Spells
Monsters
Classes
Magic items

in their actual incarnations.

So far, we can be sure, the Monsters will stay, and get an overhaul. But Monsters always got an overhaul, and they seem to be just polishing Gygax´s work.

Classes seem to be all there, and there always were new classes. So as long as the core setup remains, it´s okay.

Magic items: We don´t know much, but it looks bad, very bad for them. Although I do think they could be easily ported from 3.5. So I´m not lamenting thiose right now.

Spells: eradicated.

in addition we get Mearlsian maneuvre powers, which are unprecedented in D&D.

It´s not the addition, but the replacement that leads me to say that 4e could actually be leaving the scholarly definition of D&D-hood. As it actually will be D&D by sheer force of being branded as D&D, it could be the most radical of all new editions.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think that's a strange way to look at it.

If that was the case, then B@ would simply sketch the caves and flesh out the keep. I'm not saying you can't further

Point is that the product isn't meant to be fleshed out anywhere, you're encouraged to do that yourself. The hard part is meant to be coming up with challenging adventures, hard encounters that are still balanced; thats why the bare bones approach in those old modules is the way it is.

QuoteI've read the thread entirely and couldn't find where your thoughts would be explained.

Top of page 4, posted at 10:36 AM according to the time on the post.

QuoteYou keep on saying that D&D is about "roleplaying" but you're not actually telling me what that is.

As I'm assuming you've gamed a bit, I don't suppose I need to. I don't, do I?

QuoteWhat do you see on the character sheet? What kind of mechanics are there? Why do more people play that RPG instead of another? I stand by what I said. When I look at the three corebooks, that's pretty much what I see and in play, that's what I get:

At its core, D&D's main drive is dungeoncrawling (missions) and, most importantly, powering up. All of this with a mish-mash of elements of sword & sorcery, heroic and high fantasy as a backdrop.

You need to get the players thinking of tactics and strategies before their characters are even built, with things such as niche roles and optimization. Then after that you need ressource management and rule mastery, with some tactical decisions in play. And lots of levelling so you can kill more things and take their stuff.

I don't see how that falls outside of the definition of a roleplaying game.

You see, the whole idea that you'll need to think about tactics during character generation is not core D&D. Its come in rather in 3.5e, but isn't something that runs right the way through D&D at all. I don't even accept that its necessary in 3.5e, in that it can be better if the DM comes up with good adventures for the party he has than having the players come up with adventures to take on the dungeons they think they'll have to go in to. Much of what you are viewing as core D&D is more about the way you're playing it than what unifies D&D through different eras.

Quote from: SettembriniSpells: eradicated.

in addition we get Mearlsian maneuvre powers, which are unprecedented in D&D.

Yep, they're also the bits that have me most worried.

Quote from: SettembriniSpells
Monsters
Classes
Magic items

in their actual incarnations.

What you're describing is the dressing. It's changed in every edition and will continue to do so. So long as there are core roles archetypes (classes, races, whatever), things to kill (Monsters), stuff to take (magic items) we're in business. Of course, the nature of the game (mish-mash sword and sorcery, high fantasy, etc...) dictates that there should be stuff like magic, swords, horses and the like.

Anyway, you've already said that classes and monsters look ok in the new edition. And unless I haven't read the latest blogs, it seems there will be magic items, just less of them.

We also know there will still be spells. The spell slot system is as relevant to D&D as thaco or the way saving throws work: it's an accessory. We just need ways to resist spells, cast spells and hit things. The rest is fairly cosmetic.

I'm not seeing how this affects the core concepts.

With that being said, let me go on record that like you and Cad, I'm not too hot on "maneuvers" if it follows in the general vein of piss-poor products that Mike Mearls has been associated with in the past.

I'm not worried about the core concepts of D&D. I'm worried that the execution could be somewhat lackluster. But I think it will look and feel D&D-ish. But that last bit might be just a matter of personal preferences.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWe also know there will still be spells. The spell slot system is as relevant to D&D as thaco or the way saving throws work: it's an accessory. We just need ways to resist spells, cast spells and hit things. The rest is fairly cosmetic.

Saving throws and hit rolls have never changed. Roll a dice, get (x) or more. Spellcasting hasn't really changed either; memorisation, spells per day. Vancian magic has been in all D&D.

This isn't cosmetic, its fundamental to how every version of every game of D&D (with the exception of some optional ways to change it) has been. Change those and its D&D in name only.

Quote from: CabTop of page 4, posted at 10:36 AM according to the time on the post.

Thanks! That's pretty much what I described, though. Hit things, archetype roles, etc...

Quote from: CabAs I'm assuming you've gamed a bit, I don't suppose I need to. I don't, do I?

Well yeah, of course! I'm just asking because you seem to have a narrower definition of what is roleplaying than I do. You may or may not be aware that many people hold different notions as to what constitutes roleplaying. I'm looking at what D&D supports through the rules and defining the core concepts of D&D as I see them. (That's just me, others may see it differently). You tell me it's more than that, it's also "roleplaying". So I'm curious is all.

Quote from: CabYou see, the whole idea that you'll need to think about tactics during character generation is not core D&D. Its come in rather in 3.5e, but isn't something that runs right the way through D&D at all. I don't even accept that its necessary in 3.5e, in that it can be better if the DM comes up with good adventures for the party he has than having the players come up with adventures to take on the dungeons they think they'll have to go in to. Much of what you are viewing as core D&D is more about the way you're playing it than what unifies D&D through different eras.

Is it? Player composition has always been a concern. "What are you playing?, guys?" "We have a cleric and a thief". "Ok, so I'm going to play a dwarf, give us a fighting chance". See, that kind of metagaming concerns have creeped up from the beginning. And it's not unique to me. Pretty much everybody goes through this.

In AD&D, it got better. You had to decide on a race and a class. You have to make decisions right away. You get some perks early with race abilities but pay later with level limitations.
 
Other concerns include gold pieces. Don't laugh. There were articles in Dragon magazine about which classes could do best with starting gold, how to manage your starting cash, how to optimize, what to buy, etc...

You also have to think hard about spellbooks.

I'm not even talking about going through levels, where each edition (way before 3rd) have added optimization concerns. Proficiencies, skills, spells, multiclassing, getting a familiar or not, etc...

D&D3 designers realized that it's a big attraction of D&D. Plenty of articles and tons of gamers were tweaking their characters like crazy. So they tried to make it more prevalent and challenging. But it's nothing new.

Quote from: CabSaving throws and hit rolls have never changed. Roll a dice, get (x) or more.

Of course they changed! Or have you not checked your older D&D versions recently? But in reality, we still get to avoid stuff or hit stuff. So it's ok.

Quote from: CabThis isn't cosmetic, its fundamental to how every version of every game of D&D (with the exception of some optional ways to change it) has been. Change those and its D&D in name only.

See, that's just your very, very subjective opinion. Luckily, many players and the design team do not share it. I'm not saying you're wrong. Or that I'm right.

At the end of the day, if we can still cast spells, and if we still have to manage spellcasting ressources, I don't see the difference. Just like saves, thacos and other things.

Quote from: CabSaving throws and hit rolls have never changed. Roll a dice, get (x) or more. Spellcasting hasn't really changed either; memorisation, spells per day. Vancian magic has been in all D&D.

This isn't cosmetic, its fundamental to how every version of every game of D&D (with the exception of some optional ways to change it) has been. Change those and its D&D in name only.

Star Wars Saga Edition changed this up a bit.

Rather than saving throws & armor class, characters have 3 Defenses - Fortitude, Will, and Reflex.  Attacks & area effects (grenades, force lightning) use the Reflex Defense as their target.  Fortitude defense is used against poison & environmental effects, and also represents the amount of damage you need to take in 1 hit to get knocked down the condition track.  Will defense is brought out for mind-affecting powers and against social skills like bluff and diplomacy.

It works very well, really.  The only difference is that the person acting always rolls, and the person defending has a static defense.  I've found I like that consistency - a few years back I was playing with ways to translate this into D&D.

There are only a few things I don't like about the way this is handled.  For one thing, armor in Saga sucks ass for heroic characters unless they take some talents (class features) to make it not suck ass.  For another thing, they're hugely level-based; a character's class matters very little at low levels.

-O

Quote from: obrynThere are only a few things I don't like about the way this is handled.  For one thing, armor in Saga sucks ass for heroic characters unless they take some talents (class features) to make it not suck ass.  For another thing, they're hugely level-based; a character's class matters very little at low levels.

I would guess this is because in the Star Wars movies most Jedi don't wear armor.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIs it? Player composition has always been a concern. "What are you playing?, guys?" "We have a cleric and a thief". "Ok, so I'm going to play a dwarf, give us a fighting chance". See, that kind of metagaming concerns have creeped up from the beginning. And it's not unique to me. Pretty much everybody goes through this.

In AD&D, it got better. You had to decide on a race and a class. You have to make decisions right away. You get some perks early with race abilities but pay later with level limitations.

No, I don't accept any of that

Don't have a cleric and want to set out on an adventure? Go get a hireling one, or recruit one in the temple. Don't have enough fighters? Get a hireling. Don't have enough players to cover all of the bases? Get a hireling. Pretty nearly every party I've ever seen has had that kind of balancing out; you don't even survive the Caves of Chaos without some hirelings.
 

QuoteOther concerns include gold pieces. Don't laugh. There were articles in Dragon magazine about which classes could do best with starting gold, how to manage your starting cash, how to optimize, what to buy, etc...

True. That goes right back to the beginning, how to get the most for your money at startup, largely because first level characters were so very fragile. Not sure thats a big deal though, with limited resources a first level character would spend his money very carefully.

QuoteYou also have to think hard about spellbooks.

I'm not even talking about going through levels, where each edition (way before 3rd) have added optimization concerns. Proficiencies, skills, spells, multiclassing, getting a familiar or not, etc...

Gosh, you seem to have found all of that rather more involving than anyone I've gamed with in any pre-3e game. Thats been all the rage in 3e, of course, happened a little in 2nd ed, but I'd never encountered it before that. One of the things I prefer about old fashioned basic D&D is that character generation is so very fast, without any of that; AD&D took a bit longer, 2nd ed about the same, 3rd ed about four times longer.

QuoteD&D3 designers realized that it's a big attraction of D&D. Plenty of articles and tons of gamers were tweaking their characters like crazy. So they tried to make it more prevalent and challenging. But it's nothing new.

3rd ed isn't entirely new in that respect, its just radically more so.

Quote from: Consonant DudeOf course they changed! Or have you not checked your older D&D versions recently? But in reality, we still get to avoid stuff or hit stuff. So it's ok.

Lets think... In basic I roll d20, and then see whether I get enough to hit someone/make a saving throw.

In 3.5 I roll a d20 and then see whether I get enough to hit someone/make a save.

Its the same mechanic. The maths is pretty much the same too, really.

QuoteSee, that's just your very, very subjective opinion. Luckily, many players and the design team do not share it. I'm not saying you're wrong. Or that I'm right.

No, it isn't just subjective; Vancian magic really has been in since the early days, and core in every version of D&D. Roll d20 to hit, then roll damage, roll d20 to save... None of those aspects have changed at all. If we're describing something as 'fundamental' to the game if it has existed in every embodiment (like, say, fighters and mages) then these mechanics are indeed fundamental.

QuoteAt the end of the day, if we can still cast spells, and if we still have to manage spellcasting ressources, I don't see the difference. Just like saves, thacos and other things.

It really comes down to how far you can stretch 'but it isn't really that different'. Ascending AC's (an older idea than you'd think), sorcerors, kits, skill systems... They've come, gone, moved about a bit, but not really changed the game. Go to spells per encounter, abilities per day, change some of the core mechanics that transcend edition, and its becoming an allmighty stretch.

Quote from: obrynStar Wars Saga Edition changed this up a bit.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It ain't bad for Star Wars, ain't D&D though.

Quote from: CabNo, I don't accept any of that

Don't have a cleric and want to set out on an adventure? Go get a hireling one, or recruit one in the temple. Don't have enough fighters? Get a hireling. Don't have enough players to cover all of the bases? Get a hireling. Pretty nearly every party I've ever seen has had that kind of balancing out; you don't even survive the Caves of Chaos without some hirelings.

Hey! We survived the Caves oncewithout any hirelings! Cleaned them up too! Can't say if the DM fudged or not, however

Anyway, that's cool if it's been your experience. It's certainly not been mine. I've been in few groups where choosing classes wasn't discussed in details. Be it for an adventure or a long term campaign.