Switch Theme:

Dungeons And Dakkas! The Dakka DnD Thread!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

What is the "day one dlc" being referred to? I preordered the core books as a set and don't recall additional offerings at the time whether digital or physical (other than maybe the usual accessories like sheet packs and dm screen maybe). Did they offer the missing core classes and races on their website?

Sleeping on the question of 4e overnight, I remembered one other big complaint I had was that most if not all the powers for classes were strictly grid based combat powers with little to none for social or skill RP encounters. Am I remembering that correctly and did either WOTC or the limited GSL third party scene fix that later on?

We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 skyth wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.


In 1st Edition, they were their own class.


But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 warboss wrote:
What is the "day one dlc" being referred to? I preordered the core books as a set and don't recall additional offerings at the time whether digital or physical (other than maybe the usual accessories like sheet packs and dm screen maybe). Did they offer the missing core classes and races on their website?


No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.

Sleeping on the question of 4e overnight, I remembered one other big complaint I had was that most if not all the powers for classes were strictly grid based combat powers with little to none for social or skill RP encounters. Am I remembering that correctly and did either WOTC or the limited GSL third party scene fix that later on?


You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.

For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/05 14:10:22



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

 Lance845 wrote:

No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.


Yeah, I heard they came back eventually and looked it up on a 4e wiki but I don't consider that day one DLC if it comes out months or (preferably) over a year later. I obviously don't agree with them removing it in the first place though. I personally would have preferred if they had just taken each class up to the tradition 20th level and left that last tier of up to 30 for a separate book. YMMV.


You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.

For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.


Coming off of 3/3.5 and D&D minis, I was fine with the grid and defining spell effects like that but it was the relative exclusion of social/RP rules that bothered me more. Both are key to a satisfactory personal experience and synomymous with the feel of D&D in most sessions. I tried looking it up on a wiki but they don't print the "spells"/powers but something as simple as the charm spell is either missing or a combat ability IIRC in 4e. I would have expected things like that to be "utility" powers and/or feats and they largely missing at least at low levels with the starting books. I'd have hoped that either WOTC themselves or the sliver of 3rd party creators left would have addressed that.

I took a quick look at what the 4e SRD is/was and it's thread bare compared with 3/3.5/5e. It references alot of things but doesn't actually define them (I'm assuming in an attempt to enforce the purchase of the core books in 4e instead of the wholesale reprinting in the earlier 3/3.5).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How crunchy was 4e? Coming off of the modifier-a-palooza that was 3.5, I recall it having less but I don't have a fresh recollection to compare it with 5e and it's relative paucity of modifiers (largely replaced with adv/disadv). Just looking at the BAB/proficiency bonus, 3.5 went up to +20 at 20th level, 4e had +10 at 20th (1/2 level), and 5e has +5 at 20th. Was 4e somewhere in between when it comes to modifier spam as well?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/05 14:31:58


We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 warboss wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.


Yeah, I heard they came back eventually and looked it up on a 4e wiki but I don't consider that day one DLC if it comes out months or (preferably) over a year later. I obviously don't agree with them removing it in the first place though. I personally would have preferred if they had just taken each class up to the tradition 20th level and left that last tier of up to 30 for a separate book. YMMV.


Yeah, I mean my personal favorite class in 3rd/3.5 where I started playing TTRPGs was druid. So it not being in the first release was a bit of a bummer personally, I think (That was so long ago).


You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.

For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.


Coming off of 3/3.5 and D&D minis, I was fine with the grid and defining spell effects like that but it was the relative exclusion of social/RP rules that bothered me more. Both are key to a satisfactory personal experience and synomymous with the feel of D&D in most sessions. I tried looking it up on a wiki but they don't print the "spells"/powers but something as simple as the charm spell is either missing or a combat ability IIRC in 4e. I would have expected things like that to be "utility" powers and/or feats and they largely missing at least at low levels with the starting books. I'd have hoped that either WOTC themselves or the sliver of 3rd party creators left would have addressed that.

I took a quick look at what the 4e SRD is/was and it's thread bare compared with 3/3.5/5e. It references alot of things but doesn't actually define them (I'm assuming in an attempt to enforce the purchase of the core books in 4e instead of the wholesale reprinting in the earlier 3/3.5).


