Dwarves never really seemed centered and wise to me, but their fictional portrayals tend to show them as stubborn, hard-headed, and frequently impulsive.
Maybe con and int.
Naw, it'll deffinitely be con and wis. Dwarves are iconically depicted as fighters and clerics and, while I'll grant you they don't often seem to care much for the icons for the next edition, dwarves as strong clerics is deffinitely one of the ones they are keeping.
My biggest hope is that they fix Fighters to be somewhat equal to the casting classes.
The couple times I played 3.5 it was always the same, around 12th level or so the Fighter becomes pretty much useless as the Clerics/Wizards/Druids start getting their big mojo and make the Fighter pretty obsolete.
But with what I'm hearing I'm hopeful. And maybe Fighters will get some decent skill choices this time as well?
Yes, fighter's are going to have lots of choices this time around. Some cool bits from enworld.org
Fighter's "powers" depend highly on the weapon they chose as primary - spears have different "powers" available than axes; swords and greatswords are very flexible in terms of said "powers".
The human fighter mentioned in a podcast has an ability which allows him to do strength damage even on a miss. In addition, it is mentioned that the fighter's gear in this particular example contains no magical items. He can self-heal using his own abilities. Is "actually able to inflict some damage with a thrown spear".
Even at 1st level, a fighter who uses an axe has a different power selection than a fighter who relies on a flail or a rapier or a pick. In the long run, fighters can diversify and master powers related to a few different weapons, but most will opt to focus on the weapon that suits their personal style, helps their interactions with the rest of the PCs in the group, and carries all the magical oomph they’ve managed to acquire."
Powers can be divided into assault, defense and control. Assault is best suited to two-handed weapons, and ephasize offense and damage. Defense is about higher AC and such things. Control hinder and constrain the enemy.
A fighter feat allows Dex to be added to AC even when wearing hvy armor.
I will admit right now that I have always had a bit of a hard-on for dragons.
Ive tried to play a half-dragon many times.
I actually got my DM to edit the Dragon Disciple PrC so that a barbarian could take it.
I know that my first character will be a Dragonborn.
I will also probly take all the feats I can that enrich the draconic heritage. I remember reading something about maybe being able to get feats for wings and breath weapons and such. I will be all over that.
Im fairly certain that I am the type of person that is targeted with the inclusion of Dragonborn in core, and I am more than ok with that.
Wait... are his wings made of leather or is that armor all over his wings?
EDIT: Also, since Im kinda talkin about dragons, did whatever source was talking about the monsters and worlds book give any indication of what the Adamantine dragon was? Like what element, or what the breath weapon was or anything?
Re: fighter abilities. Anything that includes "behead that pesky mage, to show him who's really the boss"? Because if a fighter comes across an unarmored opponent like that...
Not explicitly, but R&C's info on the wizard did imply heavilly and repetitively that as a wizard if something gets to you, you're basically fucked.
I'm getting a bit excitd about the warlord, it reminds me of an idea for a bard I had where instead of singing or something, he had just studied quite a lot of tactics and was able to let other party members know when blows were coming, or where an enemies weak point was, etc.
Also, I picked up the class/race book and thoroughly enjoyed the info on humans, sounds like they still want to make them a jack-of-all-trades race which is cool in my opinion, I've made more human characters than all other races combined because it's so easy to make a character idea work with them.
It actually comes out and says that some dragonborn can better develop breath attacks and grow wings. That picture really just looks like leather wings or a cape however, trying to look like wings.
It actually comes out and says that some dragonborn can better develop breath attacks and grow wings. That picture really just looks like leather wings or a cape however, trying to look like wings.
Yeah, exactly, I will be taking any and all feats / powers / abilities that will make me a dragon.
Atleast for my first character, to get it out of my system.
It actually comes out and says that some dragonborn can better develop breath attacks and grow wings. That picture really just looks like leather wings or a cape however, trying to look like wings.
The same kind of transformation seems to be in place for the tieflings.
I think that "War of Wings" is a suggestion that both sides ended up dogfighting each other.
Oh, I'm interested in either playing in or running a 4e game when the materials are finally made available. Do I need to sign up somewhere or something?
I'll throw you on the front page later tonight, gotta get back to work right no--Oh heya boss.
Oh, I'm interested in either playing in or running a 4e game when the materials are finally made available. Do I need to sign up somewhere or something?
Same here, I'd love to play.
The Warlord intrigues me, as I always wanted to play a Fighter type as a great leader of men, and the Warlord seems to have some of those characteristics. Plus, it's a totally new class, so I'm all over it.
I donno - this seems to be getting overly complicated, and for me, simplicity was the selling point of D&D. Shadowrun became playable because they simplified it, and D&D became a whole lot easier when they revamped the AC process. But even with the old 10 to -10 AC system, D&D was easy to play.
Really, I think all these Races of the Elements Races of Dragonkind, Races of DesMoines are just a scam to part the money from unimaginative players.
"Its all weird gods and plush toys now. What happened to 'you enter a 10 x 10 room, an orc is guarding a chest'?"
-Yammara
Sword_of_Light on
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
I ask because from my point of view they're simplifying just about everything except for fluff. Now granted I didnt pay much attention to the fluff of 3/3.5 but alot of the races histories seem more detailed.
And really you could just ignore that if you dont like it.
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Shit, MAY was far enough away. On the one hand, having to wait 2 months after that to get the remaining books to run a proper game seemed like no fun, but at least we got the PHB in May. On the other hand, having to wait a few weeks more for any books and getting all 3 at once doesn't seem like too too bad of a trade off. As it stands, my girlfriend wants me to teach her how to play NOW, and I want to wait till the new books come out.
Uh, I was under the impression that the Corebooks were originally June, July and August. H1 comes out in May and includes quickstart rules and pre-made characters to allow it to be played as a sort of preview.
wateyad on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Actually, the stuff it did simplify or streamlined it did well. IE: saves, to hit, and whatnot.
Then it added stuff that made things complicated. Like cross-class skills and the bajillion different AC sources.
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Actually, the stuff it did simplify or streamlined it did well. IE: saves, to hit, and whatnot.
Then it added stuff that made things complicated. Like cross-class skills and the bajillion different AC sources.
As someone who played 2e for about 8 years before switching to 3e: 3e most definitely simplified 2e, if only because you can make a 3e character without pulling out a book if you know what you're doing, whereas that was impossible in 2e without having about 10 different tables memorized.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Actually, the stuff it did simplify or streamlined it did well. IE: saves, to hit, and whatnot.
Then it added stuff that made things complicated. Like cross-class skills and the bajillion different AC sources.
As someone who played 2e for about 8 years before switching to 3e: 3e most definitely simplified 2e, if only because you can make a 3e character without pulling out a book if you know what you're doing, whereas that was impossible in 2e without having about 10 different tables memorized.
Not to mention the rules changed drastically depending on which setting you were playing in.
Honestly the biggest 2e-3e change was that if I wanted to answer a rule question it would more often than not have an actual answer. Too often in 2e things were just "Eh, ask you DM." They still exist (and should) in 3e but they're much less frequent.
I'm getting this mental image of a massive chart of like 50 different polearms and their stats.
Buh.
It's both, but in 1st Ed the chart had to-hit modifiers for what AC you were attacking. So not only did you have to subtract AC from THAC0, but you also had a bonus or penalty arbitrarily assigned based on what weapon you were wielding versus the base AC of the target.
And don't forget the different damage versus different sized targets. In 1st Ed, they also didn't specify the dice rolled; they just gave you the range for damage. Some weapons did 4-14 damage, for example. So was that 1d11+3, 2d6+2, or 5d3-1?
Edit: Ooo! or 10d2-6! WHEEEE!
Edit2: And is the 1-8 longsword supposed to be 1d8 or 7d2-6? :roll:
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
or the glaive or the guisarme or the glaive-guisarme or the bill-guisarme or the voulge or the pike or the poleaxe or the halberd or the bardiche or the fauchard or the ranseur or the lucerne hammer or the...
I've seen nothing but simplification from 4th edition. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you would get "becoming more complicated" out of any of this.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Posts
Naw, it'll deffinitely be con and wis. Dwarves are iconically depicted as fighters and clerics and, while I'll grant you they don't often seem to care much for the icons for the next edition, dwarves as strong clerics is deffinitely one of the ones they are keeping.
LoL: failboattootoot
Yes, fighter's are going to have lots of choices this time around. Some cool bits from enworld.org
Fighter's "powers" depend highly on the weapon they chose as primary - spears have different "powers" available than axes; swords and greatswords are very flexible in terms of said "powers".
