Is an ultimate edition of D&D possible?

Wizards of the Coast has officially announced Dungeons & Dragons 5E.  This probably isn’t a shocker to people who follow the industry.  The rehiring of veteran game designer Monte Cook, especially considering the tenor of his recent Legends & Lore articles, pointed to a new edition.  Recent rulebooks have also seemed more willing to experiment with the existing D&D 4E rules, reminiscent of late D&D 3E books like the Tome of Battle.

And of course sagging sales of D&D 4E products probably sped things along.  After all, traditionally nothing sells as well as the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide and Monster Manual.

What I find interesting is that D&D 5E was announced so early in the process.  Even though it was obvious a new edition was in the works, I expected them to keep mum out of fear that they would torpedo the sales of upcoming 4E products.  After all, why would you buy books that will soon be considered obsolete?

Well, according to Mike Mearls they intend on conducting open playtests and soliciting feedback from the gaming community.  Of course this is a great marketing line, but the fact that they would risk hurting sales of these upcoming books makes me think that they are serious about getting feedback from the gaming community on D&D 5E.

The real question is whether or not this will work.  Wizards of the Coast is hoping for an “ultimate” edition of D&D that will help unite the fractured fanbase.  I’m not sure if this is even possible.  D&D means different things to different people, and when products are designed to please everyone they often end up pleasing no one.

Nevertheless I remain hopeful.  There are a lot of talented game designers behind this new edition at WOTC and if RPG blogs have taught me anything it is that there is a lot of untapped talent in the gaming community.

In any case, this new approach to creating the new edition has piqued my interest.

Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition’s greatest innovation

Last weekend I found myself playing Dungeons & Dragons 3E for the first time in nearly a year.  I was happy to get the opportunity since I consider myself pretty neutral in the edition wars and I was happy to get the chance to flex my D&D 3E muscles again. 

I will admit though that after a year long hiatus I found myself missing one feature of D&D 4E.  You may wonder: Was it the powers?  The clearly defined party roles?  Skill challenges?

Nope, didn’t really miss any of them.  What I found myself missing was that a level no longer equaled a level which no longer equaled a level.

I’ve been playing wizards in D&D since they were called magic-users, so I tend to be pretty blind to how confusing differences in character level, caster level, and spell level could be to the new player.  Knowing that you get your third level spells at fifth level seems as natural to me as breathing.

This time though, I looked at it from another perspective.  The game was starting at third level, so I created a Crusader 2 / Cleric of Wee Jas 1.  Suddenly, I found myself having to determine what level maneuvers my third level character could take. 

This was based off of initiator level, which was calculated from adding half of my other class levels to my maneuver granting class and rounding down.  I would then compare that number to a chart to determine what level maneuvers were available to me.

This really isn’t any more confusing then character level, caster level, and spell level are.  It was just new to me.  It did make me to wonder why determining what level maneuvers I could use couldn’t  be as simple as: “A second level crusader can use second level maneuvers.”

Which is of course how it is done in D&D 4E.

So now I know what I will miss if I ever revert back to D&D 3E (or Pathfinder) full time.  Of all the changes that were made between the editions, its something as tiny as level consistency that I would miss the most.

Some thoughts on D&D Essentials

Since the D&D Essentials line was announced, there has been a lot of speculation that it is meant as a ‘stealth’ edition.  In fact, Bill Slavicsek took the time in his most recent Ampersand column to debunk this concept.  He specifically notes that the Essentials products will be “fully compatible with the rest of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game.”  and that “The rules of the game are the same as those featured in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. The presentation is new, rewritten for clarity and friendliness.”

I believe Bill Slavicsek is telling the truth, at least as far as it goes.  I am sure the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products will be usable with our existing books.  However, I think it is informative to look back to 2003 when we were awaiting the release of the Dungeons & Dragons v.3.5 (D&D 3.5e) rules. 

Back then there were a lot of concerns that D&D 3.5e was a ‘stealth’ edition as well.  Just like now, we were given a lot of assurances that D&D 3.5e was merely a minor rules update meant to streamline and enhance the gaming experience.  Wizards of the Coast insisted that the two systems were compatible and our investment in D&D 3.0e books would not go to waste.

Once again, Wizards of the Coast was telling the truth, at least as far as it goes. It was possible to intermix D&D 3.0 and D&D 3.5 books.  In fact, in the campaign we were playing at the time we did exactly that. No one was forced to convert their character to D&D 3.5 if they didn’t want to.  A D&D 3.5 ranger was completely capable of being in a party with a D&D 3.0 druid.  If the effects of two wizards spells didn’t sync up exactly, it could easily be explained as the unpredictability of magic or differences in their schooling.