Yeah. The 4th ed stuff made huge moves to attack the OGL and reclaim ownership of the game. That more than anything was the reason for Pathfinder. The player base outrage just fueled the departure. Just like it's doing now for Project Black Flag.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
How crunchy was 4e? Coming off of the modifier-a-palooza that was 3.5, I recall it having less but I don't have a fresh recollection to compare it with 5e and it's relative paucity of modifiers (largely replaced with adv/disadv). Just looking at the BAB/proficiency bonus, 3.5 went up to +20 at 20th level, 4e had +10 at 20th (1/2 level), and 5e has +5 at 20th. Was 4e somewhere in between when it comes to modifier spam as well?


So 4th got rid of individual skills and changed the differently scaling BAB to a proficiency bonus that was equal to half your level rounded down that was added to everything. It introduced that you just checked off having proficiency in skills which both gave you a bonus and sometimes expanded usage (You know. that thing 5th ed does).

My recollection of 4th is that it was written in "crunchy" plain text. Everything was described in dry rules language which made it appear more gamey and "crunchy" than 3rd while actually reducing a lot of the math and complexity heading in the direction of 5th. A lot of bloat and illusion of choice was gone. The sheer volume of abilities for wizards was reduced initially in PHB 1 (with more options coming back later) while options for Fighters expanded so everyone kind of sat relatively equal with some at will abilities (cantrips) encounter abilities (big hits you can do once a fight) and daily abilities (needing a long rest to recharge). So melee classes were not just running forward and cleaving all the time through a complex system of feat selection that was mostly illusion of choice. Instead they had some at will taunts, armor breaks, and maybe a power attack, while they had encounter cleaves and bleeds and whatever.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

 Lance845 wrote:

Yeah, I mean my personal favorite class in 3rd/3.5 where I started playing TTRPGs was druid. So it not being in the first release was a bit of a bummer personally, I think (That was so long ago).


Coincidentally, that was actually the class that I looked up this morning on the wiki, lol. It came out in the PHB2 with later "subclasses" or whatever they were called in one of the Essentials books.


So 4th got rid of individual skills and changed the differently scaling BAB to a proficiency bonus that was equal to half your level rounded down that was added to everything. It introduced that you just checked off having proficiency in skills which both gave you a bonus and sometimes expanded usage (You know. that thing 5th ed does).


That part I was actually a fan of as I was GM'ing Star Wars Sage Edition at the time which they full on admitted was a test bed of mechanics/ideas for 4e. While SWSE had its issues (the force was ridiculously overpowered for a tabletop game), I actually liked the baseline steady progression of offense/defensive derived from level (you added your level or half your level to attack, damage, and your various AC equivalents based on the 3.5 saves). SWSE to me was a much better 4e than actual 4e was as the latter threw out the baby with the bathwater and cranked everything up to 11.

My recollection of 4th is that it was written in "crunchy" plain text. Everything was described in dry rules language which made it appear more gamey and "crunchy" than 3rd while actually reducing a lot of the math and complexity heading in the direction of 5th. A lot of bloat and illusion of choice was gone. The sheer volume of abilities for wizards was reduced initially in PHB 1 (with more options coming back later) while options for Fighters expanded so everyone kind of sat relatively equal with some at will abilities (cantrips) encounter abilities (big hits you can do once a fight) and daily abilities (needing a long rest to recharge). So melee classes were not just running forward and cleaving all the time through a complex system of feat selection that was mostly illusion of choice. Instead they had some at will taunts, armor breaks, and maybe a power attack, while they had encounter cleaves and bleeds and whatever.


Yeah, that was our impression. Full casters were downgraded and everyone else was just bumped up mechanically/thematically to the same level and it wasn't a bug but the expressed feature of the system. It all felt too samey and there was no "simple" class option for people to play. I think incorporating a healthy amount of noncombat abilities into powers would have gone a long way to addressing that feeling.

We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
 skyth wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.


In 1st Edition, they were their own class.


But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.


They were a core class in the original AD&D (IE 1st edition) Players' Handbook.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 skyth wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 skyth wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.


In 1st Edition, they were their own class.


But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.


They were a core class in the original AD&D (IE 1st edition) Players' Handbook.


No they were not.

Edit: sorry amendment. The class was cleric. Druid was a "sub class" of cleric in adnd 1rst. I am leaving the old text here because it is otherwise accurate.

That class was called Priest and functioned like clerics in 3rd edition picking "domains". Under priest in that book were 2 example/sub classes. One was called cleric, and the other was druid. And the druid, being a sub class, functioned exactly like a cleric with the changed restriction of needing to be neutral and the "no metal" thing.

