and a copy of Tomes and Blood. I will not spend 30+ USD on more books for a game that does not justify it. I'm still running just fine with my Call of Cthulhu 5.0 rulebook. I've had it just as long or longer than most people have had their AD&D 2.0 books. And it's the only book needed for the game!

Re:Complexity vs. other gaming systems (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944248)

I think you hit it on the head...

I played back in the early 80's, then stopped when I left high school. Picked it up for a short while in college. Then the drought where I didn't play for years. A year ago I met some folks who were interested in getting together for some low-pressure games. So I tried. But MAN, so many rules and bits of nonsense that it compeletely killed the imagination that made it so interesting in the first place. The DM had some laptop based tools, but really, if you need a computer to track the game then it's a moot point how useful the tools are.

Re:Complexity vs. other gaming systems (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944324)

Also, their magic system seems a lot more reasonable than memorizing spells. I always thought of spells more like skills than chunks of memory.

If that still bothers you, maybe you need to read a little more Jack Vance.

And then ask yourself why Gygax named one of the most powerful wizards in his original D&D setting 'Vecna'.

Role Playing (2)

Dan9999 (679463) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943894)

I haven't gone through the changes to 4e yet but I found that in 3.5 we were spending a lot of time searching for modifiers for our rolls. Is there a shift from this to where the role playing will start making a more concrete difference in survival and the adventures or is it still up to the DM to make sure this happens? My last 2 DMs were excellent in this aspect but with more definitive rules and information about this it would make ALL the players role play more.

very important question (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943904)

does vin diesel role play as half-drow or half-orc?

Races (1)

savi (142689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943910)

Will you consider adding more traditional D&D races such as gnomes and orcs? Why did you feel the need to add another elf variant as part of the core rules? Do we really need another one?

Here's a question (1)

Bootle (816136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21943978)

Why are you stiffing us? Again?

Look Up time (1)

Augoeides (820180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944008)

We dont' have a lot of time to play and will choose another game system if yours requires us to spend an inordinate amount of time flipping through a stack of "core PHBs and DMGs" to find the specs on some feat or talent tree ability. What are you doing to reduce time spent looking stuff up?

4th edition?!?!? (4, Insightful)

Obliterous (466068) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944020)

this is the `we're not making enough money' edition, right?

Seriously. 3rd, and then 3.5, and now 4th edition, all within what, six years?? and how long did 2nd last?

there's nothing wrong with the game as it plays, now, that a couple of house rules cant fix.

another `lets make everything from the last version completely obsolete' version is NOT going to sit well with a lot of players.

I paid all that money for 2nd edition books, and actually got my moneys worth. I had them for more than 10 years.

I held off on buying 3rd edition, because I was still happy with 2nd, and by the time I was ready to buy, 3.5 had been released, so that's what I bought.

considering how much I paid for all of these books, and how many 3.5 books I've purchased, I wont consider myself to have gotten my moneys worth from them until at LEAST 2012. So as far as I can tell, 4th edition is at LEAST 4 years too early. so I doubt that I'll be buying or playing 4th edition for a while.

So, really, My question is: Did you actually come up with something so completely new that it makes a new edition essential, or is this just a move by WOC to squeeze as much money out of the AD&D franchise as possible?

Electronic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944030)

Is 4th edition really just a segue to a final all-electronic product filled with subscriptions/micropayments?

How do you beat Warcraft? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944050)

No pussyfooting around the question: ugly nerd kids these days would rather get their Warcrack online, where they can grind to risk-free heroism while pretending to be hot girls to get attention. What's the incentive to stare at a bunch of greasy acne ridden faces and listen to squeaky voices arguing over rules for hours on end while the DM acts out his god complex by killing their character investments in a fit of displaced revenge because Chuck McRibsteak stuffed him in a locker again?

Re:How do you beat Warcraft? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944276)

Storyline for one.

But I do agree with you, if it weren't for having a steady group of friends that I've been playing the games with for such a long time I'd probably just rather play a MMORPG too. When my current group breaks up I doubt I'll ever roll another d20 again.

And I do see it in the younger generation; my nephew (16) lost his pen and paper group about 8 months back and doesn't seem too motivated in getting together another one but his XFire stats I can see he plays over 20 hours of WoW a week. Not to say that pen and paper is doomed but it's pretty damn close.

Screw all these new editions (1)

netglen (253539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944250)

I was happy with the Basic and Advanced D&D box sets. You don't need to carry a huge backpack in order to tote around a dozen or so of D&D books.