So why did D&D 3.5e feel like a stealth edition?

The biggest problem was probably that as more books came out they were filled with revised versions of pre-existing materials.  In the core books this was inevitable.  The problems really began with the supplements.

Almost every supplement that came out for D&D 3.5e had revised versions of prestige classes, feats, spells, and monsters.  The D&D 3.0 versions of these were considered obsolete and many Dungeon Masters began to ban material from the older books.  Thus the promise that our investment in the old books wasn’t wasted proved to be untrue and the fears of a ‘stealth edition’ became a reality.

So will D&D Essentials have the same problem?  It really depends on whether Wizards of the Coast chooses to look forward or back when designing upcoming supplements.   It will be really tempting when new supplements come out to tweak old favorites and release an ‘Essential’ version. 

This isn’t because Wizards of the Coast staff are evil or lazy.  Rather it is the nature of being a game designer.  By their very nature, game designers are creative people who are constantly tinkering with the rules in an effort to make them better.  They are the kind of people who will jump at a chance to improve a paragon path, epic destiny, feat, power, or monster that they feel is flawed. 

D&D Essentials will give them this opportunity, but this is one case where they should let opportunity pass them by.  Rather than revisit the past, the Essentials supplements should move the game forward.  We should see new paragon paths, epic destinies, feats, powers, and monsters. Otherwise D&D Essentials will be seen as a ‘stealth’ edition no matter how many times we are told it isn’t.

Besides, there will be plenty of opportunities to revisit the old favorites when D&D 5e comes along.

The legacy of Magic: The Gathering on Dungeons & Dragons

I know some gamers, including some close friends of mine, who believe the true end of Dungeons & Dragons came about when TSR was acquired by Wizards of the Coast.  Being a fan of the both Dungeons & Dragons 3E  and Dungeons & Dragons 4E , I am obviously not one of them.  In fact, I tended to dismiss their claims about the influence of Magic: The Gathering on D&D as being overblown.  After all, 3E D&D was under development when the company was acquired, so how much influence could the new owners have had?

After this last weekend I have decided I needed to reevaluate this position.  Last Thursday I purchased Magic: The Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers on the Xbox 360.  Prior to this weekend I hadn’t played Magic: The Gathering in nearly a decade.  While playing this weekend I was struck by how many core concepts from Magic: The Gathering have migrated to Dungeons & Dragons over the years

Keywords

This is one of the most obvious influences.  Magic: The Gathering is driven by keywords.  If a creature is listed as having Double Strike, Flying, or Haste, you can look up those standard keywords and figure out immediately what the creature can do.

Dungeons & Dragons 3E and Dungeons & Dragons 4E both make extensive use of keywords.  Knowing a creature has the Insubstantial property or a spell is a Force effect allow for greater consistency within the rules of the game.  Before the use of keywords, there would often be big differences between how very similar abilities would be adjudicated.

I am actually a big fan of the use of keywords.  I believe they both streamline the rules and add a great deal of consistency to the game.

Art Style

One of the contributing factors to the success of Magic: The Gathering is the artwork on the cards.  Not surprisingly, when Wizards of the Coast acquired TSR they put their stable of artists to work on redefining the look of Dungeons & Dragons.

The effect this had on the game should not be underestimated.  Obviously a lot of people (although not everyone), found this new look appealing.  I would even argue that the new and more fantastical look encouraged game designers to create more fantastical arms and equipment.

I personally have mixed feelings on the new look Wizards of the Coast brought to Dungeons & Dragons.  I do feel that the old art style felt somewhat dated to me.  However, I am not always a fan of the new style either, which sometimes looks a bit too “medieval punk” for my tastes.  So for me this is a wash.

Customizable Builds

Magic: The Gathering is all about customizing your deck.  A good deck consists of cards that may be individually decent, but devastating when combined. 

Dungeons & Dragons 3E added this concept of customization to player characters.  Using feats, multiclass, and prestige classes players were able to customize their characters like never before.  Dungeons & Dragons 4E added powers into the mix, which means the player gets to choose the majority of his class abilities. 

Not surprisingly this focus on customization leads certain players to game the system.

Once again I find the customizable builds to be a mixed bag.  I do enjoy customizing my character… in fact, my perfect system would likely be a classless point buy system.  On the other hand, the tendency to power game can go a bit too far at times (as any trip to the Character Optimization boards will show).

Exception Based Rules

The basic rules of Magic: The Gathering are rather simple.  You summon creatures and attempt to use them to damage your opponent.  The complexity comes from the fact that many cards allow you to “break” these rules in a specific way.

Powers in Dungeons & Dragons 4E work in a very similar manner.  While the basic rules of D&D 4E are pretty simple, each power allows you to “break” the rules as well.  It is not surprising that many players use power cards, whether home made or store bought, to keep track of these effects.

I know that exception based rules is one of the most controversial parts of Dungeons & Dragons 4E.  I tend to like the concept, but sometimes have issues with how it was implemented.

In conclusion…

It really is impossible to deny that Magic: The Gathering has influenced Dungeons & Dragons since it was acquired by Wizards of the Coast.  Of course whether you see this as innovation or blasphemy depends on your point of view.

Dungeons & Dragons Online is free! Well, mostly free?

I haven’t thought about Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) for awhile. I had a brief interest in it when it was released in early 2006, but mixed reviews and the fact that I was already invested in City of Heroes made me decide to save myself $15 a month. So despite some interest, I was never really interested enough to check it out.

That will probably change with the Eberron Unlimited update coming out later this summer. A number of things are packaged in this update, including raising the level limit to 20 and the introduction of a new class. Really though, all anyone is going to talk about is that it will open up the option to play for free.

Yes, that’s right, you can play for free.

Are there caveats? Of course there are. While it is true there is no fee for playing the game, there is an incentive to get Turbine Points.  Turbine Points can be used at an online store to purchase items, premium adventure packs, extra character slots, hirelings, potions, and more.  Certain benefits, like a premium adventure pack, will apply to all of your characters, while others, like items, are bound to the character who purchased them.

So how do you get these Turbine Points?  Well one way is to play.  As you play, you will earn a certain number of Turbine Points.  The other way?  Hand over the plastic.  Yep, DDO will accept credit card or PayPal in exchange for Turbine Points at the online store.  There is also a third method.  You can choose to pay a $15 a month subscription gee to become a VIP member. VIP members get access to some exclusive content as well as a stipend of Turbine Points each month.

I know people will be split on the “pay for loot” aspect. My wife is a hardcore MMORPG player, and she would consider this cheating. She prefers to earn her perquisites through online play, and would be annoyed that a newbie could buy top equipment with real world cash.

On the other hand, my friend Brian has often wished that this feature existed on City Of Heroes in the past.  He is a casual MMORPG player and sees no reason he should be locked out of content just because his work and family obligations don’t allow him the luxury of gaming 20 hours a week.

I am choosing to look at it a third way. Dungeons & Dragons Online is letting me try their product for free for as long as I want. Sure, I might not get everything that the player who spends $15 a month or dumps $100 on the online store. That doesn’t matter because I can simply try it out and see if I like it with no obligation. If I really like it, I will sign up for the VIP membership. If I want to play it casually, maybe I will just buy an occasional item from the store. Best of all, if I hate it, at least it didn’t cost me anything to find that out.

Digital Deja Vu

Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) releases a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, making radical changes to the game.  They also prominently announce upcoming suite of digital tools that will make your life easier.  Quick question, what year am I talking about?

1. 1974
2. 1977
3. 1989
4. 2000
5. 2003
6. 2008

If you chose number four, you would be correct.  It seems like ancient history now, but when D&D Third Edition came out, every copy of the Player's Handbook came with a CD-ROM containing a sample Character Generator.  This Character Generator was only a preview for the soon to be released Master Tools!

Master Tools would not just be a character generator, but a comprehensive suite of digital software including a character and monster generator, a 3D map-making tool, and much more.  Like many DM's running a game at the time, I eagerly awaited these time-saving digital aids.

I ended up waiting quite awhile.  What I didn't know at the time, is that Fluid Entertainment, the company hired to create the original Master Tools, was running into bureaucratic red tape.  Basically, the contract lawyers at WOTC became concerned that the 3D map-making tools Fluid was putting into Master Tools would violate the exclusive contract that Bioware had in developing D&D video games.  So Fluid was forced to gut its own product.

This product eventually debuted at Gen Con 2002 as the E-Tools: Character and Monster Generator.  The reason for the "Character and Monster Generator" after the colon was that it was supposed to be the first in a set of E-Tools products.  Those never materialized.  Even worse, the product was substandard.  Fluid Entertainment seemed to have lost its taste for deal and WOTC was left with a bit of a lemon on its hands.

Knowing they had to do something for disappointed fans, WOTC saw a quick fix solution when they were approached by several individuals from the Open Source PCGEN project, looking to gain some legitimacy.  At the time PCGEN contained home-brewed data sets that contained comprehensive information about all the game books WOTC published.  The legality of including WOTC copyrighted data, even in a free open source character generator, was questionable.

So when WOTC and the heads of the PCGEN open source project struck a deal.  They would be allowed to legally sell data sets containing WOTC material.  But part of the deal was that they had to fix the extremely buggy E-Tools and support it for a period of time.  These individuals formed a new company called Code Monkey Publishing (now separate from the PCGEN project). 

Meanwhile, WOTC washed their hands of the fiasco.  While they maintained approval rights for the data sets Code Monkey Publishing created for E-Tools and PCGEN, they didn't seem to do much to support their "partner".  References to E-Tools on the Wizards website completely ceased.  It became obvious that they had given up on an "official" set of digital tools to support 3rd Edition D&D.

Fast-Forward to 2007.  WOTC announces the upcoming 4th Edition D&D will include a suite of digital tools that will make your life easier!  At this point I was hopeful that they had learned from the mistakes of the past.  In fact, all indications seemed to be that D&D Insider would be ready on launch! We saw previews of the Character Visualizer, Character Builder, Game Table, and Compendium. When June 6th came, I anxiously awaited to see what would be available to try out.

Well, we know how that turned out.  As of this writing, one month after the launch of D&D 4th Ed, only the D&D Compendium is available.  Since that is essentially a simple keyword search tool, it doesn't impress me that much.

I still maintain hope that D&D Insider live up to its promise.  I am a both a tech geek and a D&D geek, and I am always looking for ways to use digital tools to enhance my gaming experience.  I would love an accurate character generator to help some of the more casual gamers in my gaming group create and maintain their characters.  Because of time constraints and distance, my gaming group is often forced to game remotely, something a well done electronic game table would help with immensely.

I am the guy WOTC should be marketing D&D Insider to!

But I fear that DDI may become another embarrassment to be forgotten, shoved under the rug, and ignored until they decide to make a D&D 5th Ed.

Reversing innovation (Part III)

Lets face it, the early editions of Dungeons & Dragons did not handle the multiclass rules well.  In 1st and 2nd Edition D&D only the demi-humans could multiclass.  Each race had a limited number of classes they could pick between.  These classes were chosen in a manner that was frankly quite arbitrary.  The character would then split his XP between the two classes.

To make matters worse, demi-humans had to contend with (once again) pretty arbitrary level limits.  For some reason, every race had unlimited advancement as thieves, but substantial level limits (i.e., a max level you could reach) on even classes that seemed a natural fit (e.g., Dwarven Fighters, Elven Magic-Users).

Under this paradigm,  if you were playing a Halfling Fighter/Thief, you would cease advancing as a fighter at level 4, but half your XP would go towards fighter for the rest of your career.  Of course, you were probably still better off than the poor sap playing a single class Halfling fighter stuck at level 4, but it was still annoying.

So when 3rd Edition came out with its new race and multiclass rules it was a breath of fresh air.  Rather than being a special ability of the non-human races, anyone could multiclass.  Instead of splitting a character's XP between two classes, you merely chose what class you wanted to advance in each time you leveled up.  There were still some holdovers from the 2nd Edition mindset, like favored races and XP penalties.  But it was a quantum leap forward.

It was such a leap forward that it took awhile to see the flaws in the system.  It was usually detrimental to multiclass much if you were a primary spell-caster, since your caster level and spell-casting list were too heavily impacted. Multiclassing could also affect your base attack bonus and saving throws in unpredictable ways.  Sometimes you could end up with a base attack and saving throws way below what you would expect for your level.  Conversely, you could end up with a saving throw bonus way above what is normal for your level because of the +2 bonus most classes get to their primary save.

A less obvious effect was it encouraged designers to spread out the powers of a class to discourage dipping.  If you made too many of the classes abilities available at first level (e.g., the 3.0 Ranger), it encouraged players to take a single level in the class just to pick up those abilities.  Unfortunately, this often meant that powers essential to the class concept had to be delayed until later levels or scaled by class level.  An example of the latter is the Duelist's Canny Defense which gave you a bonus to AC equal to your Intelligence bonus when unarmored but limited to a maximum of your Duelist class level.

Nevertheless, the 3rd Edition multiclass rules were a vast improvement over what had come before.  So I was a little surprised when I found out that they threw them out and started from scratch for 4th Edition.

In 4th Edition, multiclassing is now governed by feats.  If you are a wizard who wants to study swordplay, you can take a feat which gives you a couple of basic fighter abilities.  If you decide you want to do more than dabble, additional feats can allow you to swap out some of your wizardly powers for the martial powers of the fighter.  Despite this side focus, you will continue to advance as a wizard.

Interestingly, this makes the class you pick at first level more important than ever, since you will never truly leave it behind.  If you are a rogue at level one, you will be a rogue at level thirty.  Granted, you may have some spell-casting you picked up along the way and some special abilities granted by your paragon path and epic destinies.  At your core though, you are a rogue.

So, what do I think of the change?  Well, I have more reservations about this change than many of the ones coming up in 4th Edition.  I do understand the need to fix the issues with the multiclass and prestige class rules.  After all, I have been exposed to the horrors of the Character Optimization forums and I have to admit that the new system seems solid at first glance. 

It's the IT guy in me that is giving me pause.  When you have a quality product, I would rather see an attempt to fix the bugs than throwing out the code and starting from scratch.

I probably shouldn't talk though.  My ultimate solution to the multiclass problem would be even more radical.  I would throw out the concept of class entirely.  Since they have already standardized base attack and saving throw progression, it would take very little to standardize hit points and merely provide a listing of powers that you could pick up as you level.  You could label these powers as belonging to Arcane, Divine, Martial, and Thievery sets.  It might be advantageous to pick powers from the same set because they would build off one another, but nothing would prevent you from making a "fighter" with a few spells, or a "rogue" who had found religion.

I have to admit that removing class would probably be just a bit too much change considering everything else that is changing in 4th Edition.  Maybe that's something we can look forward to in 5th?

Reversing innovation (Part II)

Another of the (now discarded) innovations of 3rd Edition D&D is XP as a commodity. In 1^st and 2^nd Edition it was possible to lose XP to creatures like the undead or items like the Book of Vile Darkness. It wasn't until 3^rd edition that you gained the ability to spend it.

While not always common, the ability to spend all that XP that was "burning a hole in your pocket" was very present. Magic Item Creation was probably the most popular way to spend XP. It was followed closely by spell-casting, where several high end powers required the expenditure of XP. Psionic Powers were another common place to spend XP, especially since XP Cost replaced the use of expensive material components.

When I first started 3^rd Edition D&D XP costs seemed an inspired solution to me. The new item creation rules had opened up the ability to create magic items to much lower level characters than the past. Unfortunately, unchecked this system would be ripe for abuse. After all, a 1^st level party could decide to sit tight in a town for a month and potentially make thirty scrolls per spell-caster! Putting a gold piece cost limited this abuse somewhat, but an XP cost hit the player where it hurt. While the XP cost for utility items was never very high, it did cause most players with item creation feats to sit up and say "Hey, wait a minute!" when other players would suggest turning their characters into scroll and potion creating factories.

Similarly, XP costs served as a good deterrent for the use of spells like Wish or Miracle.  Those "do anything" spells were nice to have in your back pocket if you were a spell-caster.  Unfortunately, without any deterrence from using them, there would be no rational reason not to make a wish every night before bed (giving "when you wish upon a star" new meaning).  The XP cost handled this nicely.

Now, you may have noticed one of the problems with XP as a commodity.  Namely, only the spell-casting classes spend XP.  As a result, it tends to act more as a punishment for playing a spell-caster than a check for using these abilities.  After all, lets say you have several crafting feats.  You might make magic armor and weapons for all of the party members.  Craft everyone bags of holding and a couple of ability score increasing items.  The end result is you are lagging behind everyone on XP while they are more powerful due to their new magic items.  Now that hardly seems fair, does it?

I can't say I will be sad to see XP cost go.  In D&D 4th Edition nothing takes away XP.  Not undead, not dying, and especially not casting spells or prayers.  This is probably for the best.

Next up, the new multiclass rules!

Reversing innovation (Part I)

I've noticed a disturbing interesting trend recently. The more I read about 4^th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the more I hear about 3^rd Edition innovations being reversed. Many times, the result is something more like 1^st or 2^nd edition. I have to admit that many of the changes look good on the surface, but with so many reversals I have to wonder: Are we taking a step forward or a step back? In this post I am going to examine the new monster rules. Future posts will examine XP as a commodity, and the new multiclass rules.

Monster rules were the first place I noticed this trend. In 1^st and 2^nd Edition, the monsters used very different rules than the Player Characters. Third edition changed this, so that the monsters were using almost the same rules as the players. They had six ability scores that increased every four hit dice, feats that increased every three hit dice, and skills points determined by type and hit dice. This had several advantages. First, it eliminated places where a disconnect between the monster rules and the PC rules could cause problems. Second, it allowed people who really wanted to play a specific monster to have the proper rules to do so out of the box. Want to play a pixie? If your DM allows it you certainly can, the rules are right there in the Monster Manual.

The problem is that the PC rules are not well adapted for monsters. One reason is because they are only "on stage" for a short period of time. For example, powers usable "at will" versus "3/day" are almost indistinguishable for most monsters, since their time "on stage" is only a few rounds. For PC's, who are "on stage" all the time, at will versus 3/day is a big difference.

Another problem with the monster rules using the PC rules is that the further you move away from "bipedal humanoid", the worse the rules broke down. Should my warhorse be good at climbing walls just because he has a high STR? Probably not, but that is the way the rules read.

Of course the biggest problem in using the same rules for monsters is the time it takes a dungeon master if he wants to customize his monsters. Strictly speaking, every time you advance a monster's HD, you have to check if he gets extra feats, assign skill points, recalculate BAB, etc. Granted, a lot of DM's ignored this, but if they do, what is the point in having these rules in the first place?

4^th Edition is actually backtracking quite a bit on this point. While they have full stat write-ups, monster attack profiles and abilities are no longer tied as strictly to hit dice progression as they used to be. This added flexibility allows DMs to adjust them up and down on the fly a whole lot easier.

What is the downside? Well, it will be a lot harder to play one by just slapping on some PC levels. Granted, some monsters are getting PC write-ups in Monster Manual.  Nevertheless, the number of monsters with these write-ups is limited by its nature.

So what do I think? Well, as a frequent DM, I would rather have easier to use monsters. But I know many players will miss the ability to point at something in the Monster Manual and say "I want to play that". So in this case, it's a vote for the 4^th Edition way, with reservations.

Next up: XP as a commodity!

Just a few quick comments on the paragon path preview

As many of you who read this blog probably already know, Wizards of the Coast is providing 4th Edition excerpts every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  Today's was about Paragon Paths.

I am not going to repeat the article here, but for those of you who don't know, paragon path's are a bit like 3rd Edition's Prestige classes with the following changes:

• You continue to advance in your class (or classes if multi-classed) as normal.  However, your paragon path will give you special abilities at 11th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level.
• Once you pick a paragon path, you are staying in it until level 20.  No dipping into several to cherry pick powers.
• At level 20 you can choose an Epic Destiny, which pretty much acts like a Paragon Path.

I am still not 100% sold on the paragon path as replacement for prestige class concept, but here are the things I found most interesting about the preview:

• Since the author said they were providing a sample path "for each class", it pretty much confirmed that the classes in the first Player's Handbook will be: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.  None of these are a shocker, but last time I checked they hadn't confirmed the list either.
• It mentioned that you don't have to pick a paragon path.  If you don't, you can choose to grab certain abilities from another class at the same points you would be getting your paragon path special abilities.  I was glad to hear this as I imagine there will be some people who cannot find a good fit among the existing paragon paths.
• As mentioned elsewhere, the levels at which you get powers and what type of powers they are is very standardized.  This should simplify the process of creating your own paragon paths.
• Unlike prestige classes, paragon paths tend to use a class as one of the prerequisites.  In 3rd Edition, class was expressly forbidden as a prerequisite.  This definitely made getting into a prestige class more more flexible, but had the down side of making game designers put together sentences that said things like "must have the resist nature's lure class feature and the ability to cast divine spells"  Instead of typing "Druid".

All and all, the concept of paragon paths has me intrigued.  I am curious what they will look like and if they will provide sufficient flavor for characters who go a little off the beaten path.

Monsters, monsters, everywhere

One change coming to Fourth Edition D&D is how monsters are being handled.  In the Third Edition the default assumption was a group of four player characters versus one monster.  Fourth Edition assumes a one to one ratio of monsters to player characters.  Personally, I think this is a great idea.

Another important change is that monsters will have a greater range of levels where they can still be dangerous to adventurers.  In Third Edition, if you were off the base challenge rating by just a little bit, the encounter quickly became either impossible or a cakewalk.  Perhaps this sounds familiar: "Well, can he even hit an AC of 28? Just roll to see if anyone gets a 20 then.  Nope?  Ok, I make two attacks.  Can they survive my minimum damage?  Ok, just remove them from the board."

Even more interesting to me though is that they are encouraging Dungeon Masters to mix and match monsters.  By giving monsters roles like "masterminds', 'lurkers', or 'brutes' they are encouraging DM's to treat them like an adventuring party.  Few people put together an all wizard party with no "meat shields", so why would the DM put together an all Mind Flayer encounter?

I really believe these changes will open up the door for some truly massive and diverse battles.  Remember the scene at the end of the movie LOTR: Fellowship of the Rings where the Fellowship fought off a huge group of Uruk-hai?  Tough to do in third edition, easy to do in fourth.  Heck, if you are really feeling saucy, improve on Tolkien by adding a little monster diversity into the battle.

Did I just say improve on Tolkien?  Crap, here comes the hate mail.  I guess I better quit while I am ahead.

Is it finally time to play a bard?

Call me crazy, but I have always liked the idea of playing a bard in D&D.  I have played several over the years.  Unfortunately, the implementation has always been flawed.

In First Edition AD&D, the bard was actually the worlds first prestige class.  Before you could be a bard you had to spend time as a Thief, a Druid, and a Ranger.  I am actually a bit surprised that you didn't have to spend time as a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker as well.  Not only did it take a long time to become a bard, but you had to survive First Editions horrible dual class rules not once, but twice.

In Second Edition AD&D the bard was made a base class.  So, at least you no longer had to wait until the majority of your party had reached venerable age to take the class.  On the down side, you basically acted as a second-rate thief and a third-rate spell-caster.  Still, the majority of bards I have played to date were second edition bards.

Third Edition D&D  gave the bard an array of buffing abilities to complement their second-rate rogue and a third-rate spell-caster status.  Unfortunately the majority of these buffs sucked.  Oh well, at least they get a lot of skill points.

I am hoping that Fourth Edition will finally be the Bard's time to shine.  If it is, it will probably be due to the concept of roles.  For those of you who are not aware, D&D Fourth Edition stole borrowed refined the concept of roles from MMORPGs. 

The basic player roles are Defenders (i.e., meat shields), Leaders (i.e., buffers/healers), Strikers (i.e., massive single target damage), and Controllers (i.e., battlefield control/damaging large numbers of targets).  Of the classic four, Fighters are Defenders, Clerics are Leaders, Rogues are Strikers, and Wizards are Controllers.

So why have these roles?  Well everyone knows in previous editions having a party without a fighter, cleric, rogue, or wizard was often a bad idea.  Player's would often feel constrained to wait until other players had chosen members of those classes before picking one like a monk or a bard. 

In Fourth Edition, the designers had a goal that as long as you had the roles covered that you would have an effective party.  So what does this mean for our good friend the bard?  Well bards are leaders (i.e., buffers).  And they are supposed to be much better buffers now, on par with their fellow leaders Clerics.

This can only be a good thing.  The problem with the bard's ability to buff in Third Edition was that it was completely dwarfed by the spell-casters.  With the new edition, the ability of bards to buff should be much more potent.   This should make playing a bard a much more viable option.  To put it another way, when you say you are playing a bard in Fourth Edition the rest of the group should no longer groan.

Wearing of the green!

I wanted to do a St. Patrick's Day themed post, and this looks like the closest I am going to get.

In my earlier post about Fey and the Feywild in 4th Ed., I spoke about how I was a big fan of the new take on the fey in Fourth Edition.  That being said, I have a certain amount of nostalgia for the adventure "Huddle Farm" By Willie Walsh in Dungeon Magazine #12.  It definitely is an old school fey adventure, but one handled with style and panache.

The quick synopsis is that a halfling feud is ready to break out at the Huddle Farm because of a recent series of unfortunate events.  These events include trampled fields and a burned barn.  Most of the adventure involves finding out who is responsible for all of this chaos.  The answer is not immediately obvious unless your players snuck a peek at the cover of the issue.  If you still haven't got it, let me give you a hint: The culprit is known for wearing green, carrying shamrocks, and possibly concealing a pot of gold.

(Speaking of the cover, I am a big fan of the gorgeous work done by Linda Medley.  It really stands out among the Dungeon magazine covers of its era, and is one of the reasons I choose to run the adventure in the first place).

The adventure is a nice change of pace, since it provides a light mystery and a presents a number of social situations that cannot be easily resolved by resorting to swordplay.  The low level of the adventure helps, since even mid-level spell-casting can quickly derail this kind of story.

On the downside, First Edition AD&D was not designed to handle an adventure that was primarily social very well.  This could easily lead to player frustration and an unfortunate "lets just burn the whole farm down mentality". 

So how would this adventure translate into Fourth Edition?  Well, on the plus side, Fourth Edition is supposed to have much more robust rules for social interaction.  This should definitely help with the social aspects of the adventure, even among the players for whom Charisma is a dump stat.

Nevertheless, the tone of the adventure would change significantly.  "Huddle Farm" was primarily a light-hearted adventure, which  fit the generally light-hearted nature of the fey in 1st Ed.  In Fourth Edition, even "good" fey are dangerous and unpredictable.  The basic premise of a fey creature turning hostile because of mortals encroaching into territory he considers his own is definitely still valid in the new paradigm.  What would change is the general tone and feel of the adventure.

Pranks played by a Fourth Edition fey would be less light-hearted and much more dangerous to the halfling farmers involved.  One of might even be dead by the time the player character's arrive on the scene.  Rather than walking into an environment where the halflings are full of anger and bluster, most likely the environment would be one of uncertainty and fear.  The change in tone would make the adventure profoundly different.  Not unenjoyable, but different nevertheless.

So tonight, I raise a pint to the First Edition leprechaun.  You may be gone in Fourth Edition, but you are not forgotten.

Gno more gnomes.

Before I begin I have a confession to make.  I have been playing Dungeons & Dragons in one form or another for nearly thirty years.  In that time I have played nearly every conceivable combination of race and class. 

I have never played a gnome.

Or at least I never remember having played one.  So it is probably not too surprising that my reaction to the announcement of gnomes not being in the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook was one of extreme indifference.

I think the problem with gnomes is that they lack what we in the corporate world would call a "strong brand identity".  This probably dates all the way back to First Edition.  All of the playable races in 1st Edition except gnomes had roots in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Not that dwarves and elves didn't exist before the Lord of the Rings, but the versions of them that were presented in the Player's Handbook were certainly influenced by it.  I believe this strong connection between early D&D and Tolkien's work helped develop the brand identity of these races in D&D.

Gnomes didn't have this help and it shows.  In First Edition the gnomish racial abilities were basically a mixture of half of the dwarven racial abilities and half of the halfling racial abilities.  Unique to gnomes were that they were good illusionists and they could speak with burrowing mammals.

Speak with burrowing mammals?  Seriously?

Second Edition hurt the gnomes even more by turning the illusionist into just one option among many for specializing your wizard.  So instead of being the best practitioners of a mysterious class with unique spells, they were really good at one subtype of magic-user.  Third Edition kept this same dynamic, but 3.5 tried to spice things up by giving gnomes bard as a favored class.

Let me say that again.  To encourage people to play gnomes they tied them in with the bard.  I think that speaks for itself.

Nevertheless, I know people who love gnomes.  Thinking back, the lack of strong branding was a selling point for these players.  Want your gnome to replace every third word with "Gnome" the same way the Smurfs do with Smurf?  Who the gnome am I to gainsay you!  Want your gnome to have eight page long names and talk a mile a minute just like a gnome from Krynn?  Why not?

I am sure that gnomes are not gone from D&D forever.  The will probably make a comeback in Player's Handbook 2 along side the monk.  When they return, I will welcome them back with open arms.  I just hope that when they return that the designers have figured out who they are supposed to be.

Dragonborn Smragonborn

I have to admit, I simply don’t get the new Dragonborn player character race. I suppose that is not surprising. I never got the obsession 3rd Ed had about tying player characters to dragons. Sorcerers were tied pretty explicitly to dragons. Prestige classes like Dragon Adepts and Dragon Shamans were created. Whole books like Races of Dragon and Dragon Magic were put out.

And people loved it! I never understood why so many people wanted to play dragon obsessed, dragon-blooded, half-dragon or even full dragon characters. Nevertheless, they certainly seemed to, at least in the D&D games I was part of.

I know that Dragons are half of the name in D&D, but I always saw them as opponents, not allies. You know, like the other half of the name. When I was running dragons in my game, I always attempted to portray them as powerful, intelligent, and vicious. Even my good dragons tended to be arrogant and unforgiving.

That being said, I am not necessarily opposed to Dragonborn being in 4th Ed since I seem to be in the minority here. It’s probably a good thing to have a dragon-like race fully incorporated into the rules for the people who love them.

I guess I should ask those who are on the other side of the dragon PC fence, what makes them so appealing to you? I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.