Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Kinda disappointed at the lack of tokens. I suppose it comes with a map though.

Don't see a map on the list on the back.

I have almost the whole collection of 4e maps. Love maps.

About 15% of the Player's Handbook will be free and online! (My calculator says 15% of 320 pages is 48 pages).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/#ixzz32TRllguH

Sidebars in the new DMG help DMs to customize the game to match past editions of D&D.

From: https://twitter.com/boardgamegeek/status/469484622833664000

Also from ENWorld:

The flumph is confirmed to be in the MM.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Kinda disappointed at the lack of tokens. I suppose it comes with a map though.

Don't see a map on the list on the back.

I have almost the whole collection of 4e maps. Love maps.

I love maps too. It's so much easier than graph paper, especially when you're strained for time.

For $12.66 - why not?

I'm in!

 Alpharius wrote:
For $12.66 - why not?

I'm in!

Keep in mind with Amazon pre-orders that you will get the lowest price between when you place the order and it ships. So if it does go any lower, you will get that lower price.

Like others, I am not so excited about starter boxes generally but I tend to get excited about D&D starter boxes. I guess it is because they're the first thing to come out but also because I am into the history of D&D and enjoy seeing how each edition is presented to the market.

Tangentially, it is funny to see for how much the 4th edition Red Box starter set (not even the original starter set) is currently selling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
isn't the starter set a waste of money? It will have no practical use after your first couple of games

Hm, I think starter set adventures can be quite handy for those surprise sessions of D&D that happen every once in a while, when suddenly a bunch of people want to play some D&D but you have nothing prepared and character creation might actually kill the moment. In that case, it is a really handy thing to just pop open the starter set.

If you're going to buy the core books anyway, isn't the starter set a waste of money? It will have no practical use after your first couple of games. I understand wanting to test the rules before you buy them, but most of the starters I've gotten have just been dumbed down versions of the core rules. It's not exactly representative of the real product.

The starter is. presumably, something of a 'taster' to see if you even want to get into the game 'proper'.

For me, $12.66 is perfect for that.

In all likelihood I'll be sticking with 1E AD&D anyway, but why not give it a shot, right?

the price doesn't bug me, although convincing my gaming group to try it might be tough. We're all hip deep in a super sweet IK:RPG campaign. Turns out guys that do freelance work for game companies make unusually good GMs...

Odds are, it'd just sit on the shelf , with all my other unplayed games:(

Ordered it on Amazon.

 Alpharius wrote:
In all likelihood I'll be sticking with 1E AD&D anyway

The AD&D DMG is my favorite D&D book to read. I love browsing through it, picking through the Gygaxisms. There is no more florid screed in the range and I think Gygax's advice (sometimes embracing it, sometimes shunning it) is still very relevant. Every once in a while, I find some tidbit to ruminate upon. Here's an example from earlier this year, posted to an OSR network:

I'm hearing there will be some sort of web-based add-on that adds character creation (probably for low levels and a 'classic' selection of races) to the Starter Kit contents.

 Balance wrote:
I'm hearing there will be some sort of web-based add-on that adds character creation (probably for low levels and a 'classic' selection of races) to the Starter Kit contents.

As posted above:

 Manchu wrote:

About 15% of the Player's Handbook will be free and online! (My calculator says 15% of 320 pages is 48 pages).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/#ixzz32TRllguH

Manchu, a friend and I were just recently discussing how we miss the era of more rare and random magic items in D&D. While we don't play this way even in 4th, there's a certain 'RAW' or 'Metagame' in newer editions that making a build is important versus what we perceive as an old-school setup where you deal with whatever random stuff comes your character's way. I think some modern rules would actually benefit that: 4e, for example, has a strong "Don't screw the players" design ethos I like, even if I don't like some other parts.

Still, we miss the idea that a mid-level character might have a magic weapon (hopefully one they're specialized in, if not maybe a back-up for stuff that needs it), a potion or two, and a couple random items that are so situationally useful that James Bond would raise an eyebrow if assigned them.

"We got a magic folding boat and a ring that lets us talk to squirrels. I'm sure this will all come in handy..."

I would argue that 2nd edition ran with the higher level of magic, especially in stuff like Spelljammer (where an inexperienced party might have a flying ship that consumes magic items as fuel or Planescape (Magic weapons & armor loses pluses as you travel from your home plane. They're a bit more common, but if you need a new set every plane, it gets expensive. ).

*sigh* I wanna like D&D, I kinda enjoyed what we did in the play test. Still, It's a game I seem to have trouble getting comfortable in anymore, regardless of edition. Probably still going to buy the new edition though, if only to own for the sake of D&D book.

@Balance:

The key concept you mentioned is "making builds." The idea of setting down and planning 20 levels of character options is kind of presumptuous. After all, you're talking about a character that is going to throw himself into danger at every turn. Lo and behold, the characters in 3E and 4E owe more to super hero comics, complete with all kinds of glowy powers, than fantasy novels. Survival in those editions is less of a question and more of a right.

