Initial Thoughts: D&D 4th Edition

[Krensky]

It comes with the box.

[tenebrae]

Cost the same amount here, AFAIK. $AU40 for each book, or $120 for the set. Of course, with Amazon and 1-3 day express shipping, I got the set for $AU100 2 days after release.

[Krensky]

The US MSRP for the box set is $0.10 higher.

[Argonnite]

I was in at my FLGS today and learned one surprising fact about 4.0...

It <i>costs more</i> to purchase the books as a three-piece boxed set than it does to purchase them separately.

WTF? Is there something I'm missing here? As far as we could determine, the box didn't come with anything extra.

The Rice Krispies bars at my FLGS are priced similarly.  I keep falling for the higher price.

[Number Three]

It <i>costs more</i> to purchase the books as a three-piece boxed set than it does to purchase them separately.

WTF? Is there something I'm missing here? As far as we could determine, the box didn't come with anything extra.

I was trying to figure that out myself when it came out.  The only conclusion I came to?  For ten cents, that's a pretty freakin' hardcore box.  Seriously, that slipcase is Freiberg tough.

[Crafty_Pat]

Seriously, that slipcase is Freiberg tough.

He knows of what he speaks. I folded a few hundred of those Freiburg boxes. They might as well be made of cured leather. 

[samsimilian]

Freiburg! i love it, better than ptolus and waterdeep together

[Shadow]

here's my assessment of the new edition of dungeons and dragons (now i'll immediately state that the majority of my experience in dnd 1-3.5 editions came playing fighters, paladins, and bards and that i've always felt that wizards were overpowered):

likes:
i like the power system. you can build fighters that are good at dealing with either a single, high target threat, or multiple enemies;

as a fighter type, i no longer have to be the beyatch of the wizard/sorcerer at high levels, sacrificing my body so that they can destroy everything in sight (ask me about the guy who would drop timestop back to back and then summon powerful celestial beings to do his bidding; but i digress); the toned down multiclassing (while it works for me in spycraft (because you can get to the same concept via a huge variety of paths), i've always hated the idea that all clerics *have* to be radiant servants of pelor, or they were immediately underpowered).

i like the mark/taunt system. there's nothing more frustrating then being a character who's sacrificed a heck of alot to be a good ac "tank", and having enemies walk right by me to attack my less armored friends because i was incapable of preventing it from happening. i had a particularly bad time of that once and it made me rethink my character's role in the group and ultimately change his build.

as i see it, there is no longer the need for the "sacred 3" of dnd: fighter, wizard, and cleric. clerics can be replaced with either warlords or paladins (i LOVE the new lay on hands, btw); i like the idea of healing surges (each of which is worth 1/4th your character's max hp, but other than getting 2nd wind 1/encounter, you can't use healing surges by yourself; they have to be triggered by other people's actions)

i appreciate that, of what i've seen so far, the classes are balanced in combat.

cons:
firk ding blast attacks of opportunity are still around (even though you only ever get 1 a round)

i'm uninspired by the action point system as read so far (you get 1 an encounter, and if the dm likes what you do, you can earn more, but your earned ones reset at the beginning of each encounter, and there's little to no incentive to hand out more if you're a gm, unlike action dice)

i must admit that i'm intrigued by skill challenges, but it seems to me that they might put extra work on the shoulders of the gm, which could very well lead to the case of seeing less of them in play.

finally, the layout of the book, while cleaner (i appreciate the bullet points!) is confusing at times. i think they need a sheet in the back with common terms and their meanings. it would help things immensely.

[dpmcalister]

i've always hated the idea that all clerics *have* to be radiant servants of pelor, or they were immediately underpowered).

Same here. One of my favourite character builds is a halfling priest of Brandobaris. You just can't build that with D&D (any version really - although it was kinda possible in 2nd Edition with speciality priests). I mean, why would a priest of a thieving/mischievous god turn undead?

Just one of my little bugbears with D&D in general, not just 4e

[Mister Andersen]

why would a priest of a thieving/mischievous god turn undead?

So you can rob tombs

[Sletchman]

I think ALL of the fighters tricks [any mundane hero actally] should be unlimited, whenever you feel like it.  The idea that someone who has trained with an axe to a level of near-unsurpassed mastery can hit someone with "heavy repeated overhead blows" can only do that once or twice in an encounter is a little bit absurd.

I understand its for balance purposes - to avoid a fighter dealing literally quad-damage every round, but it could be easily fixed via either you get subdual damage [exhaustion, won't work cuz there isn't any more subdual damage], or not having every melee move simply do stupidly high levels of damage, have an alternative effect.

I also don't like that a rogue can't blackjack someone unconcious.  He has to deal their hitpoints in damage [not gonna happen, especially with the new system of ultra-high hp] to knock them out.

[Wolverine]

[exhaustion, won't work cuz there isn't any more subdual damage]

Actually, if you think about it, subdual is still in there. The first half of your HP could be seen as subdual, and reaching 'bloodied' means that you are now actually taking real physical damage. I'd say it's fair to guess that it isn't written this way in the PHB, but that is how it seems to me.

[Sletchman]

[exhaustion, won't work cuz there isn't any more subdual damage]

Actually, if you think about it, subdual is still in there. The first half of your HP could be seen as subdual, and reaching 'bloodied' means that you are now actually taking real physical damage. I'd say it's fair to guess that it isn't written this way in the PHB, but that is how it seems to me.

Good point.  But could you imagine trying to word that a fighter ability could be used at will but cost HP if you were above the bloodied condition, after which it cant be used, with the justification being its tiring?  I could write an ability like that, but it would be sloppy at best.

On another note: one thing I've really noticed today while double checking some stuff for a mate is that the game assumes you're not coming from 3.x [or even the rollplaying hobby].  Theres no references to defunct terms, or how some things changed from 3.x to 4e.  While this is of itself not a bad thing, I don't think a small chapter [or even just a page] of "whats changed in dungeons and dragons" would be unwelcome.  I spent a good bit of time looking for a rule that existed in 3rd to see how it had changed, only to find it was gone outright.  Same deal for stat-blocks [while it makes sense not to have them, vet gamers I know spent a good deal of time looking for the wizards stat block under the "wizard" second of the classes chapter], a simple box, that says "hey veteran players, you'll notice theres no stat blocks, check the combat chapter for how to calculate base attack, saves, defence, etc. as the game has changed".

[MugMug]

Good point.  But could you imagine trying to word that a fighter ability could be used at will but cost HP if you were above the bloodied condition, after which it cant be used, with the justification being its tiring?  I could write an ability like that, but it would be sloppy at best.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding some vital point, not owning 4e, but this doesn't seem challenging.

"This ability costs # HP, and may be used so long as the character is not bloodied."

Walter

[MugMug]

I was out and about trying (unsuccessfully) to sell my comic collection to various appropriate retailers (apparently El Paso is a Marvel and DC town; I'm not sure any of my titles sport those logos on the cover). I took the opportunity to flip through the core books -- mostly the MM as the nature of the book lends itself more to a quick flip-through (i.e. a series of entries repeating the same set of mechanics).

Quite a bit of what I had heard about v4.0 that made me uneasy about play -- what people have described as a board game, but feels to me like more of a card game -- works very well with monsters. The stat blocks were cleaner and more efficient than v3.x, and the roles and power frequencies allow for more quickly building a balanced (or purposely focused, whatever you want) encounter group. On slightly further reflection, I think the powers were what gave more of a card game (e.g. MtG) feel.

I'm still a little uneasy about the same sorts of things applied to characters, but I can see where from a GM standpoint the rules make for easier play. The D&D mechanics never particularly supported role-playing, and that hasn't changed. My guess is the new mechanics will make tactical play a little more accessible, however.

Does anyone know if the D&D Minis come with cards listing the stat block of the creature? I think there'd be a market for those.

[EDIT: On a side note, v4.0 creatures look like an easier conversion to FantasyCraft than the v3.x stat blocks. I think I'll borrow a copy to aid my converting v3.x supplements.)

Walter