Know your roots have changed; 4E launches a new world
by Michael Gray 
Jun 11th 2008 at 11:00AM
Even while creative maestro Metzen experiments with making World of Warcraft unique among its fantasy peers, there's not much denying that WoW has some pretty solid roots in, and respect for, Dungeons and Dragons. You can see proof of that in the patch notes from 2.4, which were dedicated to pen-and-paper legend, Gary Gygax. Many of us cruising Azeroth have some experience with good old D&D. WoW has pretty strong, deep roots in D&D, and those roots changed with the newly released 4th edition.
What's new in the 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons? The class system is radically different, spells work differently, healing works differently, and fights work differently. Okay, it seems everything is pretty much different. But there's one big change that will probably make more than a few folks happy: no more Gnome PCs. Gnomes are now monsters, and not available for play in the core rules. A lot of the speculation about these changes is that D&D might be trying to distance itself a little from the World of Warcraft juggernaut.
It's a good thing Blizzard isn't still following its roots. I'm looking forward to my Gnomish Death Knight in Wrath of the Lich King.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Dullin Jun 11th 2008 11:23AM
I actually think that they are trying to be closer to what happens in our MMORPGs. Many new features act that way.
-Each class has 'powers' (abilities) that can be use on different cooldowns.
-Resting brings you back up to full health.
-PCs are generally considered more epic from the get go and actually have access to an 'epic' thier of leveling.
I find it refreshing that they use working concepts from games to smooth out pen & paper gameplay.
Alchemistmerlin Jun 11th 2008 11:24AM
Yeah, I usually dislike the whole "Bawww change is evil!" but screw 4th Edition.
I, for one, will not be buying these books. If my gaming group decides to use 4th edition, I'll be downloading them.
Gentber Jun 11th 2008 11:28AM
Well, the cover artwork's not a patch on the AD&D 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook... so long since my role-playing days obviously.
Out of interest how is that market doing in the face of the huge success of the likes of WoW and the accesssibility of MMO gaming in general - is it still viable as an industry? Just curious, not trying to make a fuss.
Scelerat Jun 11th 2008 11:35AM
I wasn't a terribly big fan of the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition, but I've come around (though I do miss my THAC0). 4th Edition just seems like a wretched bastardization from what I've seen of it. It looks like it's no longer a RPG and instead is just a fancy combat simulator...
Sorry, but if I wanted that, that's what Robotech/Warhammer/Warhammer 40k is for.
Now...time to go convince my group to play some sweet, sweet Shadowrun.
Cynra Jun 11th 2008 12:26PM
Mmm, Shadowrun! My heart belongs to this awesomely great pen and paper RPG. Sadly, I couldn't find a steady group of people who liked the series (it seemed notoriously underground) and so had to appease my thirst for the universe with the console games and books (some of which are obscenely good!).
I was very disappointed when the fourth edition negated some of the more colorful vernacular that was common of the earlier editions. Even though the common parlance wasn't necessary to the game, it did add to the feel of the universe.
Arturis Jun 11th 2008 6:55PM
Shadowrun is a dual edged vibro-blade to me - I LOVE the cyberpunk setting, I hate (with a passion) the actual rule system. I prefer to run Cyber Punk style games with a homebrew modified D&D ruleset, but thats just me.
Jack Jun 11th 2008 11:40AM
No, gnomes are monsters in World of Warcraft too. Monsters I tells ye!
Netherscourge Jun 11th 2008 11:47AM
I haven't played D&D since 2nd Ed.
I still have the Temple of Elemental Evil 1st edition campaign booklet and maps.
Man, those were the days!
THACO! baby!
Khay Jun 11th 2008 12:00PM
Good ol' Temple of Elemental Evil...
I still have fond memories of my classmates and I sitting huddled together with our dice listening to the DM and waiting anxiously for the next attack or puzzle...
Those were the days...
And I'm never moving past AD&D (aka 2nd Ed). I have so many house rules from that time that 3rd edition (and now 4th, which seems to be a combat sim, ugh!) would basically massacre my whole gaming universe. Change is good, but my house rules stay! :p
Saelorn Jun 11th 2008 12:02PM
People said it when 3.5 came out, and they said it when 3.0 came out. They're saying it now that 4.0 is out, and for all I know they probably said it when 2.0 came out.
D&D isn't "becoming a combat simulator."
D&D always WAS a combat simulator. All of that role-playing stuff, mentioned for somewhere between a paragraph and a chapter in each edition, basically boils down to this: The rules only cover combat, because you don't NEED rules to cover role-playing.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who was angered when they included a Gather Information skill in third edition; having rules to cover social interaction actively detracts from the role-playing, (in this case by taking one of the classic activities that should have been role-play intensive and abstracting it to a die roll).
ninjasuperspy Jun 11th 2008 1:05PM
EXACTLY!! Gather Info/Diplomacy was one of the more annoying things about 3.x. The rules started out as a system for playing a tabletop wargame as a single character game. In my opinion, the rules system should exist to adjudicate combat interactions and add randomness to skill rolls. I don't want to be able to say "I swim across the river" and just have it happen. Same as "I stab the gnoll." Everything else from talking to contacts in taverns to convincing the king I really am his daughter's tennis instructor doesn't belong in the rulebook, which needs to concern itself with the mechanics of the game.
The mechanics in question are an improvement over 3.5 and a HUGE improvement over 2nd ed. People still stand up for race based class selection and racial level maxes? There's a person out there who likes the rules for dual/multiclassing? The insanely broken "Weapon speed" rules? OK, I liked the henchmen rules. And the fighter's multiattack progression was far and away better than the fighter's lack of anything in 3.x.
With 3.5, who thinks the rogue's dead level 20 is a good idea? And Vancian casting needs to be thrown under a bus. The power differential between "I get to stop time" and "I get a +1 to attack with a secondary weapon" is so huge that past level 10 melee and magic classes aren't even playing the same game.
The 3.0/4.0 class system is FAR more flexible than its precedents in 2.0. The encounter/at-will/per day system meshes with what I was expecting from reading and enjoying Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle. Honestly, they port over the Tomes then take a look at the Weapon of Legacy system then I'll be perfectly happy.
Don't even get me started on the Legacy Weapon system. That was a great idea: Have an item that levels up with my character and provides gravitas that a +3 defending longsword can't. Its just a shame that as I level up and the weapon levels up it imposed penalties. If that same +3 sword gave me a -2 to attack rolls and took 10 of my HP away, I'd vendor the dang thing in a second.
Anyway. I had fun with 2.0 too. Heck, I had fun with White Wolf in back in highschool (though mostly it was of the "I mind control the hot chick" or "I turn into a werewolf and bite off the head of that traffic cop" sort of Hilarious Role Playing that is SO FUNNY at the time). I had some great times with 3.0. Fourth owns the future though and it doesn't stop you from playing with any fluff you want. Heck, gnome character stats are in the back of the Monster Manual right next to the playable Minotaur and Doppleganger that don't give up over half of their character progression for absolutely horrible Humanoid levels. Just combat resolution, skill checks and character advancement have been streamlined and clarified.
Fellhorhn-Uldum Jun 11th 2008 12:06PM
I've had 4th edition for a little over a week now after downloading it ahead of time off the netzs, and I am pretty pissed. It's basically WoW without the keyboard.
The $60 I have saved to buy each book upon it's release date will go towards something else as 4E still has some distance to go before it wins me over.
3.5 for lyfe?
Corey Jun 11th 2008 12:21PM
Exactly my thoughts. I love WoW and I love D&D, but if I want to play WoW, I'll sit at my computer.
My friends and I are sticking with 3.5. I haven't found anything in the 4th edition that I like more than 3.5, but I haven't gone through it that thoroughly.
And what about leaving out the Druid, Bard, Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer classes? My guess is that they'll release a new book down the line with some sort of "You asked for it and here it is!!" fanfare so that those who enjoyed playing those classes will have to shell out another $30 to play as those. No thanks.
Theadrick Jun 11th 2008 12:10PM
Someone in my guild pointed out that the Wizards of the Coast folks had likely been playing too many MMOs based on some of the 4E changes.
I'll reserve judgement of course until I get a chance to peruse the books... but that seems to be a fairly common point.
Crypt King Jun 11th 2008 12:36PM
LFG Controller CC Tomb of Horrors, must have Temple of Elemental Evil attunement and set pieces.
Angus Jun 11th 2008 12:35PM
So we were looking at the warlock paragon powers.
You can get use a beam of purple necrotic energy to yank the enemies' souls out of their bodies and then use it to power spells.
The class category descriptions are Defenders, Strikers, Leaders, and Controllers. Hmmmm... so you can tank, DPS, Heal/buff, CC.
Paladins can defend, do damage, and heal. Warriors specialize with either defending or 2 handers. Rogues are subtlety or combat spec... er can be tricksters or brute force, and wizards are controllers. (I was sad not to see polymorph other in there though, maybe I missed it.)
Not to say that they didn't pioneer these first, but they weren't refined roles before. Warriors were damage dealing death machines, them being tanks is sort of new.
Combat looks to be more fluid, classes will have very similar hitpoints, and their abilities seem to be much more important than feats. It seems they shifted it away from feats being the end all to the class and made them enhance things instead.
Skills are there, just very streamlined and I'm impressed with just making them a bonus to the role except for a small number of checks. Even without the skill you have a decent change thanks to how stats are improved and the level bonus.
It's pretty nice. The timing was perfect. Let your subscription run out, play tabletop and when wrath comes you can pick it back up and had a fun summer campaign.
Lansiron Jun 11th 2008 12:37PM
Blah blah whine baaww.
It's been said before, and it'll be said again--D&D's rules are for fighting. Do you WANT rules for roleplaying? I have had, and expect to STILL have entire D&D sessions where nobody even rolled initiative, because the type of roleplaying being done didn't necessitate combat. Now, at least, the combat's going to be that much easier to deal with. Every single complaint I've heard always, in the end, amounts to "they changed it now it sucks!"
Trinab Jun 11th 2008 12:39PM
I have gotten all three core books, read them, tried out gameplay, and can safely say that it is not 'wow on paper' or a pnp mmo. It feels, acts, and runs just like dnd always has. I've been playing dnd since 2nd edition, and I love 4th edition. Combat is still tricky, you have to use your abilities to work as a team, and most of all, it's fun. No more sitting up 2 hours past midnight arguing about rules. Our gaming group literally just grabbed some characters, and started playing. Easy, fun, and challenging. Every character feels useful, and I salute WoTC for what they did.
Jeremy Cox Jun 11th 2008 12:41PM
I was surprised the article didn't mention how D&D 4th is influenced by online gaming.
There are 4 class roles -- defender (tank), controller (AoE/CC), leader (heals/buffs), and striker (dps).
The base D&D party is now 5 PC's, up from 4.
There is now a mechanic similar to warrior threat.
Fighters and Paladins can mark a target, who suffers 10% attack penalty against anyone but them.
I also like how a commenter said that D&D now has cooldowns -- another mechanic is similar. Powers can be used at will, once per encounter, or once per day. There is now a chance to miss when using magic; it is like regular attacks.
BTW, I hate Gnomes. Gnome Death Knight... several degrees of wrongness. GO bite somoenes ankles!
Half-Orc is out, too. Dragonkin and Eladar (sp) are in.
Fish Jun 11th 2008 12:46PM
People always seem to forget that Wizards of the Coast is a money-making company. And as a result, they new *new product*. They can't pay their staff without making product that people want to buy.
Was 3.5 a dead system? Mechnically, not at all. It worked. It was clunky in many places, and balance had gone on the window in others... but it was and still is a viable game system (hence why some folks say they are sticking with it).
However, as a *product* it had run it's course. After 2 Player's Handbooks, 2 DMGs, 5 Monster Manuals, and umpteen campaign setting books... there was nothing left to create and sell that would actually make money. Everyone had what they needed to play the game. So what was WotC to do? The same thing every company with a brand does... make another version, hopefully make it better, and hope enough people like the changes made to buy into the new version.
Now as to the question whether 4th Edition is too much like WoW, or directly influenced by WoW... the answer is "of course!" *Every* advance or change in the gaming industry is directly influenced by the ideas, terminology and gameplay that came before it. Because what better way to make sure potential new players understand what it is they are supposed to do than to align it with other games currently popular. And this is nothing new.
Did anyone ever question why most fantasy-based games that came out after the original D&D all seemed to include the dwarf and the elf as alternate races? Of course not. Because they knew that people new to their game had a solid foundation of concepts and terminology that D&D had provided for them. I mean heck, even Warcraft isn't immune to this... where do you think they got the idea to use humans versus orcs? They were influenced by every game that came out before them, just like they were.
So to chastise WotC for trying to "be WoW" is just foolish. If they have any hope to possibly bring in new players whose sole roleplaying experience is MMORPGs... what better why to help those kids along that to put up familiar sign posts that they can hang their hat on and say "okay, I know where they are going with this... I understand."?