 Chongara wrote:
It's a game I seem to have trouble getting comfortable in anymore

Why so?

 Manchu wrote:
Tangentially, it is funny to see for how much the 4th edition Red Box starter set (not even the original starter set) is currently selling.

For a real treat look for the DM Kit. I didn't get it because a friend of mine said it just came with the Rules Compendium, which I already had, but as it turns out it comes with the Essentials DMG. It is very similiar to the RC, but has things like, oh, rules for constructing a level appropriate encounter.

 Ahtman wrote:
but as it turns out it comes with the Essentials DMG

Dang, I wondered what was so special about that considering the prices. If I had known that I would have bought it. I liked the Essentials books a lot.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
but as it turns out it comes with the Essentials DMG

Dang, I wondered what was so special about that considering the prices. If I had known that I would have bought it. I liked the Essentials books a lot.

I have all of them but the DM Kit, and it is a hole in my heart now...

 Ahtman wrote:
I have all of them but the DM Kit, and it is a hole in my heart now...

Would that you had never educated me on this subject! I really didn't need another white whale ...

 Manchu wrote:
@Balance:

The key concept you mentioned is "making builds." The idea of setting down and planning 20 levels of character options is kind of presumptuous. After all, you're talking about a character that is going to throw himself into danger at every turn. Lo and behold, the characters in 3E and 4E owe more to super hero comics, complete with all kinds of glowy powers, than fantasy novels. Survival in those editions is less of a question and more of a right.

It's 30 levels in 4e to be pedantic. I think focusing on a 'build' is a side-effect of MMOs more than anything else, although 3rd did encourage this in some ways: Prestige Classes are an interesting subject that is a massive mix of good and bad for the game.

They add some neat flavor to characters and allow same-class characters to be differentiated. They're fun! They're a neat way to add setting-specific stuff in mechanically (like if a setting has an order of Knights, that's a great Prestige Class concept).

However, they definitely encourage 'builds' as there's a desire to maximize the Prestige Class levels, so characters may have a strict plan of what skills/feats to take to qualify as soon as possible.

I feel like the intent from the initial 3.0 Prestige Classes was that they were meant as a sort of story reward. Consider that the first Prestige Classes were released in the DMG, and included the Blackguard, which requires a Paladin obtain a high level, then fall and turn to evil, and allows a special trade-in of abilities. Much more story-driven than the ones we got later.

If I was making my own 3.0-inspired game, I'd keep the concept of Prestige Classes but make them more rewards. This would probably require some work to provide 'frameworks' or 'families' of classes. To use the Dragonlance setting, if I was making a Knights of Solamnia PrC, I'd actually want a group that could be awarded to players doing a service to the Knights: The core Knight class for fighter-types that want to become full-on knights, and maybe a lower-requirement (lower expectation) 'Friend of the Knights of Solamnia' PrC open to wizards,clerics, thieves, etc. that might not be interested int he main class, but still provides something. Basically, provide something 'unlockable' for everyone.

That's just my 2 cents, though. 2nd and earlier did have some 'build' thought (albeit not by name) in things like planning for spells and such... Even assigning stats is a small step towards this, I guess. Playing anything but 'hard core' (roll stats 3d6 each, in order, play with whatever you roll) ultimately does involve some thought about development, although I think picking a class you're actually suited for is a reasonable 'build' choice.

 Manchu wrote:
Why so?

It's very hard for me to put my finger on just what exactly. More so than when I play other games I always feel a little bit like I'm being torn in two directions, like what I want to do with the mechanics is grinding against what I want to narratively (and both these things are important to me). This applies more so as a player than a GM, given the larger degree of control afforded by the latter position but I've felt it in both roles. That's only part of it though.

Another thing is while I really, really like some aspects your sort of "Standard" D&D setting, I'm annoyed by others. I like monsters and evil wizards. I like crazy looking monsters and flashy magic spells. I like dusty farming villages and ancient ruins. I'm sort of on board with the dwarves and the orcs, and the goblins and such I guess... whatever. Royalty bore me to pieces. Monsters that are like half animal + woman's torso make my eyes roll. I like adventures in the wild and exploring dungeons, but I've little interest in grubbing around for treasure & coin.I hate elves and dear god there is always someone who loves the damn things in every game. It seems like there is always 20 billion varities of them these days. Regular Elves, Half-Elves, Dark Elves, not-an-elf-but-looks-like one, elf elf elf elf elf. Oh god. Make it stop. Please make it stop.

Not that D&D is inherently bound to any standard setting like that and I've played it in different ways. However, it's the default and as such is what people tend to go for.

 Balance wrote:
It's 30 levels in 4e to be pedantic. I think focusing on a 'build' is a side-effect of MMOs more than anything else, although 3rd did encourage this in some ways: Prestige Classes are an interesting subject that is a massive mix of good and bad for the game.

That's just my 2 cents, though. 2nd and earlier did have some 'build' thought (albeit not by name) in things like planning for spells and such... Even assigning stats is a small step towards this, I guess. Playing anything but 'hard core' (roll stats 3d6 each, in order, play with whatever you roll) ultimately does involve some thought about development, although I think picking a class you're actually suited for is a reasonable 'build' choice.

Always with the MMOs... Builds were popular before MMOs were a big thing. Video games, at least. If nothing else, I remember having established 'good builds' in Diablo 2 (which was pre most big MMOs) and I definitely remember power builds for 2nd edition D&D (which was before all of those).

Heck, the original 'build' class that required 20+ levels of planning was the 1st edition monk. You literally had to take things in order to even get it to work. Your entire career was planned out. Not to mention that first and second edition multi-classing required a high level of pre-planning to make it effective. I clearly remember people gaming out the most powerful characters and planning progression back then (remember dart throwing specialists?)

Focusing on a build is definitely not a new thing.

1st and 2nd edition multi-classing required selecting the option at character creation as for some reason only humans could actually change class once they started (and that was dual-classing, despite it potentially stretching to 3+ classes). And let's not get started on the 1e bard!

I don't remember 1e Monks well enough to comment. I may check tonight as I've got the 1e Reprints at home! I thought they were like most classes with specific abilities at specific levels, and the fun stuff like having high-level characters with limited quotas. (Or am I confused with druids?)

I feel like 'builds' became much more predominant, though, as games advanced and it became a reasonable expectation that you would be able control character options beyond certain points. 2e was very 'front loaded' with Kits that had to be taken at 1st level and relatively limited 'choices' with advancement beyond WP/NWP, spells, etc.

The core math may be a culprit for this perception, too. 4e 9for example) is written with the idea that characters will have magic item bonuses to gear at certain levels: if this is not followed (or an alternate system put in place), it can make the game frustrating as characters fall behind the curve on thee bonus to hit vs. enemy defenses.Older editions have this, to a point, but it's much less defined or obvious. 2nd was also big on requiring magic or +X or greater weapons to damage a lot of monsters, which does mean fighters without a magic weapon might get frustrated... But when I played that edition, it felt like it made sense for an Axe-Specialist fighter to keep a magic dagger around in case he needed the magic to get through defenses. Not perfect. but interesting.

I like 4th, and have been talking with my group's primary DM about 4th fro an upcoming campaign... But I also like the idea from 5th of limiting magic items a bit more.

Oh wait, I was thinking of 1E bard. You had to be X class for 5 levels, X class for 6 levels, X class for 9 levels, etc.

Your memory is pretty good in terms of remembering 1E Monks!

But the question is not one of "math" considering the numbers are a means (mechanic) to an end (design). (This is probably less true, in a systematic sense, of the sprawling mess that is Second Edition.) Third also assumed magic item bonuses by level. Indeed, 3E is the real watershed moment. Whatever could have been done with builds before, having a build was the default in 3E.

 Manchu wrote:
But the question is not one of "math" considering the numbers are a means (mechanic) to an end (design). (This is probably less true, in a systematic sense, of the sprawling mess that is Second Edition.) Third also assumed magic item bonuses by level. Indeed, 3E is the real watershed moment. Whatever could have been done with builds before, having a build was the default in 3E.

I have to agree with your assessment of third. Some of the classes themselves encourage builds- look at the ranger and choosing a specialty(ranged or two-weapon fighting). If you don't plan out a build beforehand, your character is severely gimped compared to the trst of your party.

Just as a disclaimer, I've played Basic through 4th edition (and a brief playtest of 5th) and enjoyed them all... But in different ways. The main thing is I feel like they're all solutions to subtly different problems and 'tech levels' kind of like how new major revisions of cars are released every few decades to meet design goals for the era in which they are released.

Seems like you are conflating progress and contingency. I heartily agree that each edition reflects something about how its designers understood the market at a certain moment. I don't think the comparison to advancing technology, such as successive models of cars, is quite so apt.

I don't subscribe to a whiggish history of D&D as I don't see much that can be called progress -- it's just change. That said, 3E and 4E are very, very closely related. I do think WotC attempted to learn from 3E when designing 4E. The two main lessons-learned appear to have been (1) give everyone powers and (2) force everyone to be a team player. Given caster privilege and prima-donnaism truly were big problems in 3E, it's tempting to say 4E was progress BUT that would be assuming the 3E design direction (as opposed to, for example, the BECMI design direction) defines progress.

I think the problem when looking at video games when comparing RPGs, and there are quite a few to be honest, is that with MMO's getting to level cap and all abilities is usually only half the game. Much of a games time is spent at end game, and in a PnP RPG that is far less true. With 3E and 4E being so steeped in the need to get certain things at certain levels to be what you want it detracts overall from the characters growth; it becomes less about what they do then what abilities they have.