Will combat be more streamlined? (4, Interesting)

DeafDumbBlind (264205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944270)

Currently, at higher levels, a fight between the party and a group of enemies can easily last a couple of hours.
How has combat been streamlined?

What was wrong... (1)

Chysn (898420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944294)

...with the First Edition?

Magic Item Requirement (5, Interesting)

Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944308)

One of the things I dislike about 3rd edition is that at medium and high levels magic items are such a big part of a character's power. A PC has to be decorated like a Christmas tree with various magical doodads in order to be effective. Running a campaign in a world where magic items are rare or nonexistant required a lot of house rules and adjustment on the part of the DM. Will it be easier to run a low or no magic item campaign in 4e?

How exactly (1)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944344)

will the online tools work? Will it be all on the site or will I have to download a utility? Will I be able to view them on my Linux system?

Is 4th edition going to be compatible with 3.5, or are you going to break backwards compatibility like you did with 3.0?

Do you have any idea what the monthly subscription rate for D&D Insider will be?

Will you be publishing compatibility guides for your campaign worlds, and when? What campaigns will be supported in 4.0?

What do you think, based on playtesting, the learning curve is like?

I know, more than one question, but so many of the rest of the comments are the same tired old gamer-bashing that I think I'm entitled.

Oh, and my six year old daughter wants an easy-reader version.

Who are you trying to please? (3, Insightful)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944386)

Pardom me if this mini-rant-around-a-question goes long. I started playing D&D (the basic boxed set) and AD&D ages ago--first on 1st Ed. rules and eventually ponying up for 2nd Ed. My friends and I liked the game because it was easy and simple (regarding game mechanics) in the first edition, and we did enjoy some of the changes going into 2nd E. (though we did opt to keep the original Ranger class, as our gaming world was very Norse and giant-heavy). For those of us who wanted games with more realistic (if you can use that term for a Fantasy RPG) combat mechanics, different skill allocation methods, and other detailed tables, we had RuneQuest, Palladium, and dozens of other options. The game was well-established, and players could be found anywhere.

With the arrival of the 3rd Ed. rules, you lost me as a regular player, along with many of my peers (we may be a bit older now, but we are the ones with regular salaries and a desire to continue the delusion of ongoing youth by purchasing simple amusements like games). I had no desire to relearn a gaming system that, for the most part, had its rules embedded in my head. The 3.5 Ed.? Didn't even pay attention. Fourth edition? Sorry, but not interested.

My own sons are old enough to play now. I've been shopping around for some of the early 1st and 2nd Ed. books so my kids and I may try out the game together, but until that happens, we bide our time playing Guild Wars (online) and Magic: The Gathering (offline).

My question is this: who are you trying to please? Do you have a core group of early gamers who will buy anything AD&D just because you print it? Are you attracting any younger gamers to the fold? If not, what's the point in publishing release after release after release? It's as bad as auto makers manufacturing '08 vehicles that are effectively the same as the '07s (Oh!, but the door for the gas cap is now square!).

The question I'm asking beneath the surface is, "Why should I care at all?" Unless the rules are relatively simple--something that won't require me to buy an entire library of books--you won't win me back. Once upon a time, only three books were needed for hours (months, and years) of fun: the DM handbook, the Player's handbook, and a Monster Manual (and the creative DM could get by without the MM). In all honesty, it looks like you are using the glorious history of (perhaps) the most storied RPG franchise of our time and using only as a perpetual money maker for your company. The more I hear about subsequent editions, the more I get the impression that you don't give a crap about the players out there (the people who made the game great in the first place), and that you simply wonder how much more you can squeeze the golden goose before it dies.

4.5 (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944402)

When is 4.5 coming out?

Windows Only Online Tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21944412)

For DND Insider, you have confirmed that you are only supporting all of your tools on Windows and that several of them are designed using Direct X. Knowing that your audiences are generally those more adept and familiar with computing technology, why did you choose to design tools in such a way that they will never be able to be used beyond the Windows Platform? Are there any plans currently in the works to extend these opportunities to those of us who use other operating systems such as OS X? If we don't run a Windows platform what is the point of paying for the access to the D&D Insider Online Tools?

Burning Wheel (1, Offtopic)

Apreche (239272) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944416)

Have you ever played Burning Wheel [] , or other indy RPGs? What do you say to people who complain that D+D is taking all the RP out of the RPG?

Spells! (1)

shotgunsaint (968677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21944454)

We know there will be at least 25th level spells... does that mean we'll have more individual spells to choose from, or are the spells going to scale in level? Also, will you be selecting spells as your talents or do you automatically get access to them as you level up?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?