The human fighter mentioned in a podcast has an ability which allows him to do strength damage even on a miss. In addition, it is mentioned that the fighter's gear in this particular example contains no magical items. He can self-heal using his own abilities. Is "actually able to inflict some damage with a thrown spear".
Even at 1st level, a fighter who uses an axe has a different power selection than a fighter who relies on a flail or a rapier or a pick. In the long run, fighters can diversify and master powers related to a few different weapons, but most will opt to focus on the weapon that suits their personal style, helps their interactions with the rest of the PCs in the group, and carries all the magical oomph they’ve managed to acquire."
Powers can be divided into assault, defense and control. Assault is best suited to two-handed weapons, and ephasize offense and damage. Defense is about higher AC and such things. Control hinder and constrain the enemy.
A fighter feat allows Dex to be added to AC even when wearing hvy armor.
Are you salivating yet?
Ive tried to play a half-dragon many times.
I actually got my DM to edit the Dragon Disciple PrC so that a barbarian could take it.
I know that my first character will be a Dragonborn.
I will also probly take all the feats I can that enrich the draconic heritage. I remember reading something about maybe being able to get feats for wings and breath weapons and such. I will be all over that.
Im fairly certain that I am the type of person that is targeted with the inclusion of Dragonborn in core, and I am more than ok with that.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
EDIT: Also, since Im kinda talkin about dragons, did whatever source was talking about the monsters and worlds book give any indication of what the Adamantine dragon was? Like what element, or what the breath weapon was or anything?
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
Not explicitly, but R&C's info on the wizard did imply heavilly and repetitively that as a wizard if something gets to you, you're basically fucked.
LoL: failboattootoot
Also, I picked up the class/race book and thoroughly enjoyed the info on humans, sounds like they still want to make them a jack-of-all-trades race which is cool in my opinion, I've made more human characters than all other races combined because it's so easy to make a character idea work with them.
Yeah, exactly, I will be taking any and all feats / powers / abilities that will make me a dragon.
Atleast for my first character, to get it out of my system.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
The man does have his finger on the vein. Of adventure.
But instead, I'm just going to give a thumbs-up to more good news.
:^:
The same kind of transformation seems to be in place for the tieflings.
I think that "War of Wings" is a suggestion that both sides ended up dogfighting each other.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
I'll throw you on the front page later tonight, gotta get back to work right no--Oh heya boss.
The Warlord intrigues me, as I always wanted to play a Fighter type as a great leader of men, and the Warlord seems to have some of those characteristics. Plus, it's a totally new class, so I'm all over it.
Really, I think all these Races of the Elements Races of Dragonkind, Races of DesMoines are just a scam to part the money from unimaginative players.
"Its all weird gods and plush toys now. What happened to 'you enter a 10 x 10 room, an orc is guarding a chest'?"
-Yammara
I ask because from my point of view they're simplifying just about everything except for fluff. Now granted I didnt pay much attention to the fluff of 3/3.5 but alot of the races histories seem more detailed.
And really you could just ignore that if you dont like it.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
I see no reason to think 4th Edition will be much different. Having a lot of options doesn't mean it has to be complicated.
3e was supposed to "simplify" 2e, and we all know how that turned out.
Uh, I was under the impression that the Corebooks were originally June, July and August. H1 comes out in May and includes quickstart rules and pre-made characters to allow it to be played as a sort of preview.
Then it added stuff that made things complicated. Like cross-class skills and the bajillion different AC sources.
I'm getting this mental image of a massive chart of like 50 different polearms and their stats.
Buh.
It's both, but in 1st Ed the chart had to-hit modifiers for what AC you were attacking. So not only did you have to subtract AC from THAC0, but you also had a bonus or penalty arbitrarily assigned based on what weapon you were wielding versus the base AC of the target.
And don't forget the different damage versus different sized targets. In 1st Ed, they also didn't specify the dice rolled; they just gave you the range for damage. Some weapons did 4-14 damage, for example. So was that 1d11+3, 2d6+2, or 5d3-1?
Edit: Ooo! or 10d2-6! WHEEEE!
Edit2: And is the 1-8 longsword supposed to be 1d8 or 7d2-6? :roll:
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
When people complain about weapons being too much the same it makes me want to hold that chart up in front of their faces.
And then stab them in the groin with a bill-fauchard. Or was it slash?
Man, fuck you 1st/2nd Ed polearms.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Man-catcher. :winky:
Quite well.