Dungeons & Dragons: Vierte Edition

[Greifenklaue]

Die Attribute sind zwar erhalten geblieben, aber offensichtlich hat sich die Schreibweise geändert:

ST +7 (19)
KO +5 (14)
GE +5 (15)
IN +5 (15)
WE +5 (14)
CH +5 (15)

Ich hab es  [23]

Die halbe Stufe wird als zusätzlicher Bonus (hier: 6 Stufe, also +3) draufgerechnet!

[Ghost]

"nethersight" (Untersicht? Naja, was auch immer das ist)

Hier bezieht sich "nether" eher auf den Äther, bzw. die Unterwelt oder Hölle, aus der das Viech stammt. Ein Netherlord wäre demnach ein Höllenfürst.
Ich vermute, dass das Teufelchen die Möglichkeit hat, in seine Heimatebene zu schauen, ohne wirklich da zu sein (oder umgekehrt).

Vielleicht ist auch gleich ein stufenabhängiger Action-Bonus eingerechnet (so soll es bei SW: Saga Edition sein).

Dieser Bonus wird bei Saga nicht direkt auf das Attribut, sondern nur auf die Fertigkeiten und ähnliches angewandt. Eventuell sind sie ja bei D&D dazu übergegangen, es direkt auf die Attribute zu packen.

Ich weiß nicht ob ich das so gut finden soll wenn sich das Rollenspiel und ein Tabletop angleichen.

Das hat Vor- und Nachteile. Benutzt eine Gruppe keine Figuren, ist das Felderprinzip natürlich sehr abstrakt, da man praktisch in Gedanken ein Gitter über die Landschaft legen muss.
In Verbindung mit dem Miniaturenspiel macht es aber das erzählerische Tabletop deutlich einfacher - und führt auch weg vom Turniergehabe der Tabletop-Gemeinschaft, welches sich in letzter Zeit gebildet hat.

Bei actionbetonten Spielen finde ich die Miniaturen sehr passend, vor allem, wenn Jedi Hüpfanfälle bekommen oder die Gegner mit Hilfe der Macht "umsortieren".
Bei WoD oder allgemein Horrorrollenspielen sollte man aber die Finger davon lassen.


Mir persönlich gefällt das Saga-System mittlerweile sehr gut (ich lasse mich sogar dazu hinreißen: Es rockt!). Da DnD4 wohl sehr ähnlich sein wird, halte ich es auch für gut spielbar - allerdings bezweifle ich, dass ich sofort bei Erscheinen unbedingt auf die neue Edition umsteigen muss. [25]
Das wird erstmal ein paar Monate reifen müssen...dann werde ich nochmal darüber nachdenken.

[Argamae]

Hier bezieht sich "nether" eher auf den Äther, bzw. die Unterwelt oder Hölle, aus der das Viech stammt. Ein Netherlord wäre demnach ein Höllenfürst.
Ich vermute, dass das Teufelchen die Möglichkeit hat, in seine Heimatebene zu schauen, ohne wirklich da zu sein (oder umgekehrt).

Yo, das könnte sein - klingt plausibel. Sowas wie Astralsicht bei Shadowrun.

Dieser Bonus wird bei Saga nicht direkt auf das Attribut, sondern nur auf die Fertigkeiten und ähnliches angewandt. Eventuell sind sie ja bei D&D dazu übergegangen, es direkt auf die Attribute zu packen.

Achso! Hm, ja, könnte sein. Auf diese Weise kann man den Level einer Kreatur auch gleichzeitig als eine Art Universalbonus für alles mögliche einsetzen. Finde ich unter dem Aspekt einer erhöhten Spielgeschwindigkeit und weniger Stats gar nicht schlecht. Ähnlich funzt das auch beim AD&D/D20-Crossover "Castles & Crusades".

Das hat Vor- und Nachteile. Benutzt eine Gruppe keine Figuren, ist das Felderprinzip natürlich sehr abstrakt, da man praktisch in Gedanken ein Gitter über die Landschaft legen muss.
In Verbindung mit dem Miniaturenspiel macht es aber das erzählerische Tabletop deutlich einfacher - und führt auch weg vom Turniergehabe der Tabletop-Gemeinschaft, welches sich in letzter Zeit gebildet hat.

Ich mag es eigentlich ganz gern, um ehrlich zu sein. Aber das bedingt sich auch gegenseitig, da D&D 3.5 dem Tabletop-Gaming schon sehr entgegen kommt. So hat man absolute Gegebenheiten, was taktisch denkende Spieler erfreut. Außerdem sind sehr viele Feats/Talente bei D&D 3.5 ohne eindeutigen Miniaturen-Kampfschauplatz immer schwer einzusetzen - bzw. andersrum: viele Talente verlangen förmlich eine gerasterte Spielfläche und sind ganz klar auf dieser Grundlage konzipiert worden.

Da DnD4 wohl sehr ähnlich sein wird, halte ich es auch für gut spielbar - allerdings bezweifle ich, dass ich sofort bei Erscheinen unbedingt auf die neue Edition umsteigen muss.  
Das wird erstmal ein paar Monate reifen müssen...dann werde ich nochmal darüber nachdenken.

Am besten 3 Jahre warten, dann gibts die optimierte 4.5!  [15]

[Greifenklaue]

Ich mag es eigentlich ganz gern, um ehrlich zu sein. Aber das bedingt sich auch gegenseitig, da D&D 3.5 dem Tabletop-Gaming schon sehr entgegen kommt. So hat man absolute Gegebenheiten, was taktisch denkende Spieler erfreut. Außerdem sind sehr viele Feats/Talente bei D&D 3.5 ohne eindeutigen Miniaturen-Kampfschauplatz immer schwer einzusetzen - bzw. andersrum: viele Talente verlangen förmlich eine gerasterte Spielfläche und sind ganz klar auf dieser Grundlage konzipiert worden.

Früher war ich davon kein Fan, aber seit wir es in unserer Runde eingeführt haben, gefällt es mit ganz gut. Bietet eben beim taktischen System DnD, welches dafür Optionen parat hält, deutlich mehr an Übersicht, Gerechtigkeit (insbesondere als ein schlichtes JA oder NEIN, jetzt gibt es ein JA, WENN...) und eben auch Taktik. Natürlich hat es auch Nachteile (etwaige Metagaming-Entscheidungen, da Taktik vor RP geht oder Fokussierung auf Kampf statt Flucht, Verhandlung, Aufgabe, Bluffen, Virbeischleichen, Überrumpelb, etc.pp.). Aber ich find es - für DnD - mittlerweile ein zusätzliches spannendes Element!

[Ghost]

[15]
So ging es uns mit Star Wars. Das System passt auch hervorragend zum Rollenspiel, wie auch zum Tabletop. Es ist allerdings ein teurer Spaß, wenn man die Originalfiguren in den Boostern kauft (bei Star Wars hat man aber kaum eine andere Wahl).

Wizards haben die Fusion der beiden Spiele schon recht ordentlich hinbekommen - und man muss die Figuren ja nicht bei jeder kleinen Begegnung einsetzen. Der Actionfaktor ist doch aber deutlich höher.

[Greifenklaue]

Erik Mona von Paizo läßt einiges an Kritk zur 4ten raus:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/40PAIZOISSTILLUNDECIDED

[Argamae]

Erik Mona von Paizo läßt einiges an Kritk zur 4ten raus

Was er schreibt, ist größtenteils nachvollziehbar - allerdings ist auch die Position von WotC nachvollziehbar. Die halten mit ihrem neuen Baby erstmal hinter dem Berg und teasen selbst nur zurückhaltend auf D&D INSIDER. Da kommt nur spärlich was 'rüber.

So ist die Situation recht unbefriedigend für alle Parteien.

Wenigstens könnten sich WotC mal darüber auskotzen, ob und wie eine neue OPEN GAME LICENSE aussehen soll. Dann würden die 3rd-Party-Publisher nicht so im Dunklen stehen. Das WotC natürlich auch einen Wettbewerbsvorteil sichern, indem sie die neue Edition diesen Publishern erst nach der offiziellen Veröffentlichung zugänglich machen, dürfte weder überraschen noch unverständlich sein. Bevor dann nicht-WotC-Produkte unter 4.0 erscheinen, können die WIZARDS erstmal selber vorlegen.

Mona fragt:

But how is the 4.0 hype treating you these days? Do you plan to start up a new 4.0 campaign on day 1?

Ich antworte: most certainly not!

[Wormys_Queue]

Das Hauptproblem für Paizo (und andere Publisher) ist die Vorlaufzeit ihrer Produkte. Für Paizo geht es z.B. ganz aktuell um den dritten AP, der im September 2008 startet. Den würde man prinzipiell schon ganz gerne in 4E machen, aber laut Erik müsste man dazu alsbald was handfestes in die Finger bekommen (genannte Deadline wäre wohl Ende Januar 2008).

Wenn das nicht klappt, dann müsste Paizo wohl noch bis ins Jahr 2009 hinein auf 3.5 Basis weiterarbeiten und könnte weder auf dem Gen Con noch im Weihnachtsgeschäft 2008 4E Produkte anbieten. Dass man sich bei diesem möglichen Szenario Gedanken über Alternativen macht, ist klar.

Persönlich würde ich es schade finden, da ich eine Fragmentierung des Marktes nicht für ideal halte, auf der anderen Seite ist es mir weitestgehend egal. Wenn ich ehrlich bin, halte ich die Produkte von 3rd-Party-Publishern wie Paizo, Malhavoc,Green Ronin, Necromancer Games oder auch Goodman Games dem meisten, was von den Wizards kommt, inhaltlich für weit überlegen. Jüngere Ausnahmen wie z.B. der geniale Fiendish Codex I wurden fast allesamt von Paizo-Autoren (mit-) geschrieben.

Auf Deutsch: Wenn WotC das so hinbekommt, dass auch diese Anbieter mit der 4E glücklich werden, super. Wenn nicht, schneiden sie sich nur ins eigene Fleisch (was mich angeht), da ich mein Geld nicht primär der Regeln wegen ausgebe, sondern wegen der Qualität des Rest.

P.S. Aber Erik hat das in besagtem Thread später noch mal klargestellt. In den ersten Posts war wohl viel frust dabei, aber letzten Endes liegt es Paizo fern, zu WotC in Front zu gehen. Man würde es ganz klar bevorzugen, den Schritt nach 4E mitgehen zu können. Das man sich über evtl. notwendige Alternativen Gedanken macht, halte ich für legitim. Und auch wenn da natürlich Marketing mit hineinspielt, hat der direkte Einbezug der Paizo-Comm dort eine langjährige Tradition.

[Greifenklaue]

Erste Infos aus dem demnaechst erscheinden Preview-Buch zur 4. Edition (Races and Classes) von Enworld:

The book is just fluff, no game statistcs or any rules in it.
Diferent D&D designers have written different parts of the book, it's definatly teamwork. It is always mentioned who wrote which chapter or which paragraph.
The races mentioned in detail are Humans, Dwaves, Eladrins, Elves, Halflings, Tieflings, and the "mystery race", Dragonborn. Each of these races gets some pages, humans I think had the most with 4 or 5, eladrin the least with 1,5. There are 4-5 paragraphs each on some other races as well. I remember drow and gnome, but there were maybe 2 or 3 more. The gnome part was titled "The problem with gnomes" or something like that.
The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws. If I had to judge by the picture, they should get natural bite and claw attacks.
Halflings looked just as 3ed halflings (no hobbits).
The classes section had details about five classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlock. Each of thes gets 3-4 pages. Then - as with the classes - there is an "other classes" section with 3-4 paragraphes for each class. I remember paladins, rangers, druids, barbarians, swordmages and warlords among those.
I couldn't find any mention in the book why they chose to write about some races and classes in detail, and why some get only some paragraphs. While for some of the "lesser" races and classs it did say that those would appear probably in later D&D proucts, I couldn't find any passage saying that those and only those detailed would be in the PHB. (Five base classes certainly seem to much.)
Besides races and classes there were some chapters about the designwork, about the basic things they are trying to achieve, and so on. One interesting little info I remember is that there will be just one progression for all classes, and differences between them will come from their different character ablities, feats and so on. If I remember well, BAB (and AC?) was among the things mentioned. Hp was probably also on this list, butu I don't remember well anymore, sorry.
There were two pages about the design history, which the different stages were, and when they began.
The art looked good, often there was a pencil sketch (concept art), and the final colored version side by side.

[Greifenklaue]

Etwas detailierter zu Races - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212826

First of all bear in mind that the book reflects the state of the art as of Aug 2007, before the announcement. It still has May as the release date. It is full of fluff and art. Sometime a whole page is just a picture, so don't expect longish text. There is no mechanic, just a few mentions that hint at mechanics.

Ability scores
Ability score adjustment have a net positive benefit (i.e. not of the type -2 / +2). I think that it will be a flat +2 most of the time. In the entry for dwarves it says that the charisma penalty is gone, thus they might have +2 Con, and that is all.

Races
Each race seems to have a clear "homeland". Dwarves live in mountains, elves in forests. Now they come up with something for all major races. Humans are tied to plains, Halfling to rivers (swamps and marshes), Dragonborn to deserts (at least their great empire were in desert).

I will list a favoured class. As we know, mechanically it is not the favoured class of 3.x, but they admit, that some races are better at being certain classes. The "favoured class" is not listed as such, I inferred it from the text.

Human
They will remain the flexible, adaptable race as in 3.x.
Their negative personality flaw is corruptible (I don't think it is mechanic, just fluff or the basis of some racial feat).
The text mention that humans never give up, and try thing again-and-again; this can be a racial characteristic (allow retry in some cases).
Each of them know how to handle at least one weapon (fluff or ability?).
Their homeland is the plains. Horses are important to them.
Favoured class: They fit to all classes equally well (or at least more or less equally well, the text is not that clear hear).

Dwarf
Resilient industrious folks.
One of their racial feat allow a second "second wind".
They no longer have darkvision, only low light vision (most races will have only normal vision).
Favoured class: Fighter

Eladrin
They are the magical high elves. Both elves and eladrins were elves, but one preferred magic and stone, while the other nature and the woods.
One of their racial feats allows them to briefly enter Feywild and reemerge at another place, making a short teleport (was hinted at one of the playtest report, right?).
Favoured class: Wizard

Elf
Favoured class: Ranger

Dragonborn
Dragonborn are kin to dragon, they are egg laying (so why on Earth do females need a halter?). They are a strong race with martial incline. I think dragonborn replaces half-orc as the main damage dealing race.
At higher level they can choose racial feat that gives them breath weapon or wings.
Probably have claw attack.
Favoured class: warlord

Halfling
Now they admit, that the main source of inspiration for the 3.x halfling is the kender. We suspected it all along. They are still the lucky, bit thievery race as they were. Added their liking for rivers and boats (and thus being a merchant and wandered).
Favoured class: Rogue

Tiefling
Lots of fluff, but really not so much crunch. I never played them, so I don't know how they were in 3.x. Their look is rather unified now.
Favoured class: Warlock


Und zu Classes:

-> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212851

Here again I start with a disclaimer. The book present the state of the art as of Aug 2007. There could be changes.

Unified progression of defense, BAB and saves. A 10th level character will have +5 of those (thus +0.5 / level). Even at 1st level classes can significantly alter the base value. Class abilities modify them further.

Cleric
All classes will get some self-healing power (already known). Cleric enhance the self-healing capabilities of nearby allies.
Bigger spell will be rituals (raise the dead for example). Rituals are different from spells (as of how I do not know).
Summoning spells are removed along with alignment specific ones (at least for now).


Fighter
You chose to fight with a two-handed weapon or a weapon+shield. Other abilities build on this choice. I hope this will be changed, how would two-weapon fighting figure to this?
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 (IMHO trip for example).
Some stunt a better if carried out with a specific weapon. Hammer are perfect for stunning opponents, while great swords for cleave.
The role as a defendes admittedly means that you are to defend the wizard and allow the thief to flank. I'm not happy with that. The fighter should be the primary damage dealer, not the rogue or the wizard...
A fighter feat allows Dex to be added to AC even when wearing hvy armor.
Fighters can keep monsters focused on them, by having bonuses on opportunity attacks and by following enemies. They guard allies by "battlefield control".
An example of at will power is the defensive strike. If you hit, you get bonus to AC against this foe.
Per encounter: dance of steel (just the name is given)
Per day: great surge which is a powerfull attack combined with some healing of yourself.

Psi will appear sometime and it will be a different power source. They design arcane and divine magic so that psi can fit in. Power over mind will be the main (or a flagship) feature of psi, thus charms are going to be nerfed (the avoid too much overlap).

He goes on to say:

These classes are mentioned is 3-4 paragraphs, it is not a confirmation that they are going to be in the PHB, just that they were experimenting with them (for some, like the paladin, warlord and the ranger, we know that they are going to be in the PHB).

Paladin: Still have smite ability but there are more types of smites (different form of attacks). Paladins and fighters are both defenders, but paladins rely on divine powers. There are evil paladins.

Ranger: Nothing more that we already know. Some scoutish abilities focus on movement, good with a bow.

Sorcerer: Make it more distant from the wizard. They barely control their spells, but unleash enough energy every time that some remains around them. For example after a fireball, they are cloaked in fire which sears enemies nearby.

Swordmage: An arcane defender with magic shields and armor, flaming sword and some self-bluff abilities.

Warlord: A martial leader, with the ability to buff and control over battlefield positioning.

Barbarian: The ability to rage is the centerpiece ability of this class. There are different rages. There is a mention of a "lightning panther strike" that allow movement and multiple attack. Barbarians are more feral, and bite attack was mentioned

Druid: Their spellcasting takes second seat. The primary ability is wildshape, which they can do a lot more often, but only shapes they have picked (like spells). They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.

Bard: Gets it power from otherwordly patrons (?). Its powers focuses on illusions and confusions, so that enemies hinder themselves. They can also inspire their allies.

Monk: Still in the design stage, but it will be a mobile striker.

In addition:

Rogues

Sneak attack is easier. Apart from flanking, some spell and special abilities will also give combat advantage to rogues. Combat advantage is the name for the state when a rogue can sneak attack a foe. Immunity to sneak attack is nearly gone. Immunities are almost gone from 4th ed, replaced by damage threshold (something like DR).
Rogues have follow-up attack after successful attack (extra damage or penalties).
High powered abilities allow multiple attack and tactical movement.
Rogues are still skill monkey.
Skill level rises with level. Listen & Spot; Move silently & Hide; Open lock and Sleight of Hand is combined. Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft and Read Magic is combined to Arcane. Approximately the skill list is cut in half.
Some uses of a skill, like the avoidance of AoO by Tumble will be tied to feats or class abilities. Trapfinding is a feat (rogues have it by default), but others can have it too.

Warlock

They make pacts with devils, feys, the starts, elemental powers. Their initial pact determines a large part of their powers. There are four types of it: Infernal, Fey, Vestige and Star.
Primary attack is eldritch blast and soul ruin.
You can transpose yourself and later others as well.
Invocation can summon.
Curses are an integral part of your power. Curses are associated with your pact. They are per encounter damage dealing / crippling powers. Cursed creatures are easier to damage with your blast or soul ruin. When a cursed creature is dropped to 0 hp, you gain a powerful follow up attack against nearby foes.
As for alignment, most creatures and PC will be unaligned.

[Greifenklaue]

Und nun noch Magie in der vierten...

*  Vancian 'spell slots' will be reduced in how much they control a caster's total ability -- "Vancian magic system – there's an element of that we held on to, but it's a much smaller fraction of their overall power. A wizard will never completely run out of spells. They can run out of their "mordenkainen's sword, however" (source).
         o Mike Mearls -- "BTW, who knew that so many people disliked Vancian spellcasting? The entire audience in yesterday's seminar cheered and clapped when we told them it was (mostly) gone."
         o Vancian system survives, but it's only a "fraction" of the magic (or magic options) available to characters: "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
         o Chris Perkins on Vancian magic -- "It's safe to say that the "Vancian" spellcasting system has received as much scrutiny as every other aspect of the D&D game. One thing we don't want is a character running out of cool things to do in combat. In 4th Edition, all characters have a selection of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day resources. The exact mechanical execution of this base concept will be disclosed in the coming months on D&D Insider and the Wizards Presents: Races and Classes preview book, so no spoilers here!"
         o Will the new wizard resemble the 3.5 warlock {given the reduction in Vancian magic)? "Wizards will more resemble 3.5 wizards than 3.5 warlocks."
   * It seems like four "classic" wizardly implements - the orb, staff, tome, and wand - are to play a more central role in the Wizard character class. Each implement is associated with certain types of magic: orb for terrain control, manipulation and divination; staff for forcefully projected powers as well as flight and telekinisis; tome for teleportation, summoning, shapechanging; and wand for long-range effects and protection.  The wizard can cast without the items, but is likened to "a slightly near-sighted man with glasses"; holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard's attack. The article refers to "the wand spell cinder storm", which implies that each spell will be an orb, staff, wand or tome spell.
         o Update - conspiracy theorists ahoy! All references to the "tome" have been edited out of the above article, leaving orb, staff and wand only. Why? I don't know! But there were references to the "tome" before, and now there aren't. Instead, we have extra flavour text, referring to Iron Sigil [potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force] and Serpent Eye [enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring] traditions (orb), disciplines of the Hidden Flame [fierce powers of fire and radiance] and the Golden Wyvern [battle-mages] (staff), and Emerald Frost adepts [powers of cold and deadly acidic magic] and Stormwalker theurges [spells of lightning and force] (wand).
         o Bart Carroll on the change: "Hmm, well we do say it in the Design & Development column intro: "Keep in mind that the game is still in a state of flux, as refinements are made by our design and development staff." Case in point -- take another look at the most recent Wizards and Wizard Implements article. A revised version has just been posted, with several changes to the original article posted Friday [Note from Morrus - it wasn't there on Friday; it appeared today]. The version you see now is the version that should have originally gone live."
         o Note: breschau posted the original article.
         o Dave Noonan has spoken a little more about wizards implements (the orb, staff, wand, and elusive tome). He mentions that the level of importance attached to these items has not yet been finally decided ("The pendulum has swung around a lot during design on the implement issue... Right now the pendulum is resting somewhere in the middle.") He compares it to a fighter and his weapons: "...it might be worthwhile to think of a wizard's implements as analogous to a 3e fighter's weapon choice--if you assume that the fighter hasn't deeply, deeply specialized in that weapon through feat choice. Mid-level Tordek prefers axes, sure, and he probably has an advantage with an axe that's substantial but not overwhelming. You put a polearm in his hands, though, and he functions just fine. And he's accessing the salient properties of the polearm--reach, for example."
         o He also confirms that the design intention is that these things be adjustable to work in your campaign -- "You can add your own implements and disciplines/traditions to the mix. Doing so takes some work, but it's not a massive undertaking."
         o And on the nature of the described traditions: "...traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc... I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess."
         o Wizardly orders: "They're not really specializations in the sense of 3rd Edition specialist wizards; choosing one doesn't make the spells belonging to another unavailable to you. Basically they're a mechanism by which we answer the question, "How did your wizard learn magic? Was he trained in a magical academy, tutored by a single mentor, etc., etc." So each order provides a subset a spells your character is *best* at, but doesn't replace the notion of spell school from previous editions."
         o Implements: "Wizard implements now provide your character with a reason to care about a signature weapon in much the same way that the fighter cares about a signature sword. We think it's a good thing. Many other implements have been suggested, including things such as mask, dagger, and (of course) tome."
   * On spell selection: "Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options."
   * To the question of whether XP will be required to make magic items Andy Collins replied, "No, Hell No." How magic items will be made in character wasn't discussed beyond a vague statement that you wouldn't be burning a feat on it, and out of character the structure of magic item creation will become more loosened.
         o Magic Item Creation. "We tried to fool ourselves into the fact that there was a hard pricing, but we started recognizing that with MIC, that we should look at them more wholistically. There will not be magic item creation rules for DM's as we realize that as professional game designers we don't even get it right every time. We're going to give you lots and lots of examples and suggest that you build it, test it, etc. " (source).
         o Will it be easier for a wizard to create magic items? "Yes, characters can still build magic items, it will be a way for characters to acquire things, but it will be more flexible and easier. There will be a preview article on this in two weeks on D&D Insider. Three releases a week (this one will be on Wed).". (source).
   * Designer Dave Noonan has posted in his blog on Gleemax that he is working on designing rods. Noonan writes that he's considering two possible designs: one that "constrains the design space" from the very beginning (in other words, there's a finite number of rods that can be designed) and the other that allows an "expansive design space."
   * David Noonan's latest blog post mentions the Eye of Vecna, the Axe of Dwarvish Lords, and Purple Worms: "A significant breakthrough with artifacts—the new direction looks promising, and the two I've written so far (Eye of Vecna and Axe of the Dwarvish Lords) are things I'd put into my campaign in a heartbeat. The only significant downside? Each individual artifact takes up some real estate—more than we planned. But they're frickin' artifacts, man! So we'll see. My next step is to wave them under the noses of some colleagues and see if we can't get another page or two for the artifacts section. And it's also a good time for me to ask the "Is Dave crazy?" question of my colleagues, because artifacts have become more than just really good magic items with backstories."
   * Rodney Thompson on how magic items won't be as necessary to character advancement -- "Last night at dinner Andrew Finch and I had an interesting discussion about the way magic items are going to work in 4th Edition. Since I was busy running Star Wars games and hosting my own seminars I didn't get to go to any of the D&D panels, so I don't know how much they revealed about magic items. Anyways, Andrew and I were having a bit of a disagreement about the way magic items contribute to the D&D experience. (As an aside, Andrew and I have had many such conversations back at the office, especially in a Star Wars context where loot and gear are almost meaningless). We both agree on this: finding a magic item is a tangible player reward that helps keep the game moving forward for the players. While XP may be its own reward, it's a delayed reward. When I conclude an encounter, I get XP, but I don't get its effects for another few encounters. The presence of magic items provides an immediate reward (or, at least, the potential for an immediate reward) at the conclusion of the encounter. You don't have to actually get a new magic item for the potential for reward to be there, and in many cases you'll feel as though you've been rewarded when someone else gets an item. In 4E, I think there is going to be a very interesting dynamic between magic items and players. I believe it was mentioned that some traditional things about magic items were going the way of the dodo, and that magic items aren't going to be required to do cool things at high levels. While that may be true, I think people are still going to want magic items because they are going to provide some cool and exciting effects. There's going to be a new dynamic where players are going to want new things but not necessarily need them as much to remain competitive, which I'm thinking is going to actually cause the "I'm happy for someone else when they get loot" mentality to spread. If I don't get new magic items for a while, I'm not becoming underpowered per se, so it's much easier for me to feel rewarded when someone else picks up a new magic item."
   * "Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells." 4E mechanical designer Logan Bonner also comments very briefly on the rumours of 30th level spells -- "Power level corresponds to the character level at which you gain the power."
         o Dave Noonan: "30 discrete levels of spells would be too fine a level of gradation, so we shouldn't expect to see spells occupying every spell level."
   * Fireballs don't deal 1d6/level damage any more. Also, game breaking spells pells that fundamentally change the gaming scenario, like etherealness, scrying, and save or die effects) "have been addressed as well".
         o The 4th Edition fireball has not only an attack roll, but you can crit with it? "A brief playtest note from last night's game, DM'd by Dave Noonan: I rolled not one, but *two* critical hits with fireball attack rolls last night. The second actually one-shotted a tough troglodyte skirmisher; just smoked him outright, full hp to dead in one go. Oh, and I had a great initiative roll, so it was the very first thing that happened in the fight. Hee hee hee! Scoring criticals with attack spells is *fun.* My warlord/wizard sure feels like he kicks some butt!"
   * "Certain spells are gone, period (wish for sure)."
   * Mentioned a "ray of freezing cold".
   * Warlock seen using "Mire of Minauros" which dissolved a couple of vampires, with an acidic bog.
   * Reference to sleep, magic missile and a "short teleport" (dimension door, or a new teleport variant?)
   * Wizards have been seen to use a "wizard strike" (twice in a single combat) and a "once-per-day scorch" which blasted three opponents who were lined up in a row.  Neither appear to be spells.
         o Wizards get a couple of decent ranged area attacks per encounter.
         o Wizards have a "wizard strike" which injures and pushes foes; warlords have a "tactical acumen" ability which can give bonuses to allies (source).
   * Will we still have x/min level Buffs? "Nope. Buff durations will be drastically modified."
   * On save-or-die spells -- "We're trying to get away from mages that rely primarily on Save or Lose/Die spells. For example, we're basing most things around doing HP damage, then tying conditions to HP loss. We do not want characters dying from a single failed die roll.... "
   * Increase of magic across the board in all aspects of the game.
   * Disrupting spellcasting has been removed: "...he pointed out that it was largely a one-skill tax on PC spellcasters, and it tended to swing to extremes. Either you had your Concentration maxed and could ignore the problem, or you didn't and it was far too easy for a spellcaster to be unable to cast. Instead, you can pick up powers that can mess with spellcasting and other abilities."
   * David Noonan on spells:

     "After two class meetings yesterday, I discover that I'm still smitten with the way we're "siloing" PC capabilities now. For example, it was always unfortunate how phantom steed had to compete with fireball on a wizard's "Spells Prepared" list. Don't get me wrong: Both spells are great, and they both have their place. But when all eyes at the table turn to you, it's a lot better to say, "I didn't prep phantom steed, but I've still got fireball," rather than "I didn't prep fireball, but I've still got phantom steed." Phantom steed suffers by comparison, despite its coolness, and thus it's relegated to scroll use and the occasional splash from a high-level wizard.

     Not so in 4e. We've devised various ways of grouping like capabilities with like capabilities, so you don't have to sacrifice phantom steed's utility for fireball's killin'-the-bad-guys effectiveness. You'll get both. And one of the clever bits in D&D--figuring out combat uses for utility spells and vice versa--remains.

     In some ways, it's like having a major and a minor in college. And 4e characters are looking a lot more well-rounded than their 3e counterparts."

-> http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e

[Argamae]

Okay, das mit der Magie hab ich mir noch nicht reingetan (Klaue: ist furchtbar anstrengend zu lesen, vielleicht noch ein paar Absätze reinhauen?), aber ein paar Bemerkungen zu den Races & Classes:

Ability score adjustment have a net positive benefit (...) In the entry for dwarves it says that the charisma penalty is gone

Keine negativen Attributsanpassungen mehr? Klingt nach "Power".

Each race seems to have a clear "homeland".

Rassen mit zugewiesenem "Heimatland" (z.B. Ebenen für Menschen)? Aha. Also keine Bergvölker mehr unter den Menschen, oder wie? Und keine Waldbewohner? Das klingt erstmal bescheuert - aber letztlich ist die regeltechnische Auswirkung noch unklar. Für mich hört sich das gerade nach "Magic: The Gathering" an - klar definierte "Länder" für die einzelnen Rassen... Also, ditt wär ja was!  [22]

Dragonborn are kin to dragon, they are egg laying (so why on Earth do females need a halter?).

Na, da wird aber Drachenlanze-Fans das Herz aufgehen, oder? ;-) Aber warum eierlegende Drachenwesen einen BH tragen? Ist doch klar - weil es ein Fantasyklischee ist. Was wäre denn ein "Chick" ohne Kettenbikini?
Davon abgesehen - die sind vermutlich interessanter zu spielen als simples Echsenvolk.

Eladrin
They are the magical high elves. Both elves and eladrins were elves, but one preferred magic and stone, while the other nature and the woods.
One of their racial feats allows them to briefly enter Feywild and reemerge at another place, making a short teleport

Hm, find ich nicht schlecht. Klingt nach der Trennung der alten "D&D-Classic-Elfen" - die waren ja eine Mischung aus Kämpfer und Zauberkundiger.
Die Fähigkeit ist aber schön und gibt den Elfen etwa inhärent magisches zurück, daß sie ja bisher vermissen ließen.

Now they admit, that the main source of inspiration for the 3.x halfling is the kender.

Hä? Die Inspiration für die Halblinge in 3.x war der Kender?? Raff' ich nicht. Die Halblinge in 3.x sind doch genauso wie alle Halblinge in D&D bisher. *Kopfkratz*  [16]

Cleric
All classes will get some self-healing power (already known). Cleric enhance the self-healing capabilities of nearby allies.

What the HECK?  [18]  Selbstheilungskräfte hat JEDE KLASSE??? So wie im Videospiel, wa? Wenn man ne Weile nix macht, regenerieren sich die Hit Points, oder wie? Oder der Barbar macht einen wilden Ahnentanz und beschwört die Geister seiner Vorfahren herauf, die ihn heilen? Und ein Kleriker verstärkt also die Selbstheilungskräfte. Aha. Sind diese Selbstheilungskräfte alle irgendwie "göttlich"? Dem kann ich zu diesem Zeitpunkt wirklich nicht folgen, ohne irgendwie an Videospiele/MMORPG zu denken.

Bigger spell will be rituals (raise the dead for example). Rituals are different from spells (as of how I do not know).

Das wiederum ist eine gute Sache - und sicher stimmungsvoller auszuspielen als vorher!

Fighter: The role as a defendes admittedly means that you are to defend the wizard and allow the thief to flank. I'm not happy with that. The fighter should be the primary damage dealer, not the rogue or the wizard... (...) Fighters can keep monsters focused on them, by having bonuses on opportunity attacks and by following enemies. They guard allies by "battlefield control".

Warum, zum Teufel, muß ich schon wieder an VIDEOSPIELE denken, speziell WoW?

Sorcerer: Make it more distant from the wizard. They barely control their spells, but unleash enough energy every time that some remains around them. For example after a fireball, they are cloaked in fire which sears enemies nearby.

DAS klingt cool. Wirklich.

Warlord:

Irgendwie kacke, der Titel. Klingt nicht nach Stufe 1, wenn ihr mich fragt; klingt nach Stufe "weiter oben". "Hey, wer seid ihr?" - "Ha, ich bin ein WARLORD der ersten Stufe! Erzittert, ihr gegnerischen Horden!" Naja.

The ability to rage is the centerpiece ability of this class. There are different rages. There is a mention of a "lightning panther strike" that allow movement and multiple attack. Barbarians are more feral, and bite attack was mentioned

Och nö. Jetzt klingen die wirklich nach WILDEN bzw. TIEREN mit Jackie-Chan-Allüren. Bißangriff? Oh Mann... haben die jetzt Reißzähne? Für eine "Klasse" find ich das daneben. Sowas gehört zur Rasse.

Druid: Their spellcasting takes second seat. The primary ability is wildshape, which they can do a lot more often, but only shapes they have picked (like spells). They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.

Vom Hüter der Natur zum Gestaltwandler. Ich weiß nicht, das war zwar schon immer ein Teil des Druiden - die Tiergestalt - aber jetzt klingt es so, als hätten sie versucht, alle Klassen irgendwie "cooler" zu machen (oder: effektiver), damit man sie auch spielt. Große Skepsis.

Warlock: They make pacts with devils, feys, the starts, elemental powers. Their initial pact determines a large part of their powers. There are four types of it: Infernal, Fey, Vestige and Star.

Hm, klingt erstmal nicht so übel. Ist eventuell aus der alternativen Magieart "Pact Magic" (aus: Tome of Magic) entstanden, jedenfalls klingt es so. Könnte gefallen, durchaus.

Skill level rises with level. Listen & Spot; Move silently & Hide; Open lock and Sleight of Hand is combined. Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft and Read Magic is combined to Arcane. Approximately the skill list is cut in half.

Tja, also keine Punkte mehr verteilen? Die Fertigkeit steigt also automatisch an, wenn man eine Stufe hinzugewinnt? Und nur noch halb soviele Fertigkeiten? Hurra - weniger Optionen für den Spieler, um seinen Charakter auszugestalten. Paßt wieder gut ins Bild des "Videospiels". Ich fand die Fertigkeitenliste, so wie sie in 3.5 war, recht ordentlich. Jedoch kann man durchaus bestimmte Fertigkeiten zusammen fassen, etwa "Schlösser öffnen" und "Mechanismus ausschalten". Die Zusammenfassung von "Lauschen" und "Entdecken" ginge auch gerade noch so in Ordnung, wenn es denn sein muß. Oder besser noch: "Entdecken" und "Suchen" zusammenlegen - die werden ja eh oft synonym eingesetzt.

"BTW, who knew that so many people disliked Vancian spellcasting? The entire audience in yesterday's seminar cheered and clapped when we told them it was (mostly) gone."

So. Aha. Wer da wohl in der "Audience" saß? Auf jedenfall war das sogenannte "Vancian" Magiesystem einer der Eckpfeiler von D&D seit Bestehen der Regeln. So schlimm können es die meisten also nicht gefunden haben, sonst hätte man sich vermutlich schon früher davon distanziert. Aber jedem seine Meinung - es hat seine Vorzüge aber sicher auch seine Schwächen.

Je mehr ich an Ankündigungen lese, desto skeptischer werde ich. Aber warten wir es mal ab.

[Ghost]

Das alles klingt für mich mittlerweile mehr nach Manga-Action und (wie Argamae schon angemerkt hat) MMORPG.
Ich bin skeptisch, ob man diese Dinge wirklich so am Tisch regeln kann. Aber nicht umsonst haben sie wohl einen deutlichen Fokus auf computerunterstütztes Spielen gesetzt. Eigentlich kein schlechter Weg, allerdings sollte es auch möglich bleiben, völlig ohne Computer auszukommen.

Ansonsten sehe ich schon die LARP-Barbaren, die "Energiesteine" (Akkus) für das "Impulszauberbuch" mit grafischer Benutzeroberfläche (notebook) des Magiers herumschleppen...

Wenn das neue System erscheint, werde ich auf jeden Fall erstmal die Berichte und einige Wochen abwarten, bevor ich selbst den Kauf erwäge.
Allgemein mag alles ja gut durchdacht und abgerundet erscheinen, aber für die klassische Zockerrunde mit Zettel und Stift (eventuell auch ein paar Figürchen) doch eine Nummer zu hoch angesetzt.

Da das aber eh fast alles nur Informationen sind, die kaum konkrete Fälle zeigen, mag sich mein Eindruck ändern, sobald wirkliche Fakten auftauchen. Und das wird wohl kaum vor nächsten Jahr geschehen.

Außerdem steht für mich wohl erstmal das 40k-Rollenspiel an...

[Lameth]

Ich ahne schlimmes für meine geliebten Forgotten Realms.

[20]  [20]  [20]

[Thalurial]

What the HECK?  Selbstheilungskräfte hat JEDE KLASSE??? So wie im Videospiel, wa? Wenn man ne Weile nix macht, regenerieren sich die Hit Points, oder wie? Oder der Barbar macht einen wilden Ahnentanz und beschwört die Geister seiner Vorfahren herauf, die ihn heilen? Und ein Kleriker verstärkt also die Selbstheilungskräfte. Aha. Sind diese Selbstheilungskräfte alle irgendwie "göttlich"? Dem kann ich zu diesem Zeitpunkt wirklich nicht folgen, ohne irgendwie an Videospiele/MMORPG zu denken.

Wohl wie beim neuen Star Wars RPG. Wenn man auf ein Viertel oder drunter der Lebenspunkte sinkt, kann man durchatmen (der anderweitig im Text erwähnte Second Wind, siehe Dwarves) und bekommt einen Teil Lebenspunkte zurück. Normal geht das nur einmal am Tag, aber per Talente kann man es auch mehrmals.

Der Warlock existiert auch schon im D&D 3.5, in einem Zusatzbuch (Irgendein Complete). Ist eine alternative zum Hexenmeister und mehr eine Mischung aus klassischer Hexe und Kampfmagier. Bei NWN2 kippt er ein wenig die Spielbalance, durch den eigentlich ständig verfügbaren Zauber.

Wenn es sich weiter so an der Star Wars Saga Edition anlehnt und mit den bisherigen Informationen... ja, klingt mehr nach einem Power-Play. Aber wer will denn noch Storytelling? [24]