Druid in AdnD 1rst has it's closest analog to what would later be prestige classes in 3rd edition. It was an adjustment and tweak to an already existing class. And it's the reason why when 3rd came around druids used the same stats and did "divine magic" for their stuff. They were/are an off shoot of clerics.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/05 16:23:15



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





There were numerous differences between the Cleric and the Druid in 1st edition AD&D, not just the neutral and no metal thing (Which only applied to armor). There was no 'Priest' class in AD&D. Just Cleric and Druid. There were no domains for Clerics. It was as distinct from a Cleric as it was in 3rd edition.

It's like saying that the Ranger and Paladin were sub-classes of Fighters.

Yes, in 2nd edition AD&D, Druids were specialty priests. But that is NOT true in 1st edition AD&D.

Just because something is similar does not make it a sub-class or not it's own distinct class.

The 1st edition AD&D PHB was published in 1978, with Druids having their own class entry. So yes, that does go back decades.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






I am saying its a sub class because the words in the book are its a sub class.

Pg 20 bottom right hand corner of the page.

The Druid

The druid is a sub-class of clerics. They are the only absolute neutrals (see ALIGNMENT), viewing good and evil, law ond chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things. As priests of nature, they must have a minimum wisdom of 12 and a charisma of 15; both of these major attributes must exceed 15 if a druid is to gain a 10% bonus to earned experience.



Further when, you look at the classes in a list in the table of contents. It says cleric. Then below it and indented it says druid. Because the druid is a sub class of the cleric.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/05 17:06:10



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/05 17:45:28


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 skyth wrote:
They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.


Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.

Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, the bard is the closest thing to a prestige class as it required other classes to be taken first.

The only thing similar between a druid and a cleric is that they use Wisdom as a casting stat. The abilities, armor and weapon proficiencies, and the spell lists are completely different. Just like in 3rd edition. They are very much mechanically distinct classes.

It's like claiming that the Paladin wasn't a 'real' class in 1st edition AD&D either.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Lance845 wrote:
 skyth wrote:
They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.


Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.

Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.

Not really. Prestige classes could only be taken later, and didn't have to be related at all to the starting classes.

You are right that they were called subclasses (of cleric, just as rangers and paladins were fighter subclasses (until cavalier happened in Unearthed Arcana, and then the paladin got moved under them) and illusionist was a magic-user subclass).

Druids had their own full spell list. Spell domains (mostly) didn't matter in 1e. At the end of the edition domains got broken out of the spell list for dragonlance adventures (which was a precursor to several 2e rules), in an effort to make clerics of different gods feel different (and lower the overall power of the cleric so they didn't have access to all of the spell list, which kept expanding with more books and supplements). This rolled over into 2nd edition when they got big on defining godly portfolios.

Druids look more distinct than they actually were because they had their own spell list, experience table and class abilities they gained as they leveled. They looked really unique, but yes, were a subclass.
2e defined the main class divisions better than 1e did, but they were there, though by and large the distinction didn't matter- where it came into play was determining thac0 and saving throws.


Now, in the 'other' D&D game (the Mentzer revision, with basic, expert, companion and master boxed sets) druids, rangers, paladins and etc were all variants that you picked up at higher levels (based on alignment, mostly), and everyone started in the 'core class.' Well, humans, anyway. The demihumans' race was their 'class,' and they stopped levelling properly earlier.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/02/05 20:43:22


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






I am not saying it was a one for one equivalency with prestige classes. I said it was the closest thing. There are, of course, differences. It's not like ADnD functioned even remotely like 3rd+ for classes and levels.

I was saying that Druid was a sub-class, as called out directly by the book itself.

This was all a fairly minor point in comparing what 4th ed was to what 5th ed is.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Dipping With Wood Stain






 Lance845 wrote:
 skyth wrote:
They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.


Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.

Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.


It’s not his opinion. It’s truth.
While there was a blurb that said that at the beginning of the class description for Druid, in 1st edition PHB, the Druid class was a separate entry with its own experience table, spells, abilities, etc.
You’re citing a sentence at the beginning of the class description page as ‘rules’. It was a blurb. Not rules.

It’s the same as saying that Rangers and Paladins were a subclass of Fighters. Or that Assassin was a subclass of Thief. They were not. All of those Classes has separate entries, tables, etc. For those Classes.
They were not a sub-entry under Fighter, Thief or Cleric. They were all their own Classes.
This isn’t me reading off of a wiki page either. It’s what was actually in the books and how they were laid out.
And that’s because I’ve actually played every edition but 4th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/06 17:21:12


 
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 Lance845 wrote:
Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing.


Sure I do. There is a difference in how you handle someone who is a fan of a thing making a good-faith argument about the subject vs. how you handle someone who has no personal stake in the conversation and is purely there to treat online arguments as an e-sport.

Perfect example: your nitpicking over how exactly druids worked in the old rules and ignoring the point that 4th edition removed a core class to sell it back to you as day one DLC. Whether druids were technically a class or a sub-class or a variant class or whatever is irrelevant because they still existed. 4th didn't move them back to being a sub-class, WOTC removed them from the PHB entirely and did so for monetization reasons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/06 17:46:35


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Ghool wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 skyth wrote:
They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.


Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.

Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.


It’s not his opinion. It’s truth.
While there was a blurb that said that at the beginning of the class description for Druid, in 1st edition PHB, the Druid class was a separate entry with its own experience table, spells, abilities, etc.
You’re citing a sentence at the beginning of the class description page as ‘rules’. It was a blurb. Not rules.

It’s the same as saying that Rangers and Paladins were a subclass of Fighters. Or that Assassin was a subclass of Thief. They were not. All of those Classes has separate entries, tables, etc. For those Classes.
They were not a sub-entry under Fighter, Thief or Cleric. They were all their own Classes.
This isn’t me reading off of a wiki page either. It’s what was actually in the books and how they were laid out.
And that’s because I’ve actually played every edition but 4th.




Picture is a little small but I would like you to look at that table in the bottom right hand corner. That is the prestige class assassin in 3rd ed.

1) It is a separate entry from the rogue.
2) It has it's own spells
3) It has it's own abilities
4) etc...

I feel like you guys don't remember how prestige classes were set up. They were levels in their own "class". They had all the features of an actual class, but tended to be a more specialized version of their parent class/es. If 3rd ed kept the non standard amounts of exp per level the prestige class would have it's own exp costs per level. 3rd ed did away with that nonsense for exp per character level instead of class level.

I am not reading off a wiki. I am reading off a PDF of the original document.

https://idiscepolidellamanticora.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/tsr2010-players-handbook.pdf

On pg.3 you can see the indented "sub classes" of their parent classes on the table of contents. Interesting.
Notice that under races Half Elves are not indented under elves as a "sub species" of elves. Interesting.

On pg.18 you can see the Racial Preference Table. No entry is indented under the others.

On pg.19 you can see 2 tables with the classes and in the entries the "sub classes" are indented in from and listed under their parent classes. Interesting.

On pg.21 You can see a table called Druids (Clerics) Table 1. Isn't it weird how that table that is for an entirely different base class called druids mentions an entirely different base class called clerics right in the title? Interesting. fething wild man. What a typo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing.


Sure I do. There is a difference in how you handle someone who is a fan of a thing making a good-faith argument about the subject vs. how you handle someone who has no personal stake in the conversation and is purely there to treat online arguments as an e-sport.

Perfect example: your nitpicking over how exactly druids worked in the old rules and ignoring the point that 4th edition removed a core class to sell it back to you as day one DLC. Whether druids were technically a class or a sub-class or a variant class or whatever is irrelevant because they still existed. 4th didn't move them back to being a sub-class, WOTC removed them from the PHB entirely and did so for monetization reasons.


What a complete load of bs.

You don't need to understand me to be dismissive of the arguments you don't agree with. You are just looking for any reason you could point to to justify your strawmans and ad hominems.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2023/02/06 21:09:25



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Nit picking on the definition of sub-class when it's as much a sub-class in practice in 1st and 3rd is bad faith arguing.

Also, you don't seem to understand what a prestige class is. It's a class that has other classes as a pre-req. Druid, you could take at level 1. Closest thing to a prestige class is, in fact, the Bard from 1st edition.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 skyth wrote:
Nit picking on the definition of sub-class when it's as much a sub-class in practice in 1st and 3rd is bad faith arguing.

Also, you don't seem to understand what a prestige class is. It's a class that has other classes as a pre-req. Druid, you could take at level 1. Closest thing to a prestige class is, in fact, the Bard from 1st edition.


I understand the difference. I did not claim that Druid was a prestige class in ADnD. I said it was closer to a prestige class than the base class that Aecus Decimus was claiming the druid had been "for decades". A statement that is factually untrue and just catastrophizing nonsense to give his lack of argument the illusion of added weight. THAT is bad faith arguing.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





In practice, it's been a full class since the 1st edition PHB back in the 70's. It is a complete class all by itself and doesn't need anything from any other classes.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 skyth wrote:
In practice, it's been a full class since the 1st edition PHB back in the 70's. It is a complete class all by itself and doesn't need anything from any other classes.


Thats cool. In fact, it was not a "core/base" class until 3rd edition and so only held that position for 8 years before 4th edition moved it into the PHB 2. It later returned to a "core/base" class in 5th edition.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It's always been a core/base class in practice. Trying to claim otherwise based on nitpicking wording isn't productive or has any basis in reality
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






"Fighters have always had the highest HP totals in DnD."

"Thats not true. Starting in 3rd edition Barbarian had a higher hit die than fighters so their HP was greater."

"Yeah, but thats just nitpicking wording and isn't productive. In practice Fighters have always always had the highest because I think so and that makes it a basis in reality."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/06 22:54:06



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Regardless of the nature of the class, the point being made is that in 1st edition you can play a druid with the core rules purchase. You don't need to make a second purchase to play as a druid.

With 4th edition you had to make a second purchase to play as a druid.

The concept of a druid class was removed from the core purchase and placed into a secondary optional purchase.










That's all people are saying. Arguing over what kind of class it was, what the nature of it was and such is indeed nit picking around the concept of a druid. The fact is you can play a druid with the core purchase and then in 4th edition that option became something you had to pay an additional cost for.

What might be better is how much content there is for the Druid - did it go from 1 page in 1st edition to 20pages in 4th? Ergo was it so much greater that it was worth paying extra? Or was it an example of where a company takes something that was once core and once possible with 1 purchase and split it into two purchases, knowing that many would be pressured into buying the expansion to continue the type of character and game that they'd played before in previous editions. Rather than keeping the core similar and using the expansion to add new original content or flesh out lighter original content into a deeper/greater amount.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/06 23:24:45


A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Overread wrote:
Regardless of the nature of the class, the point being made is that in 1st edition you can play a druid with the core rules purchase. You don't need to make a second purchase to play as a druid.

With 4th edition you had to make a second purchase to play as a druid.

The concept of a druid class was removed from the core purchase and placed into a secondary optional purchase.










That's all people are saying. Arguing over what kind of class it was, what the nature of it was and such is indeed nit picking around the concept of a druid. The fact is you can play a druid with the core purchase and then in 4th edition that option became something you had to pay an additional cost for.

What might be better is how much content there is for the Druid - did it go from 1 page in 1st edition to 20pages in 4th? Ergo was it so much greater that it was worth paying extra? Or was it an example of where a company takes something that was once core and once possible with 1 purchase and split it into two purchases, knowing that many would be pressured into buying the expansion to continue the type of character and game that they'd played before in previous editions. Rather than keeping the core similar and using the expansion to add new original content or flesh out lighter original content into a deeper/greater amount.


Thank you, I appreciate this actually meaningful contribution to the discussion.

This is going off memory and I am having troubling finding any sources from the devs/company discussion at the time of 4th. But I think the devs said something along the lines of

1) The druid was a class that sat in a weird place. It's 3rd ed implementation was a sort of 3 classes in 1 that didn't really fill any role particularly well. With 4ths focus on the tactical build side of things and a clear placement of classes/builds into the trinity they saw the druid sitting too center. Trying to do everything and only kind of succeeding in each.

2) As a result they wanted the core rule book to focus on the classes that truly fulfilled a single role with maybe a secondary role in there. Paladins are front line fighters and tanks with a little heal support. Fighters are front line tanks with a little dps potential. etc etc...

Which resulted in 3) the push of the class along with some of the others that used to be core classes (Monk, Bard, Barbarian) was due to too much overlap with other classes along with the page count. They wanted REALLY tight functioning roles with the classes they did have right in the first book, and that would also buy them time to work out how to give these other classes a unique space to live in while still feeling like the classes people had fond memories of.

I don't know if anyone else has vague memories of that kind of messaging coming from them back then or not. bs PR? Maybe. Probably at least a little bit. But if you look at the classes in 4th PHB it lines up. They define 4 roles (their version of the trinity: Defender Strikers Leaders Controllers).

Role: In battle, do members of the class act as
defenders, strikers, leaders, or controllers? (See Chap-
ter 2 for an explanation of these roles.) Each class has
a role associated with it. Different classes approach
their role in different ways, and many classes include
limited elements of one or more other roles as well.
For example, both the fighter and the paladin are
defenders, but the fighter adds some aspects of
the striker to his repertoire, while the paladin has
some abilities often associated with leaders, such as
healing.


Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Wizard
Warlord

Why have 2 melee based Defender/Strikers in the Fighter and Barbarian? How is the Druid not all of these?



In terms of volume of content. I mentioned earlier that the core PHB had rules for levels 1-30 for every class + the 4 (3 for warlock) paragon path options at level 10 for each class + epic destines for level 20. The content for each class in the PHB was greater than what was offered in any previous edition.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/07 00:10:47



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

Was wild shape just cosmetic in 4e? I don't have the books so am going off of the wiki but it seems like the "power" was just a vehicle to access other wild shape only powers.

https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Wild_shape

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/07 00:46:44


We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 warboss wrote:
Was wild shape just cosmetic in 4e? I don't have the books so am going off of the wiki but it seems like the "power" was just a vehicle to access other wild shape only powers.

https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Wild_shape


This discussion has had me tracking down PDFs of all this gak.

Wild Shape
As a druid, you have the ability to channel the primal

energy of beasts into your physical form and trans-
form into a beast. You have an at-will power, wild

shape, that allows you to assume the form of a beast,
and many druid powers have the beast form keyword
(page 219) and therefore can be used only while you
are in beast form.
The wild shape power lets you assume a form of
your size that resembles a natural or a fey beast,
usually a four-legged mammalian predator such
as a bear, a boar, a panther, a wolf, or a wolverine.
Your beast form might also be an indistinct shape

of shadowy fur and claws, an incarnation of the
Primal Beast of which all earthly beasts are fractured
images. You choose a specific form whenever you use
wild shape, and that form has no effect on your game
statistics or movement modes.
Your choice of Primal Aspect might suggest a
specific form you prefer to assume, and certain beast
form powers specify changes to your form when you
use them. You might also resemble a more exotic
beast when you’re in beast form: a reptile such as a
rage drake or a crocodile, or a fantastic beast such as
an owlbear or a bulette.


Wild Shape Druid Feature
You assume an aspect of the Primal Beast or return to your
humanoid form.
At-Will ✦ Polymorph, Primal
Minor Action (Special) Personal

Effect: You change from your humanoid form to beast
form or vice versa. When you change from beast form
back to your humanoid form, you shift 1 square. While
you are in beast form, you can’t use attack, utility, or feat
powers that lack the beast form keyword, although you
can sustain such powers.

You choose a specific form whenever you use wild
shape to change into beast form. The beast form is your
size, resembles a natural beast or a fey beast, and nor-
mally doesn’t change your game statistics or movement
modes. Your equipment becomes part of your beast
form, but you drop anything you are holding, except
implements you can use. You continue to gain the ben-
efits of the equipment you wear.

You can use the properties and the powers of imple-
ments as well as magic items that you wear, but not the
properties or the powers of weapons or the powers of
wondrous items. While equipment is part of your beast
form, it cannot be removed, and anything in a container
that is part of your beast form is inaccessible.
Special: You can use this power once per round.


Level 1 Daily power.
Savage Frenzy Druid Attack 1
In a blur of claw and fang, you strike out at nearby enemies.
Daily ✦ Beast Form, Implement, Primal
Standard Action Close burst 1

Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex

Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier damage, and the target is
dazed and slowed (save ends both).

Miss: Half damage, and the target is slowed until the end of
your next turn.

Yeah... looks like it's just switching to a different attack bar.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.

We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 warboss wrote:
I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.


Small look at them, it looks like their lvl 10 paragon paths amount to.

Wild Shape ground predator big boosts.
Wild Shape flying predator big boosts.
Damage caster
Control/support caster.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Lance845 wrote:
"Fighters have always had the highest HP totals in DnD."

"Thats not true. Starting in 3rd edition Barbarian had a higher hit die than fighters so their HP was greater."

"Yeah, but thats just nitpicking wording and isn't productive. In practice Fighters have always always had the highest because I think so and that makes it a basis in reality."


Barbarians existed in 1st edition with a d12 hit die as well.

And quite frankly, mechanical things are a completely different thing from a classes status.
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: