haha, yeah, I totally forgot. whiteboard is another perfectly viable and extremely cheap alternative.
Flip-mat.
Seriously. Costs about 10 bucks, it gives you a grid, travels inside a rulebook, and you can write on it with damn near anything with no ill effects. It is the most economical option with regards to utility and cost except perhaps using a computer and maptools if you have a way of displaying it.
And if you don't play RPGs to stare at battle mats or white boards filled with squiggly lines? My complaint, and again I think 4th looks good over all, is that the game is shifting towards requiring this, instead of it being an option.
then what pony has said rings true - DnD was never designed with you in mind. chainmail, the game the combat system DnD was based on, was a tactical minis game.
Super Namicchi on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
then what pony has said rings true - DnD was never designed with you in mind. chainmail, the game the combat system DnD was based on, was a tactical minis game.
I don't even understand why this has to constantly be repeated.
It seems pretty obvious to me that DnD's system is a skirmish game first and an in-depth roleplaying experience neverth and has pretty much always been that way.
it bears repeating because people keep repeating the some complaints to which that is an answer.
Super Namicchi on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
It's because they started to make D&D fill more roles and do other things besides good old fashioned dungeon crawls and treasure hunts. Suddenly it's D20 and it can believably represent gritty action and skill-based characters and run entire adventures around just rolling Diplomacy over and over. Why learn any other system when D20 can be made to fit any type of setting?
Bleh. The simulationist side was always too superfluous to matter, while the rules always had more than enough complexity and counter-intuitiveness to hinder gamist at heart. 4th seems to be encouraging that gameplay it does well and de-emphasizing the stuff it never did.
I'm sure one could make the effort to keep the ranges and descriptions of everyone's locations in combat written down and updated> I used to do that for ranges when not using maps, but you'd certainly need emphasis on how they relate to each other and the environment ("You're five squares from the Gnoll facing you, and he's two away from the pit directly behind him.").
I like it, the idea of outsiders being cold, unfeeling, and nigh completely alien to human thought has always made sense to me. Devils at least you can relate the most insane sociopath to, but the new angels are like robots almost. They'd be very interesting in an updated planescape.
It makes me wonder if the Solar is in as the arch-angel or not, it would be kind of depressing to see him go.
The core of D&D has always been the dungeon crawl for sure, but the game I fell in love with was an RPG that was centered around dungeon crawls. Is it a bad thing that it is now hyper focusing on the core aspect of the game? Not at all. But it is different, and I strongly object to the idea that D&D was never about anything but combat.
dnd does not discourage roleplaying. nothing in the system ever gets in the way of your roleplaying, it never docks you exp for deciding to inject some flavor.
dnd does not discourage roleplaying. nothing in the system ever gets in the way of your roleplaying, it never docks you exp for deciding to inject some flavor.
Yeah, and I don't see how the changes to the skill system hurt roleplaying at all. Getting rid of fluff skills makes it so people don't have to choose between adding fluff skills(ex. profession: barrista) and combat/dungeoneering skills. With the way the skill system works now you can do fluff skill checks ad lib. Say your character, who was apprenticed to the best coffee maker in the world before starting his adventuring career, wants to make an awesome cup of joe for the foreign ambassador visiting his mansion. If the DM wanted there to be a skill check for that he could remember your characters background and tell you to make a trained intelligence check(Half level + int mod + 5 I beleive) vs the DC he sets for the skill challange.
Hell, you don't even have to do all that and you can still roleplay just fine. People have roleplayed playing Monopoly but I don't think thats your point.
Kin33 on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I like the look of those angels and the little bit of fluff to them
INeedNoSalt on
0
Options
HawkstoneDon't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things. Somewhere outside of BarstowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I think its not all that difficult to go mini-less if thats what you prefer. The key being that as a DM you would have to A) describe the scene well and be flexible with distances. If you are not going to use a battle mat with a scale you should be more loose with the interpertation of something like a 5 foot push, just go with it when someone says they want to shove a guy and in your head he might be closer to 6-7 feet, and alternatively your players will have to chill when you say as DM,"sorry the guy is closer to 10 feet from the pit, you cant get him there in one turn" Thats how i used to DM as a mini-less group. I would also like to point out as sombody who was converted to minis by my new group when I moved to a new state. There are many cheep ways to buy say a handfull of orcs and such online and then just rely on your players to buy a mini for their own character. Not everything we do is wiziwig, if we need ten gnolls and dont have any, use orc minis and call them gnolls. Its not as anti suspension of disbeleif as say Hommies and also not as expensive as tearing through hundred of random booster until you get all the mobs you need.
Now on to my concern about 4th, which I think and hope can be cleared up by those more in the know than I. I worry about what appears to be a slimming down of the choices for skills and spells. It seems like in both cases their will be alot fewer options/effects that you will be able to produce due to the removal of the old system. I liked characters who had a ton of skills and wizards who could create alot of varied effects aside from the big boom....can someone enlighten me on this. My hope is that spells and skills will be trimed in number but be more swiss army knife in nature where if your creative you can get numerous uses out of one where many may have existed before.
Yeah, if anything I think 4th may be the edition that most favors RP.
1st edition - No rules whatsoever.
2nd edition - Few rules, but for the most part you could have conflated Int & Wis, and removed Charisma from the game.
3rd edition - Rules and skills for social interaction, but they compete with combat skills for points. "Hmm, do I learn how to bluff a guard, or would I rather be able to actually cast a spell in combat?"
3.5th edition - Same as 3rd edition. Except with prestige classes taking an even bigger role, your character is now further shoehorned into acting a certain ways in order to get combat benefits. Want to be a Wizard who cares little for spells, but looks more at the underlying way magic involves itself with the universe? You can be a red Wizard, to hell if it has anything to do with your character concept.
4th edition - A character's social abilities grow along with his power, but doesn't compete for combat customization. In addition, you can customize your character's combat potential without marrying your character to any ideologies that don't fit with your concept.
4th looks like it will be the best edition for role playing.
Eh, I won't press the issue. I disagree, but that's not gonna stop any of us from enjoying 4th. I had plenty of problems with 3 and 3.5, I had problems with AD&D, never stopped me then either.
Eh, I won't press the issue. I disagree, but that's not gonna stop any of us from enjoying 4th. I had plenty of problems with 3 and 3.5, I had problems with AD&D, never stopped me then either.
Why not press the issue? It would make good discussion and maybe a good counterpoint that some haven't heard.
that's a very interesting position to take, and not something we've really touched on. any reason?
Well, granted, this is 3.5 thinking, which is why I am cautiously optimistic. However, feats, in 3.x, were critical to making your character awesome. I'm just not sure yet that blowing them to get powers on other classes lists is going to be an entirely smart decision, especially considering that characters already have so many powers to begin with. It's not a BAD implementation per se, and I'll freely admit that it's definitely better than 3.x's way of doing things. I'm just not sure it's the best way, and it feels kind of tacked on.
But it's not a deal breaker or anything. I'm looking forward to the excerpt.
that's a very interesting position to take, and not something we've really touched on. any reason?
Well, granted, this is 3.5 thinking, which is why I am cautiously optimistic. However, feats, in 3.x, were critical to making your character awesome. I'm just not sure yet that blowing them to get powers on other classes lists is going to be an entirely smart decision, especially considering that characters already have so many powers to begin with. It's not a BAD implementation per se, and I'll freely admit that it's definitely better than 3.x's way of doing things. I'm just not sure it's the best way, and it feels kind of tacked on.
But it's not a deal breaker or anything. I'm looking forward to the excerpt.
I think its a fairly good compromise. You give up some specialization with feats to gain utility through more varied powers. With the way leveling works I think that multiclassing might be extremely powerful and I think you will see a lot more gish characters.
Kin33 on
0
Options
HawkstoneDon't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things. Somewhere outside of BarstowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I think using feats for multiclassing is a great idea but I would alledge that if the number of feats stays the same as in 3.5 you arent actually going to get that true dual class character. It will feel more like a fighter with a handful of rogue abilities for example. Not really a bad thing, but it is a departure from what we are used to with dual/multi classing currently.
I think using feats for multiclassing is a great idea but I would alledge that if the number of feats stays the same as in 3.5 you arent actually going to get that true dual class character. It will feel more like a fighter with a handful of rogue abilities for example. Not really a bad thing, but it is a departure from what we are used to with dual/multi classing currently.
They've increased the number of feats you get. They've said this repeatedly. By how much? It is not clear.
3rd edition - Rules and skills for social interaction, but they compete with combat skills for points. "Hmm, do I learn how to bluff a guard, or would I rather be able to actually cast a spell in combat?"
3.5th edition - Same as 3rd edition. Except with prestige classes taking an even bigger role, your character is now further shoehorned into acting a certain ways in order to get combat benefits. Want to be a Wizard who cares little for spells, but looks more at the underlying way magic involves itself with the universe? You can be a red Wizard, to hell if it has anything to do with your character concept.
4th edition - A character's social abilities grow along with his power, but doesn't compete for combat customization. In addition, you can customize your character's combat potential without marrying your character to any ideologies that don't fit with your concept.
I don't know. House ruling skill growth (Half level minimum for all skills untrained) did pretty much the same thing in 3.x. It also made jumping over the ravine in the bosses' lair instead of just casting flight slightly more viable as a solution. When I first started DMing though, I looked at my experience as a player and just said, "In my game this is done..." Some things were disastrous, but it's all pretty grand now. That's one of the great things about the game. You can change and adjust on the fly. But the obvious counterargument to that is if you're just going to house-rule the hell out of the game why even bother to play by the rules to begin with? :U
More feats would be a must for this whole "Powerful Characters: For Dummies" vibe. I'm interested to see more on what the costs of doing so will be, but I guess we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out for sure. A lot of the "cost" of some PrC content lay in flavor of their class. Want to be able to throw people 400ft in the air? Well guess what, you must compulsively buy and consume large amounts of liver or whatever.
Lastly, because they seem to have a better system for ad-hoc XP (RP / Objectives), there should be more room for RP in 4E than 3.5E for general "by-the-book-only" DMs and players.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
then what pony has said rings true - DnD was never designed with you in mind. chainmail, the game the combat system DnD was based on, was a tactical minis game.
It's nearly impossible to keep track of everything in 3.xE and utilize a lot of the tactical rules (e.g. AoO, threat ranges, spring attacks, whirlwind attacks, AoE spells) without using some sort of physical abstract. It was even hard under 2E. I don't even get the argument there. Might as well say Monopoly sucks because you gotta use the board.
Well, granted, this is 3.5 thinking, which is why I am cautiously optimistic. However, feats, in 3.x, were critical to making your character awesome. I'm just not sure yet that blowing them to get powers on other classes lists is going to be an entirely smart decision, especially considering that characters already have so many powers to begin with. It's not a BAD implementation per se, and I'll freely admit that it's definitely better than 3.x's way of doing things. I'm just not sure it's the best way, and it feels kind of tacked on.
Multiclassing was always supposed to be about sacrificing power in one direction to add utility in another. 3.5E made doing it far more advantageous than any other edition, especially with PrCs that allowed you to progress both classes (e.g. Eldritch Thaumaturge) to the point where it was ridiculous. Granted, multis were pretty hobbled in the first two editions. Maybe this way there will be a middle ground reached.
The Traitor (Sp): Duplicate the effect of any 8th-level evil spell from any class list. This can include spells that can attain the evil descriptor if used in certain ways, such as summon monster spells, but must be cast as the evil version if used in this way. When you use the traitor manifestation, you might become evil if you are not already. Make a Charisma check (DC 20) after you use the manifestation. If you fail and are good, change the good axis of your alignment to neutral. If you are not good or evil, change neutral to evil. Your caster level is equal to your character level for this spell. While casting this spell, you automatically succeed on Concentration checks and you gain a +10 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance.
I thought alignment having mechanical effects was out, but this seems to suggest otherwise. Also it strikes as kinda dumb that using this ability could just swing your character's alignment around like that.
Thoughts?
Edit: The article is entitled Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5.
I am retarded and you should pay me no further mind.
Wow. I only read a couple of those, and they seem really interesting, but the Eternal Hero sounds way too powerful for most campaigns, epic or otherwise. Automatic true resurrection to a chosen spot every day if they're dead? I can't even begin to think of all ways that could be abused, especially if an entire party picks that destiny.
then what pony has said rings true - DnD was never designed with you in mind. chainmail, the game the combat system DnD was based on, was a tactical minis game.
It's nearly impossible to keep track of everything in 3.xE and utilize a lot of the tactical rules (e.g. AoO, threat ranges, spring attacks, whirlwind attacks, AoE spells) without using some sort of physical abstract. It was even hard under 2E. I don't even get the argument there. Might as well say Monopoly sucks because you gotta use the board.
Well, granted, this is 3.5 thinking, which is why I am cautiously optimistic. However, feats, in 3.x, were critical to making your character awesome. I'm just not sure yet that blowing them to get powers on other classes lists is going to be an entirely smart decision, especially considering that characters already have so many powers to begin with. It's not a BAD implementation per se, and I'll freely admit that it's definitely better than 3.x's way of doing things. I'm just not sure it's the best way, and it feels kind of tacked on.
Multiclassing was always supposed to be about sacrificing power in one direction to add utility in another. 3.5E made doing it far more advantageous than any other edition, especially with PrCs that allowed you to progress both classes (e.g. Eldritch Thaumaturge) to the point where it was ridiculous. Granted, multis were pretty hobbled in the first two editions. Maybe this way there will be a middle ground reached.
Multiclassing in 3.5 was also fairly restrictive and clearly unbalanced in favor of some choices. It also required some serious investments a lot of the time. ('Gotta meet these pre-reqs to get into the class at this level at the latest')
4e is driving it towards a Saga edition mindset in that classes shouldn't be restrictive and should be more like toolkits. Multiclassing through feats allows you to trade some of the tools in your toolbox for tools out of someone else's toolbox.
Wow. I only read a couple of those, and they seem really interesting, but the Eternal Hero sounds way too powerful for most campaigns, epic or otherwise. Automatic true resurrection to a chosen spot every day if they're dead? I can't even begin to think of all ways that could be abused, especially if an entire party picks that destiny.
I'm hoping, if those are based on the actual 4e destinies, that they will be better implemented, or make more sense, somehow.
So those all seemed delightfully epic. I didn't really see any major problems except for with that thing that was already pointed out, the alignment change deal, but it is for 3.5. The true resurection thing seemed a little over powered except that you only get to choose the place you "spawn" once per level. So chances are that if you do die, either the party has to quest back to your body to get you or vise versa. Doesn't sound too bad when you think about it like that. I hope these are basically the 3.5 analogues of the 4e destinies cause Im liking them.
I'm under the impression that only one of those epic destinies will actually be in 4th. To quote the little side box entitled "Epic Destinies in 4th Edition":
See if you can guess which of the epic destinies in this article is also featured in the 4th Edition Player's Handbook!
Maybe more then one will be in the PHB, but it doesn't seem like all will be.
Artifact Lord: I'd say either likely or highly unlikely depending on how they run magic items and artifacts.
Blade of Ragnarok: If Barbarians were in the first PHB; I'd say this would be a likely one.
Demigod: Likely: they've already said there will be destinies that lead right into you being a God.
Eternal Hero: A possibility. Resurrection is supposed to be much easier to attain at higher levels. The one ability that makes you evil might indicate this is a pure 3.x destiny though.
Force of Nature: Similar to Blade of Ragnarok: if druids were available this might have been a possibility
Mythic Shadow: Alongside Demigod for my pick of most likely to appear as an Epic Destiny. Spectral Stride seems to be an Epic version of Fey Step, and the Spurn Death ability isn't quite as bad as the Eternal Hero's Continual Resurrection.
I think the most important lesson I (re-) learned in the entire 4e process is that playing D&D or any other RPG is an intensely personal activity. There's a reason why we game with our friends, usually at the home of a friend, over food and drink. This is intensely personal stuff, where we say and do things that we wouldn't let loose in public.
RPGs also encourage creation, and that spawns an intense feeling of ownership. Those are good things, IMO, because there aren't many other things in modern society that drive those very human needs.
What that does mean, though, is that it's very, very easy to piss people off when you change D&D or any other RPG. It's like giving their baby plastic surgery without asking first, or re-arranging their house while they're away on vacation. Even if you do a great job, there's a good chance they're going to be pissed off on general principle.
At the end of the day, all you can hope for is that enough people thought their baby was ugly, or their house crappily laid out, that they happy with the change or able to accept it after giving it a try. I think the stuff we've done does make improvements to areas where the game didn't work all that well, makes the game more accessible, and makes it easier to play D&D.
In the end, gamers get to judge whether the changes we have made are for the good of the game or not. When the game is out there, then we'll know. Right now, you have some people who want it to fail for various ideological, personal, or other random reasons, and others who want it to succeed for all the same factors. All that conjecture and hope doesn't mean anything until the game comes out and the vast majority of gamers who are stuck somewhere in the middle pass judgment.
(this is not official in any sense, merely working off of extrapolation)
I really like it. Apart from the practical level, it seems to allow one of the indie-rpg ideas of the players having input to the story. I read a fair bit of the thread and one of the repeated complaints was that the DM should think up a puzzle and decide on a few ways it can be solved, and then the players work try to work it out.
This method allows the DM to create a challenge without spending hours thinking of a clever puzzle, and for the players to decide on how to try and solve it. The game part happens from the numbers.
I too am reading that thread, and it really baffles me all of these people bringing up the point "the guy can just use knowledge geology to solve all of the skill challenges!"
Except it hinges on the fact you have to convince the GM
and like one guy said, 'if one guy can keep convincing me that knowledge geology applies in these situations, that's worth the price of admission.'
then what pony has said rings true - DnD was never designed with you in mind. chainmail, the game the combat system DnD was based on, was a tactical minis game.
It's nearly impossible to keep track of everything in 3.xE and utilize a lot of the tactical rules (e.g. AoO, threat ranges, spring attacks, whirlwind attacks, AoE spells) without using some sort of physical abstract. It was even hard under 2E. I don't even get the argument there. Might as well say Monopoly sucks because you gotta use the board.
...what? What are you even saying here?
I'm agreeing with you that it's a tactical mini-biased game. I'm also furthering that idea that it's kinda hard to keep track of if you aren't using some sort of physical abstract, be it coins, chess pieces, or actual minis to keep mind of where everything is during combat.
Posts
Seriously. Costs about 10 bucks, it gives you a grid, travels inside a rulebook, and you can write on it with damn near anything with no ill effects. It is the most economical option with regards to utility and cost except perhaps using a computer and maptools if you have a way of displaying it.
LoL: BunyipAristocrat
I don't even understand why this has to constantly be repeated.
It seems pretty obvious to me that DnD's system is a skirmish game first and an in-depth roleplaying experience neverth and has pretty much always been that way.
Bleh. The simulationist side was always too superfluous to matter, while the rules always had more than enough complexity and counter-intuitiveness to hinder gamist at heart. 4th seems to be encouraging that gameplay it does well and de-emphasizing the stuff it never did.
I'm sure one could make the effort to keep the ranges and descriptions of everyone's locations in combat written down and updated> I used to do that for ranges when not using maps, but you'd certainly need emphasis on how they relate to each other and the environment ("You're five squares from the Gnoll facing you, and he's two away from the pit directly behind him.").
I like it, the idea of outsiders being cold, unfeeling, and nigh completely alien to human thought has always made sense to me. Devils at least you can relate the most insane sociopath to, but the new angels are like robots almost. They'd be very interesting in an updated planescape.
It makes me wonder if the Solar is in as the arch-angel or not, it would be kind of depressing to see him go.
LoL: BunyipAristocrat
Yeah, and I don't see how the changes to the skill system hurt roleplaying at all. Getting rid of fluff skills makes it so people don't have to choose between adding fluff skills(ex. profession: barrista) and combat/dungeoneering skills. With the way the skill system works now you can do fluff skill checks ad lib. Say your character, who was apprenticed to the best coffee maker in the world before starting his adventuring career, wants to make an awesome cup of joe for the foreign ambassador visiting his mansion. If the DM wanted there to be a skill check for that he could remember your characters background and tell you to make a trained intelligence check(Half level + int mod + 5 I beleive) vs the DC he sets for the skill challange.
Hell, you don't even have to do all that and you can still roleplay just fine. People have roleplayed playing Monopoly but I don't think thats your point.
Now on to my concern about 4th, which I think and hope can be cleared up by those more in the know than I. I worry about what appears to be a slimming down of the choices for skills and spells. It seems like in both cases their will be alot fewer options/effects that you will be able to produce due to the removal of the old system. I liked characters who had a ton of skills and wizards who could create alot of varied effects aside from the big boom....can someone enlighten me on this. My hope is that spells and skills will be trimed in number but be more swiss army knife in nature where if your creative you can get numerous uses out of one where many may have existed before.
1st edition - No rules whatsoever.
2nd edition - Few rules, but for the most part you could have conflated Int & Wis, and removed Charisma from the game.
3rd edition - Rules and skills for social interaction, but they compete with combat skills for points. "Hmm, do I learn how to bluff a guard, or would I rather be able to actually cast a spell in combat?"
3.5th edition - Same as 3rd edition. Except with prestige classes taking an even bigger role, your character is now further shoehorned into acting a certain ways in order to get combat benefits. Want to be a Wizard who cares little for spells, but looks more at the underlying way magic involves itself with the universe? You can be a red Wizard, to hell if it has anything to do with your character concept.
4th edition - A character's social abilities grow along with his power, but doesn't compete for combat customization. In addition, you can customize your character's combat potential without marrying your character to any ideologies that don't fit with your concept.
4th looks like it will be the best edition for role playing.
LoL: BunyipAristocrat
Why not press the issue? It would make good discussion and maybe a good counterpoint that some haven't heard.
Good, I'm not particularly sold on the whole spend feats for other classes powers concept of multiclassing quite yet. More info would be very welcome.
LoL: failboattootoot
Well, granted, this is 3.5 thinking, which is why I am cautiously optimistic. However, feats, in 3.x, were critical to making your character awesome. I'm just not sure yet that blowing them to get powers on other classes lists is going to be an entirely smart decision, especially considering that characters already have so many powers to begin with. It's not a BAD implementation per se, and I'll freely admit that it's definitely better than 3.x's way of doing things. I'm just not sure it's the best way, and it feels kind of tacked on.
But it's not a deal breaker or anything. I'm looking forward to the excerpt.
LoL: failboattootoot
I think its a fairly good compromise. You give up some specialization with feats to gain utility through more varied powers. With the way leveling works I think that multiclassing might be extremely powerful and I think you will see a lot more gish characters.
They've increased the number of feats you get. They've said this repeatedly. By how much? It is not clear.
I don't know. House ruling skill growth (Half level minimum for all skills untrained) did pretty much the same thing in 3.x. It also made jumping over the ravine in the bosses' lair instead of just casting flight slightly more viable as a solution. When I first started DMing though, I looked at my experience as a player and just said, "In my game this is done..." Some things were disastrous, but it's all pretty grand now. That's one of the great things about the game. You can change and adjust on the fly. But the obvious counterargument to that is if you're just going to house-rule the hell out of the game why even bother to play by the rules to begin with? :U
More feats would be a must for this whole "Powerful Characters: For Dummies" vibe. I'm interested to see more on what the costs of doing so will be, but I guess we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out for sure. A lot of the "cost" of some PrC content lay in flavor of their class. Want to be able to throw people 400ft in the air? Well guess what, you must compulsively buy and consume large amounts of liver or whatever.
Lastly, because they seem to have a better system for ad-hoc XP (RP / Objectives), there should be more room for RP in 4E than 3.5E for general "by-the-book-only" DMs and players.
Multiclassing was always supposed to be about sacrificing power in one direction to add utility in another. 3.5E made doing it far more advantageous than any other edition, especially with PrCs that allowed you to progress both classes (e.g. Eldritch Thaumaturge) to the point where it was ridiculous. Granted, multis were pretty hobbled in the first two editions. Maybe this way there will be a middle ground reached.
A lot of this sounds pretty cool to me, but one thing caught my eye and has me worried:
I thought alignment having mechanical effects was out, but this seems to suggest otherwise. Also it strikes as kinda dumb that using this ability could just swing your character's alignment around like that.
Thoughts?
Edit: The article is entitled Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5.
I am retarded and you should pay me no further mind.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
Have you seen that one Dave Chappelle bit?
"What? What? WHAT?! NO! NOOOOO! NOOOOOOOO!"
That was me.
...what? What are you even saying here?
Multiclassing in 3.5 was also fairly restrictive and clearly unbalanced in favor of some choices. It also required some serious investments a lot of the time. ('Gotta meet these pre-reqs to get into the class at this level at the latest')
4e is driving it towards a Saga edition mindset in that classes shouldn't be restrictive and should be more like toolkits. Multiclassing through feats allows you to trade some of the tools in your toolbox for tools out of someone else's toolbox.
I'm hoping, if those are based on the actual 4e destinies, that they will be better implemented, or make more sense, somehow.
Cuz yeah, eternal hero seems odd.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
It's mostly 4E epic for 3.5. As in, leveling ends at 30, etc.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
Maybe more then one will be in the PHB, but it doesn't seem like all will be.
Artifact Lord: I'd say either likely or highly unlikely depending on how they run magic items and artifacts.
Blade of Ragnarok: If Barbarians were in the first PHB; I'd say this would be a likely one.
Demigod: Likely: they've already said there will be destinies that lead right into you being a God.
Eternal Hero: A possibility. Resurrection is supposed to be much easier to attain at higher levels. The one ability that makes you evil might indicate this is a pure 3.x destiny though.
Force of Nature: Similar to Blade of Ragnarok: if druids were available this might have been a possibility
Mythic Shadow: Alongside Demigod for my pick of most likely to appear as an Epic Destiny. Spectral Stride seems to be an Epic version of Fey Step, and the Spurn Death ability isn't quite as bad as the Eternal Hero's Continual Resurrection.
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8302214&postcount=75
Example of the 4e Skill Challenge system
(this is not official in any sense, merely working off of extrapolation)
I really like it. Apart from the practical level, it seems to allow one of the indie-rpg ideas of the players having input to the story. I read a fair bit of the thread and one of the repeated complaints was that the DM should think up a puzzle and decide on a few ways it can be solved, and then the players work try to work it out.
This method allows the DM to create a challenge without spending hours thinking of a clever puzzle, and for the players to decide on how to try and solve it. The game part happens from the numbers.
Excellent.
Edit: I just saw this comic...
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680
....coincidentally, which reminded me of this, and the contrast between this kind of system and the puzzle-solving type.
Except it hinges on the fact you have to convince the GM
and like one guy said, 'if one guy can keep convincing me that knowledge geology applies in these situations, that's worth the price of admission.'
Maybe I should just go to a random game shop in Aki and play with Japanese strangers.
I've never used miniatures. Ever.
Never had a problem, really.