CE Paladins Of Umberlee In 4th Edition?

[The Welcoming Grave]

I'ld have to agreed with whats been said about certain classes being removed from the core Players Manual, only to be added in "expansion" books. The first time I looked at the new PMG and saw my favorite class missing (Barbarian) I was shocked.

I mean, I get enough of that crap in games that leave content out only to be "released" in expansion style *cough* EA *cough*. Don't need that crap in freaking books. I mean come on!

That aside I like some of the changes, but not all. I haven't read over the new PHG in awhile (or used the rulesets for that matter) so none come to mind right now. Tieflings being more "accepted" as said in their description (or more "accepted" then their Forgotten Realms counterpart). All has to do with their change of story setting. Just hope they wont mess up the FR setting if they decide to release an updated FOrgotten Realms 4.0

[Zoberraz]

4e Forgotten Realms was released, both the player's guide and the campaign setting book. Reception by the playerbase has been, ah, varied.

The player's handbook could only contain so many races and classes. Racewise, they included classics like the human, the dwarf, the elf, the half-elf and the halfling. When it came to add additional races they went and selected, the eladrin, the dragonborn and the tiefling - leaving out the half-orc and the gnome in the process.

* * *

In the classes, you get the four barebones classic mix of classes: the fighter, the rogue, the cleric and the wizard - each respectively occupying a specific role in the four quantified by Fourth Edition.

After that they added the paladin, whom stands as your divine defender-type and effectively now is a holy warrior which can stand in as the holy warrior of any god in creation (since gods are, well, holy). The paladin stands with the cleric as divine power source classes too.

In the Strikers, they supplemented the Warlock in addition to the rogue. The warlock - defined by different pacts to define its flavors and power thematics/effects - uses the arcane power source just like the wizard does. but is better at dealing damage gainst single targets, while the wizard is better at dealing with multiple weak targets.

Then, another striker is the ranger. The ranger, despite relying on martial exploits, effectively works on a similar basis as the rogue or the warlock in that it can either be a melee or ranged attacker... but he does most of his damage through multiple attacks rather than much of anything else. One strong reason why they added the ranger was to fill the need for the woodsy-type character (which only a nature cleric could stand in for).

Finally, the last addition was the Warlord. The warlord uses martial power to get things done but he's a leader-type character... like the cleric, his job is keeping his friends in the fight and supporting them. The cleric does it with combat buffs and better healing; the warlord does it with extra action opportunities and healing of the "pick yourself up, don't give up!" kind.

...the player's handbook job wasn't just about giving out the four core classes and then filling the blanks with other classic choices. The first player's handbook is the book of Martial Heroes. With the fighter, the rogue, the ranger and the warlord being its stars because they were all martial-type classes and the couple of other classes being mostly icing on the cake.

The second player's handbook is supposed to cover Primal heroes, including the Warden (new primal defender), the Druid (primal controller), the Barbarian (primal striker), the Shaman (primal leader), the Invoker (new divine controller), the Sorcerer (arcane controller) and the Bard (arcane leader). I know the races it includes are the gnomes, the half-orcs, the devas and the shifters - and they are likely more that I'm forgetting/omitting.

The third player's handbook supposedly will rest on the Ki/Psionic/Mind power source, and that's where you'll get your psions, monks and such along with a few other additions.

The first players handbook had the job of establishing the game's system and base content. The second is going to have much more opportunity to focus more options over the first PHB as well as the extra content to suit the new classes released in it.

In my mind, it's perfectly reasonable, considering the pagecount they were able to fill up and the pricing they would've have had to ask for that. Perhaps they might not have had tried to organize their stuff and struggled to put all the stuff you'd have loved to have in your player's handbook... but it would have taken them longer to conceptualize it, iron things out and then, you'd have had ended up with a much heavier PHB costing 100 bucks. Who'd buy that?

[Ghostman]

I think it's pretty clear they're directly targeting the MMORPG audience. That's basically what 4th Edition is: an MMO except that you have to roll the dice yourself. It's based directly on rigidly timed special powers with cooldowns, the ultimate purpose of which is to turn (apparently) every encounter into an arcade-style battle. Homogenized, sterilized, and pre-packaged for your convenience and safety.

No thanks. From now on it's Rolemaster, baby. ... Why play Rolemaster, you say? Three words: trebuchet fumble tables.

[The Welcoming Grave]

Didn't know FR 4.0 was out. Might have to look into that.

As far as the classes and such, they had enough trees ready for the sawmill to spit out the core classes in PHB 3.0

I see it as a marketing strat to be honest, but thats just my opinion. The updated ruleset is a nice addition (like someone else said above, 4.0 is a much quicker "jump right into the action"), its just the fact they gimped the class/race selection right when the new set was released. I see it as a low blow, but others might not. Opinions and a**holes n all

I guess it could be the fact that I'm both a WoTC fan and a WW fan as well. I'm use to having to buy a ton of books from WW to get the most out of a setting, for DnD I'm use to being able to buy the three core books (One if I just want to be a player, and two if I'm interested in running a setting), anything else I get for DnD is simply supltiment. If I wanted to play a druid, or a barb, or a monk, the updated rules/powers should be present in the PHB, not a PHB: The Wilderness rises, or PHB: Mind and Body. Thats my only major grip with 4.0's release

[Iso]

I've just caught word that Spelljammer has made a return in 4th edition. What, what?

I am left sitting here wondering if 4th Ed. may in time, once all the books are out, come to resemble much more what 3.5 Ed. players have come to expect of D&D. For now many of the complaints are "this got left out," or "my favorite was removed!" There is guarantee many of these things are slated for release.

Can someone elaborate on the Role-Playing opportunities presented in 4th Edition? Phantom Lamb mentioned social skill checks are more involved and I take that as meaning it's gone beyond, "roll one die and see if they believed you or not after you add your modifiers". How does that potentially pave the way for sessions based around intrigue and political maneuvering in much the way we approach tactical combat?

If players are left gambling on whether they'll be able to sway key players in a city's government or not rather than if they're gonna land a sweet crit the next round, I'm all eyes and ears. I'm as much for a game of chess as a game of Gauntlet.

[EDIT2]: For those of you complaining about them "removing" classes from the PHB, start by making sure they weren't "added" to it in the transition from 1st or 2nd edition. Then, suck it up and get the later PHB's for the cool classes you want to play (it's what you did in 3.5, right?).

Speaking of that, when are we going to see Bards returned to the most difficult class in the history of D&D to attain and be divine casters again?

[The Welcoming Grave]

Yeah from what I noticed skill checks like Diplomancy and things like that are not the same as the "You pass the DC, he is convinced". Its more like an extended check from what I've noticed. They call it "Skill Challanges". I dont have the PHB in front of me but I'm sure there is someone that can explain those a little better.

Dont get me wrong. I like how they took some of the more complicated rules of the past and made them more simple. 4.0 is IMO an overall great rule set, its just some things irk me heh. As a matter of fact I think anyone not having DnD experience could read through the rules and be ready to jump right into the action, which is what I think WoTC was going for with the new rule sets. Fresh ideas for the venterns but simple enough new comers could get in on the dragon slaying, political blackmail, killing that goblin king, stop *insert ultimate thing o doom here*, ect ect.

[MKartMaster]

Re: Iso

Re: Roleplaying

The main attraction for what you're talking about is the "skill challenge." It's similar to the Complex Skill Challenges system introduced in Unearthed Arcana, but more refined. Unfortunately, Wizards is seemingly unable to get the math right (they're close, but their errata suggests slight disconnects between departments) and fans have taken up several different systems to make a mathematically sounds system to take its place. The idea is roughly the following:

Pick a challenge for the players. Like... persuading the king to send the army to pre-emptively strike the local goblin bandit camp.
Decide your "primary" skills. You might choose diplomacy (for obvious reasons), bluff (to streeetch the truth), and insight (to notice the king's and/or his advisors' reactions). You might also set intimidate as auto-fail (the king is a proud, headstrong man).
Decide how difficult ("complex") you want it to be. A small step in the large story? 6 successes before 3 failures. The dramatic showdown to save the kingdom? 12 success before 6 failures. (numbers removed from my rectum).
Go for it! When a player's "turn" comes up in negotiations ask what they want to do, and have them roll an appropriate skill, or go more freeform. You could also allow one-time skill attempts for successes or bonuses (like history for warning of past monarchal mistakes or nature to suggest a more likely assault route).

Re: Bard

Not this edition at least.

[The Welcoming Grave]

Re: Roleplaying

The main attraction for what you're talking about is the "skill challenge." It's similar to the Complex Skill Challenges system introduced in Unearthed Arcana, but more refined. Unfortunately, Wizards is seemingly unable to get the math right (they're close, but their errata suggests slight disconnects between departments) and fans have taken up several different systems to make a mathematically sounds system to take its place. The idea is roughly the following:

Pick a challenge for the players. Like... persuading the king to send the army to pre-emptively strike the local goblin bandit camp.
Decide your "primary" skills. You might choose diplomacy (for obvious reasons), bluff (to streeetch the truth), and insight (to notice the king's and/or his advisors' reactions). You might also set intimidate as auto-fail (the king is a proud, headstrong man).
Decide how difficult ("complex") you want it to be. A small step in the large story? 6 successes before 3 failures. The dramatic showdown to save the kingdom? 12 success before 6 failures. (numbers removed from my rectum).
Go for it! When a player's "turn" comes up in negotiations ask what they want to do, and have them roll an appropriate skill, or go more freeform. You could also allow one-time skill attempts for successes or bonuses (like history for warning of past monarchal mistakes or nature to suggest a more likely assault route).

Re: Bard

Not this edition at least.

Yeah pretty much what he said heh. Not as simple as a single roll of the dice, which is better imo hehe.

[Product of Void]

do you have to buy 3 books to get a complete players handbook?

is there a website that gives you the basics of 4e?

[MKartMaster]

do you have to buy 3 books to get a complete players handbook?

is there a website that gives you the basics of 4e?

No. The PHB will suffice to learn the system and make any characters you want. The DMG is for the DM to learn some of the math behind the system and how to string together a campaign; the MM is for when the DM doesn't want to use the (very good, IMO) system for generating his own monsters (or to have premade stats for a handful of "classics"). The MM does have a few extra race writeups in the back.

No. The SRD of 4th edition is primarily a definition and word-usage-defining document; the GSL (4e replacement to the OGL) is much stricter in who can use Wizards' material and how.

[Zoberraz]

4e has the bard be an arcane leader. Basically, the bard holds the same combat role as the cleric and the warlord... and the adage 'great versatility brings great incompetency' is no longer true because frankly he can pull his weight in a group just as much as other leader classes.

The 4th edition bard has a couple of neat abilities tied to the class:

• Ritual magic (and some free rituals associated to music once a day per tier)
• A choice of virtue (Virtue of Cunning [Dex] or Valor [Con]) that allows him to either give his friends free movement when an enemy misses them, or temporary hit points when they bloody or kill an opponent.
• Majestic Word, twice per encounter, which is a healing spell similar to the cleric's healing word (basically, that restores a quarter of the recipient's hit points +1d6 at 1st level).
• Multiclassing versatility, allowing to multiclass in more than just one class (multiclassing in 4e is feat driven - usually, you get only one and additional feats invested allow you to swap powers from one class to another while keeping main class progression; usually you can only select one class choice for multiclassing, but the bard can take as many as he qualifies for stat-wise).
• Skill Versatility, giving the bard +1 bonuses to all untrained skill checks.
• Song of Rest, nifty little thing that lefts you increase the amount of healing characters get out of their resources by a number of hit points equal to the bard's Charisma modifier.
• Word of Friendship, a encounter-based diplomacy boost.

Most bard powers (at will, encounter and daily) are low damage, but involve misdirections and debuffs to the enemies along with some group assist.

Here's a summary of a bard I just whipped up with the 4e character builder

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Half-Elf, Bard, level 1
Bardic Virtue: Virtue of Valor
Multiclassed: Warlock (fey pact)

Starting Ability Scores
Str 10, Con 18, Dex 10, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 18.

AC: 17 Fort: 14 Reflex: 13 Will: 15
HP: 30 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana, Intimidate, Streetwise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight.

FEATS
1: Ritual Caster
1: Pact Initiate (fey pact)

POWERS
1, At-Will: Vicious Mockery
1, At-Will: War Song Strike
1, Encounter: Misty Step
1, Encounter: Eyebite
1, Encounter: Fast Friends
1, Daily: Stirring Shout

ITEMS
Ritual Book [Comprehend Language, Explorer's Fire], Chainmail, Light Shield, Longsword, Longbow, Wand (arcane implement), Adventurer's Kit, Arrows (30)

Chances of success in the game are usually tied to ability checks. Checks are typically made with a 1d20 roll, plus half your character's level rounded down and then the associated score.

If my bard would need to negociate with someone in a skill challenge to smooth over the bad impression the dwarf fighter intimidate check did, he could go and do a diplomacy check by rolling a 1d20, plus half-his-level (+0), plus his charisma (+4), a +5 bonus for being trained in diplomacy (training gives a +5 bonus on a check, it helps be diplomatic to be trained in diplomacy, but otherwise everyone can do it), half-elves have a racial bonus to diplomacy of +2 and finally Word of Friendship would add another +5 for a grand total of +16 to the 1d20 roll.

If my bard above would use his Eyebite (something he got by multiclassing warlock, another class that get big perks from having a high charisma) power to do 1d6+Charisma modifier plus be considered invisible to the target until the beginning of his next round, he'd be making a +4 attack roll against the target's Will defense.

Defenses are divided between Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex and Will. A dragon breathing on a character needs to make an attack roll to hit the character's reflex defense, while a claw swipe would be against AC and Dragonfear would be an aura attack made against the target's will defense.

Some attacks, like dragonfear, leave debilitating ongoing effects (-2 to attacks, save ends). Instead of rolling and then trying to keep track of how long a character is going to be affected by the said effect, instead you have saving throw rolls. Saving throws are fairly straightforward, in that you need a roll of 10 or more to get free from the effect. It makes it easier to track and makes for less clutter and much faster play, IMO.

[Iso]

I staggered when I saw HP: 30. I guess a goblin having 22hp at level 1 isn't much of a big deal if you've got more than that, wouldn't you say? The spell casting per-days and at-wills look a lot more sensible laid out, if you consider the at-wills would already be getting used 3 to 5 times in addition to melee or ranged combat during an encounter in 3.5Ed.

Sounds to me like a reduction of book keeping and overall streamlining for the DM's sake, not for any particular cheesification. When you consider it now takes three castings of Magic Missile to take out a level 1 monster, it doesn't sound so bad anymore except for that it produces more dice rolling than before. You trade one book keeping aspect for another.

It seems a lot of percentages are also being used, is that correct? If this is true I believe that lends to some greater believability as well as giving scaling to powers. A human body can only take so much before dying, but as these heroes become tougher what it takes to produce the same amount of damage to them becomes somewhat greater and more complex. What it ends up meaning is you're not discarding abilities as you gain levels and now an arrow in the eye from a level 1 professional archer is still going to suck if you're level 20. You don't mystically have [eye]balls of steel.

I'm beginning to see a pattern - and it goes once WotC finish putting out the core rulebooks and their 15 errata revisions on each, we'll have a less headache filled game that's more accessible to the non-elite. I did see a complaint on their forums about poor printing quality and shoddy books on the early publishing of 4th, as well as an excessive and rather unacceptable volume of errata, but the person saying this mentioned they are aware reprints were made that fixed those issues.

According to Wizard's own publications they stated the PHB, DMG, and MMs will come in multiple parts - that is to say you can not have the full game without buying multiple books. Sure, you can play with the bare bones laid out in PHB1/DMG1/MM1, but you're playing with stripped down starter rules using a few choice pieces of equipment and classes and you'll be missing the greater picture if you don't buy the full game. It may seem great for now but once you get the other two volumes for the PHB/DMG/MM you'd never even think of playing without all nine.

The difference there between 4th and 3rd is that in 4th you must buy the extra books in order to have roughly the same amount of game content in what you got from one book in prior editions of D&D. In the previous editions extra books were the icing on your cake. In 4th you have to pay for each layer in a rich triple chocolate cake and then for the frosting too. That also gives me the impression that in trying to simplify the game they've gone and made three times as many rules.

Since the start of this thread my opinion on 4th edition has greatly increased and I believe I will be looking at buying it once more of the core rulebooks are out. I was going to buy the first boxed set months ago, but my friend dragged me kicking and screaming out of the bookstore, and I'm glad he did because I'd be crying and doing a lot more than kicking and screaming about my editions falling to pieces by now (I love my books like children!).

My thanks go out to everyone who's contributed their knowledge and opinions to this thread as Wizards have done sorely little to show off the long term game changes to people outside of the gaming conventions. Most of us can't make it to those and providing a small PDF bulletin on the website doesn't seem to have worked too well judging by the amount of confused people on their forums. A summary flaming gets handed out instead of a detailed description of important game changes in many of those threads and while I did see whispers of that beginning in this one, it's been a rather constructive collection of information and descriptions.

[Phantom Lamb]

For those asking previously, DnD 4e is playtesting / finalizing a Primal Power set. This includes barbarian and druid classes.

[TamurtheLame]

I didn't even bother with 3.5 actually. I come from way back and stayed with 2nd edition rules and then just modified them to fit the world I created. I think that the most important skill of the DM is to be versatile and be able to quickly think on their feet. I created a bunch of tables that weren't in the rules - such as my own critical hit and critical failure tables for example.

The bottom line in my opinion is to just have fun, find what you and your group like and stick with it and be flexible. No system can ever have everything in it.

[Kaybrie]

Tieflings were made a player race because nobody plays gnomes or half-orcs. I'm sure there are a ton of individuals who will happily refute my claims with 'but Kasso, I play ___ all the time.' but the truth is, they were underplayed and usually when they were in a party they were far more of an annoyance or constant setback then an beneficial member. Tieflings have always been a popular race, in any setting they've been introduced in people have loved and played them, and many have fantasized the idea of playing a draconic character, so Kudos to Wizards for putting a set of core races that were relateable and interesting into 4th edition.

Oh and it will make a great video game. As far as roleplaying systems have gone, I found myself rubbing my eyes in frustration on the sheer level of limitation that wizards have been delt in the new edition. The annihilation of spellschools was coupled with indeed, the loss of many of those specialized spells to. Including Conjuration, Transmutation, Necromancy (Don't get me started on Necrotic damage, that's just a black fireball as far as I'm conscerned), and pretty much the erradication of everything save Evokation and some abjuration... Wizards in fact in 4th edition would have been far more aptly named 'evokers' because that's all they are. And personally, I don't view the mental image of firing a magic missile for 1d10 damage every turn too much different from firing a crossbow for 1d8 damage per turn and it dosn't make up for the epic fail the wizard suffers from at higher levels.

Paladins are another thing I hated what they did with them. Because they honestly aren't even really champions of their own deities anymore. It's litterally just a fighter who was raised in a church. That's it. There is no compulsion for them to do their gods will, no restrictions whatsoever on the character, who can proceed as say, a Paladin of Torm, to go and join the Black hand and start burning Tormite churches to the ground. No, he dosn't need to be reinitiated as a Paladin of Bane, he can just keep on going using Torms divine power to screw up the Triad.

Magic items, enchanting, 'special powahz', the skill system. . . It's all trash to me as far as a table top game goes.

When they make a Neverwinter Nights 3 out of it though, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon.