4E is still coming!

A little over eight months ago, I wrote an article about Wizards upcoming releases and how they applied to the release of 4E D&D. Well, we've just had the releases for the first four months of 2006 revealed. How do they change things?

Well, not much. As I mentioned in my last essay, most of these books are dependent on you having books other than the Core rules. These aren't the front line of books that traditional D&D players have been clamouring for. On the other hand, books like the Magic series are opening up new possibilities for ongoing series of books.

2007 is still the earliest that we'll see 4e at this point. We should know about it a year in advance. Indeed, we'd likely know more than that: 4e's design cycle is likely to be extended. Just playtesting the revised system would take six months, and there's probably a year of other things that would have to be done before it got on the shelves. Personally, I think that two years might be how long it takes to get ready.

That all depends on how big the changes are, of course.

There are other aspects to when 4e comes about. Do you think Wizards is unaware of the resistance to a new edition? I know there are some braindead people out there who think Wizards will do anything to make a profit... but really, how much of a profit do you make if your customers don't want to buy your product? Having an early 4e is not in Wizards interests if it just causes people to turn away from D&D.

It should be noted that 3e did cause people to stop playing D&D, but they were a small number when compared to the huge group of people who came back to D&D. We're not going to see anything like the transition from 2e to 3e here. The numbers should remain fairly constant - a good revision will see not many new people join, but a bungled job will see many people leave.

Indeed, the suggestion that 4e will be as radical a revisioning as that of 3e is unfounded and, in my opinion, improbable. There has been a lot of work done on 3e. The basic structure of the game is really good, and it is understood by the designers and developers who work on the game. This is as opposed to 2e, where the structure wasn't good.

What do I mean by a poor structure? Well, it has to do with how supplemental books integrate with the rest of the game. In 2e, many supplements were poorly balanced with respect to the rest of the game, or raised up the power of one class significantly (with no drawbacks) whilst leaving the rest where they were, or had to rewrite large chunks of game rules to do what they needed to be done... and thus became inconsistent with anything else that was written.

A good example of this was the Complete Priest's Handbook, which completely redesigned the cleric character. Any priest from Complete Priest was significantly inferior to your standard 2e cleric. There were good ideas in there, but the result was woeful.

This hasn't been a problem with 3e. The requirement of needing to spend resources (often feats) to gain benefits is a strong one, and helps keep the game at a more-or-less constant power level. A more subtle resource is that of class levels - when you take a level of a prestige class, that's a level you're not taking in your base class or another prestige class. The balancing problems are equally subtle and difficult, which is one reason why the early spell-casting prestige classes have so many problem, and were often revised so much in the Complete series of 3.5e books: the issues involved need experience to handle properly.

Thus, are Wizards going to throw away all of their work with 3e and their knowledge of the system? I really think not.

However, will 4e will be absolutely compatible with 3.5e? Probably not. There are issues with 3.5e (and the 3e system as a whole) that will be improved upon. D&D is an evolving game; the mechanics do not remain fixed. A good example is the introduction of swift and immediate actions in the last couple of years. The ruleset has expanded beyond the basics of the core books, and it would be advantageous to have those actions explained in the core books. They alone are not worth creating 4e for, but there will come a time when such is necessary.

When I look at the issues with 3.5e that require attention, Metamagic and Turn Undead are the two that I normally address. We can probably add Level Adjustments at this point to that (short) list of things that 4e will have to deal with. Andy Collins and Sean K. Reynolds have been discussing this on ENworld. I strongly recommend you look at their discussion.

Then too, there is the ongoing question about the complexity of 3e. Let me say this: from the player's perspective, there is nothing wrong with 3e. Where the problem lies is with what the DM has to do to create adventures, especially the creation of (high-level) NPC stats.

However, in this area, the needs of players - to have distinctive characters - clashes with the needs of DMs - to have simple stats to create. How this can be resolved is one of biggest challenges facing D&D. The game needs DMs for it to succeed, and if the job is too hard for the DMs, then the game has a problem.

There is no mystery about why most recent books have sample stats for the prestige classes: it is to help DMs. As most of us on the 'net discussing this are experienced DMs for whom creating new stats isn't that hard, we tend to see them as not essential. However, the DM who has less time available or isn't quite as confident with creating NPCs will find them much more useful. In recent days started using these stats and the sample encounters to help with my campaign - and they've been very useful!

The history of D&D has been one where more options are given to the players and DMs in each passing year. The original set may have only had 3 classes (Fighting Man, Cleric and Magic-User), but by the time of 1st edition AD&D the list was out to 11 (Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assasin, Monk, and the Bard). Today, there are many classes - and prestige classes and multiclassing expand the options even more.

4e won't be about restricting the options, but it might deal with making them more managable for the DM.

So, when can we expect 4e? I still believe that 2008 is the most likely date for a new edition, with 2010 being the other likely choice. I don't think prolonging 3.5e's life would be in the interests of the game, nor do I believe that rushing 4e towards us too early would be beneficial.

This past year has seen many innovations in the mechanics of the game. The action points of Eberron, along with the widening of the range of options with races like the Warforged, are part of the overall evolution of D&D. It is always worth remembering that not all paths in evolution are the right ones: there are things that just don't work, and are abandoned. So too with new game mechanics. Some will prosper, while others will be ignored.

One challenge that we, the players, have is this: to let Wizards know what innovations they make work, and which ones do not. Although some may be able to let the designers know in person, for most of us that is not an options. So, what should we do? We should play the game. We should try new things. We should then write about them. Most importantly, we should try to describe why something succeeded, or why something failed - and do so in such a way that the designers and developers can learn from our experiences.

And then there's 2006!

As many people would know by now, I love knowing about what is coming up. The entire DDM News page came about because I started collecting the tidbits of information that were being posted by the designers, but even before that I was a regular on ENworld and the Wizards boards, looking for news.

2006 is just around the corner (say I, when it's barely half-way through 2005). However, Wizards work so far in advance that knowing six months in advance what is coming up is actually rather late in the day.

The upcoming year will be important for D&D. With the exhaustion of the popular Complete series line, and the release of all three Races books, most of the core topics of D&D have been covered. Although sales of the Player's Handbook should remain strong, there is a possibility that the other offerings from Wizards in the D&D range will not attract enough customers for the game to prosper.

We are armed with very little knowledge about what is coming up: little more than product names and prices. However, as speculation is one of our happiest occupations, let's examine what has been revealed and wonder about its potential popularity and its impact on D&D.

In the upcoming discussion, I will discuss the "tiering" of books. The first tier (A) is that of the core books - those that everyone needs to play the game. The second tier (B) is that of books that need the core books, but no other books. The third tier (C) is that are dependent on a Tier B book.

January 2006
Player's Guide to Eberron - 160 pages - us$29.95 - Tier C
I don't have the Player's Guide to Faerun, but as one of that book's goals was to update the Forgotten Realms to 3.5e, that can't be the same here. Instead, we are likely to see a book that gives players a good introduction to Eberron, as well as providing a lot of Eberron-related game mechanics: feats, prestige classes, spells, etc.

It will be interesting to see whether the new Eberron races are reprinted in this book, along with the Artificer. I'd think that such would be a good move, as it would cut down what the players actually need to have to play in Eberron, and it would also mean they didn't have access to some of the GM-only information in the Campaign Setting.

The only play I am currently doing in Eberron is the RPGA's Mark of Heroes campaign, but I am very interested in this book as I find Eberron a fun setting, as do many of my players.

How successful might this book be? I'd say: moderately. The reports from fans of the Eberron setting have been pretty good for Five Nations, Sharn, and Races of Eberron; I expect a similar level of support for this book. As a Tier C book (though possibly one that moves towards Tier B), it may have the popular support of a Tier B book.

Races of the Dragon - 160 pages - us$29.95 - Tier B
I've enjoyed most of the previous Races books, with the partial exception of Races of Destiny, but why do we need this book? This is probably because Wizards are moving past the traditional fantasy and into the more creative fantasy of the modern era. I see this as a good sign.

One of my friends, Daniel, is also likely to adore this book, because he is currently playing a Kobold Wizard in the Mark of Heroes game. How could RotD not have kobolds? ;-)

The risk for Wizards in producing this book is greater than their previous Races books. Non-traditional fantasy is becoming much more accepted in the gaming world, but it isn't fully accepted. There are gamers who can't see past the original Tolkien-inspired settings.

It is also worth noting that at 160 pages, this will be the shortest of the Races books; although Races of Eberron was also shorter due to an increased font size.

February 2006
The Red Hand of Doom - 128 pages paperback - us$24.95 - Tier B (if generic) or C (if Realms)
A new adventure for D&D! What could be more exciting? The identity of the authors (Rich Baker being one) suggest that this is set in the Forgotten Realms, though there are indications that it might be a generic adventure. I tend towards the former setting at the moment.

It has been a while since any adventure of this length has been produced by Wizards: the Eberron adventures were only 32 pages in length, and the upcoming Sons of Gruumsh is the same length.

There is a general consensus across the RPG industry - correct or not - that adventures don't sell. Thus, the Red Hand of Doom is risky for Wizards; some of that risk is offset by the relatively high cover price. That will not deter me from obtaining it when it comes out, simply because it is an adventure.

However, actually being able to write high-quality adventures is a rare gift. I am not familiar with previous adventures by these authors. It could be very successful, or it could be dreadful. It is more likely to be in-between, but our expectations are so high for adventures that even a slightly good adventure may get very bad reviews.

With the recent quality of Dungeon magazine - the Age of Worms adventure path is well worth investigating - The Red Hand of Doom does at least have something to live up to in the modern era. I look forward to the result.

March 2006
Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow and True Name Magic - 288 pages - us$39.95 - Tier B

This book is the latest "capstone" system, I would guess. Like Magic of Incarnum, it will provide a new approach to magic that can work with or without the existing system. What makes this very intriguing to me is the possibility of making True Names important to D&D.

Twenty years ago, when I first got involved in a AD&D campaign - rather than the one-shots that had been my main experiences of the game - I had just read Ursula K LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea. As a result I wanted to have my character have a True Name, and for it to be important. Thus was born Silverbreeze, whose real name was Meliander Corthan.

His True Name was never important. In later games and in my writings, I've always referred to him by his actual name rather than by his nickname. However, I hope you can see why I'm intrigued by Tome of Magic.

That I've also had a long-running plotline in my campaign related to the Plane of Shadow just makes me more interested in this book. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

However, this is a very optional work. I expect it will take the game of D&D and move it away from its traditional Vancian magic system and allow the simulation of magic found in other fantasy and mythological sources, just like Magic of Incarnum is likely to. At us$39.95 (yes, it is a lot more in Aussie dollars), it's a big investment. It is a risky book for Wizards to produce.

As someone who enjoyed A Wizard of Earthsea, I hope it is successful.

Power of Faerun - 160 pages - us$29.95 - Tier C

I have absolutely no idea what this book is about. Another book of Forgotten Realms magic? It would seem likely - although perhaps it will take a leaf from Weapons of Legacy. As a Forgotten Realms book, it will likely do good business with FR fans (of whom I am not one. I like the setting, but I don't follow it overmuch). This is probably the least risky of all of the early releases for 2006.

April 2006
Complete Psionic - 160 pages - us$29.95 - Tier C

The Future Releases forum on the Wizards boards has been discussing the possibility of this book for months. I was in the camp that thought it would never get made, precisely because it was a Tier C product, requiring both the core books and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. I guess I was wrong. However, I'm not unhappy about that!

Eberron has made an impact on the acceptability of psionics. We now have a setting where the use of psionics is accepted as a normal part of that world. This is good, and it will delight those players I have who love psionics - especially Adam.

I hope this book addresses the problems faced by the Soulknife, but regardless of that, it is a real boon to lovers of the XPH. Is this book risky for Wizards? You bet it is. The early part of 2006 is really displaying several fringe products. On the other hand, there is a disconnect between those who play D&D with only the Core Books and those that play D&D with most of the supplements. What is the transition like between "Core only" and "everything goes"?

There appears to be no Genre book in these releases, nor a Environment book. I guess we'll see those in the middle of 2006.

Although I am happy with the releases that have been announced, I am cautious about how they will be received by the greater D&D population. This will be a important stage in the development of D&D: can it reach out to those who want more than the old Tolkien-inspired game?

RPGA games at home

I'm playing a lot of D&D at present - I'd say more than at any other time in my life.

How much?

Well - by one way of counting - after running my first RPGA game ten months ago (11th September 2004), I've reached 142 reward points, through a combination of Living Greyhawk games, Legacy of the Green Regent, Mark of Heroes, Living Force and some Home Campaigns. The actual adventure count is 62 in 10 months, and I know that doesn't include several Home Campaign sessions that occurred before the system allowed them.

Looking at that in the terms of the Player Rewards periods:
9/04 -> 12/04 = 28 pts
1/05 -> 4/05 = 66 pts (74 with overlap)
4/05 -> 8/05 = 48 pts (62 with overlap and ongoing... I hope to reach 80 pts!)

My fortnightly schedule now looks something like this:
1st Friday afternoon: Living Greyhawk
1st Friday evening: (Home/Greyhawk) Age of Worms
1st Sunday afternoon: (Home/Greyhawk) Necropolis
2nd Friday afternoon: Mark of Heroes (or LG)
2nd Saturday afternoon: (Home/Other) Key of Destiny (DL) as a player!

Although there is some overlap of players, there are about 15 who I regularly game with - 6 in the Age of Worms game, and the other 9 split between the Friday afternoon and weekend games.

This weekend is a Perrenland LG game on Friday afternoon, the first session of Age of Worms on Friday evening, and the third of Necropolis on Sunday.

Unfortunately, I don't quite have enough players for regular Living Force games. Adam, Greg M and Gofa are all big Star Wars fans, and they love the LF games, but I need another player - and for Gofa to be available apart from the Necropolis sessions.

The RPGA has proved to be a big boon for me as a DM. I originally started with a couple of small "Game Days", which indeed were much smaller than others of their ilk. Greg M helped me as a DM in the second one, a Living Greyhawk adventure. Greg M's much happier with running his own inventions - or playing - so we haven't repeated the process. Still, even the limited success of that game allowed me to meet Martin and Bradford, with whom I've spent a lot of happy evenings over the past nine months playing D&D and other games.

Greg O and Gerard probably wouldn't be playing D&D at all if not for the Living Greyhawk games I run on the Fridays, so it helps keep players in the loop as well.

What allows me to keep running all these games is that I don't have to write them all! In fact, I'm writing nothing at the present time, but even so, I try to keep it only to my primary Greyhawk one (currently in the midst of Necropolis - see my session reports).

Are RPGA adventures for everyone? Definitely not. Martin's group doesn't like them much, which is why I run them through other things. I expect I'll be modifying Age of Worms for them as we go along. That's fine: it is why we have DMs instead of computers.

Bad Feats and Prestige Classes - a Magic: the Gathering analogy

One of the advantages I have a player of both D&D and Magic: the Gathering is that I get to see bits and pieces of the design process of both, and thereby to see the parallels and differences between the games.

Here's something I find interesting: both games have "building blocks" that players use to create their decks or characters. In Magic, they are the actual cards. In D&D, they are the races, classes, prestige classes, feats and spells. (And probably more elements I'm forgetting).

One of the questions that often comes up in the Magic world is this: Why do Wizards make bad cards? Here is Mark Rosewater's explanation. Read it. It is worth knowing about, and is relevant to the rest of my discussion.

The discussion of the Order of the Bow Initiate PrC (and other bad PrCs) reminded me of the similarities and differences between the games. There's one key difference between them, I think: in Magic, you wonder at a bad card, then put it away. In D&D, you wonder at a bad class or prestige class, and then keep worrying about it.

I don't think this is as true of bad spells and feats. I'm far more likely to discard those and look at the ones I like.

This seems to be a function of several things: the role of what a class or prestige class does, the length of its description, and the actual fact that there really aren't that many classes or prestige classes. Thus, upon seeing the Order of the Bow Initiate - the potential "great archer" - you are more disappointed because there aren't any other prestige classes that are suitable.

Why, then, are prestige classes (and base classes) so hard to get right? Well, complexity for one thing. A feat or spell is simple in comparison. A prestige class is like getting about 10 feats together, plus some change.

Then, there are the reasons given by Mark Rosewater in his article.

I don't think they're all relevant to D&D. This isn't exactly a competitive game, so the first reason, "All The Cards Cannot Be Good", doesn't really apply.

"Different Cards Appeal to Different Players" definitely applies. I know how many people on these boards detest half-orcs, but they're the favourite race of one of my players. No, I don't understand him, either. ;) The quote from Mark that is relevant, "The problem is players tend to define “bad cards” as cards that they personally see no reason to play. But certain cards aren’t meant for them in the first place."

"Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery" is interesting. We don't often think in that way in D&D. We tend to think of "that's a fireball, it's useful". However, especially with 3e, the possibilities granted by combining abilities is now very relevant. Multi-classing is the most obvious manifestation, but there are other combination tricks that players also use. Something that appears weak at present might being great when combined with other pieces of the game. Of course, it could also just be weak...

"Power Levels Are Relative" is also not immediately apparent. We don't have a system where card sets just rotate out of environment. We always play with everything, don't we? Well, that's not true. Campaign settings can differ markedly. This leads to some features of the system being more signficant than they might appear. Consider a semi-historical campaign with no non-humans - suddenly, the Sneak Attack of the rogue is far more useful, while the Turn Undead ability fades into insignificance!

I've also seen Monte Cook discuss the Toughness feat - surely one of the most useless feats in the game? However, it isn't. In a one-shot game for 1st level characters, or a feat for low-level monsters, it has more relevance than in a 20-level game. The gaming environment differs more than you might expect.

"Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player" can be witnessed by anyone on the Character Optimisation boards. Although D&D is mostly non-competitive, it would be a gross misstatement to say that all players don't care about how good their PC's abilities are!

"People Like Finding “Hidden Gems”" is related to the "Diversity of Powers" reason above.

"R&D is Only Human" is so true - especially in a game as complex as D&D, finding all the possibilities and problems in a game feature is incredibly difficult.

Magic: the Gathering puts out about 700-800 cards every year. I don't know the number of new prestige classes that D&D puts out each year, but it is far fewer than that. Magic also has the option of revisiting old concepts and twiddling with them the next year. Does D&D do this? Rather than having the Order of the Bow Initiate being the only (non-elf) archer class, make it one of several. Interestingly, the latest preview from Five Nations - the Knight Phantom - gives a class that is remarkably similar to the Eldritch Knight. Players therefore have a choice.

Of course, this leads to the possibility that one of those variants will be considered "bad"...