The Great D&D4e poll

[Logomachist]

I was just thinking to myself "People sure have a lot to say about D&D4, but there's no way to tell whether the most vocal people are representative of all RPG.net-ers, or even what the vocal people think, there are so many of them. If only there was some way to poll them to find out what the majority thought."

...



...



...


And then it hit me.

[Pete Whalley]

And then it hit me.

Inspired!

Personally, I'm all for it. Of course, this is largely because my 3.x books will still be there, and just as playable as my 2e and basic books are today. Most of the changes sound pretty cool, although to a certain degree I'm looking forward to 4e less as a new version of my favourite RPG, but as a particularly groovy new game that sounds like bags of fun. Y'know, like Earthdawn, RuneQuest and so...close to D&D, if not actually D&D.

Maybe this is because both my groups are dead set against it, but I'll still be there on release day to snag a copy.

[Caduceus]

Option 4. It isn't out yet. I am very excited, though.

[Dormammu]

Strongly mixed. Very excited about some features, horribly disgusted by others. We'll see!

[Keefe the Thief]

I have fun playing D&D 3.5 as one of my many RPGs, and find most of what i´ve "seen" from 4th edition intriguing. Going to take a look at it if fancy strikes me.

[randar23rhenn]

After spending literally hundreds of dollars on D&D 3.5 it's a pretty simple choice for me: i'm gonna stick with what I know and love and am invested in.

[Skiorht]

Having no attachment to D&D since 1990 or so, I'm pretty excited. If the game delivers a tactically sound and relatively balanced ruleset for "high gamism", I'm all for it.

[Piestrio]

Big thumbs up!

[Ranx]

I am cautiously optimistic.

[ResplendentScorpion]

I think it might just be better than what we've had so far. Hoping despite what I've seen, mostly.:cool:

[brianm]

I'm intrigued, but 3rd edition turned me off, and I don't see anything yet from 4th that's going to change my mind. My gaming will probably remain predominantly a hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition, unless we go True20 all the way, or I break down and actually finish my fantasy heartbreaker.

- Brian

[Wields-Rulebook-Heavily]

I made a promise (to myself for one) that I wouldn't comment on anything until the game is actually out and playable.

I chose option 1 anyway.

[Juriel]

Why is there no 'I adore the changes and see pretty much nothing bad about anything in it' option? YOUR BIASES SHOW, POLL-MAKER! :p

[Mr Jack]

It's interesting that on this poll, and the similar one on ENWorld, we're seeing a big 3:1 lead for those in favour of what they've seen of 4th, but that isn't the impression you'd take from reading the threads on 4th.

[Ithaeur]

It's interesting that on this poll, and the similar one on ENWorld, we're seeing a big 3:1 lead for those in favour of what they've seen of 4th, but that isn't the impression you'd take from reading the threads on 4th.

Well, people who like what they're seeing are less likely to spend five hundred posts convincing everyone else of the same thing...

[Montegris]

Strongly mixed. Very excited about some features, horribly disgusted by others. We'll see!

Exactly my feelings. All mechanics seem to rock on toast. All fluff feels very uninteresting, or downright horrible to me. If it was the other way around, I wouldn´t get 4th ed, but given that the fluff is something I expect to be able to get rid of, I should be all right.

[ResplendentScorpion]

Well, people who like what they're seeing are less likely to spend five hundred posts convincing everyone else of the same thing...
That, and people who are mostly neutral(or even hopeful) may still complain about bits they don't like and things that worry them.

[DigitalMage]

I voted "I'm against it. I dislike it more than I like it. " but that isn't truly reflective of my opinion on the game rules and fluff.

Bascially I bought into D&D 3.5 a couple of years ago because i wanted to own and be familiar with a game that was popular - allowing me to easily find players and be confident of finding games I want to play at conventions.

Basically I won't be picking up 4th edition no matter how great the rules are for one simple reason: I cannot be arsed spending months reading 1000+ pages to run a game. I absolutely abhor the 3 core book model uses and despite buying the 3.5 core books over 2 years ago I am only halfway through the DMG with a dread of reading the MM. I am peculiar in that I must read game books cover to cover and so 4th ed is out.

So my negativity to 4th ed is purely based on the fact that I will want to still play 3.5 but now there will be another split in the player base - no Living games for 3.5 & some D&D scenarios at conventions will now be 4th ed rather than 3.5.

Funnily enough I just ran my first D&D scenario at the weekend, but I still feel that I haven't read enough to DM it easily (I have only just started the magic items chapter in the DMG and still don't quite understand scroll and magic item use). I will finish reading the 3.5 books but have zero interest in 4th ed while it is 3 core books.

If WOTC put out a D&D 4th ed in a single 300 page book that includes some but not all classes, levels 1 to 10 and sample monsters and magic items I would likely have bought it.

[Random Code]

I'm undecided and not particularly bothered to be honest, except from an industry point of view due to how it will/may impact on other systems and RPGs as a whole. I doubt I'll play an actual game of it, simply because I've hardly ever played any version of D&D with the exception of OD&D.

[La Maupin]

So my negativity to 4th ed is purely based on the fact that I will want to still play 3.5 but now there will be another split in the player base - no Living games for 3.5 & some D&D scenarios at conventions will now be 4th ed rather than 3.5.
Hi.

Some? I think you seriously underestimate gamer shinylust. If past is pattern, there will be about a 50-50 split through the 2008 con season (I think WotC decided on a June release because con season starts in earnest in July), 2009 will be about 75% 4th Edition and come 2010 I'd be surprised if there are more than a handful of 3.5 games still being played at cons. Again, assuming past is pattern, which I have no doubt it will be.

Also, check out D&D 4th Edition for Dummies when it hits in July, it may be what you're looking for.

[DigitalMage]

Some? I think you seriously underestimate gamer shinylust. If past is pattern, there will be about a 50-50 split through the 2008 con season (I think WotC decided on a June release because con season starts in earnest in July), 2009 will be about 75% 4th Edition and come 2010 I'd be surprised if there are more than a handful of 3.5 games still being played at cons. Again, assuming past is pattern, which I have no doubt it will be.
Well, I am talking UK convention scene for me, so I am really not sure how it will be. My first convention is Conception at the end of this month and I will be running a D&D 3.5 game there and the last of the Living Greyhawk seems to be happening.

After that, I really don't know.

Also, check out D&D 4th Edition for Dummies when it hits in July, it may be what you're looking for.
I might look at it, but I imagine it will be quite a weightly tome with verbose explanations of concepts I would probably grasp with a concise write up and an example. Basically I have written off D&D4 for me, at cons I will seek out Savage Worlds and RuneQuest if I want a fantasy game. I will run D&D3.5 regardless and still play 3.5 with my home group.

[Zachary The First]

Undecided, until I see a finished product and/or get to play in a demo.

Interesting poll numbers! Here and ENWorld seem pretty solidly in the pro-4e camp! Paizo (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/pollWhatEditionOfDDDoYouCurrentlyExpectToBePlayingAtTheEndOf 2008)and The RPG Site (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8747) lean more towards neutral/negative.

[UglyJimStudly]

Option 4. What's been previewed is such a tiny percentage of the full release that I see no reason to fortify any positions just yet. I'll read it when it comes out, and if it looks good I'll run it. If not, no big deal.

[Mr Jack]

Paizo (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/pollWhatEditionOfDDDoYouCurrentlyExpectToBePlayingAtTheEndOf 2008)and The RPG Site (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8747) lean more towards neutral/negative.

That Paizo link appears not to work?

That The RPG Site is coming down neutral/anti is no great surprise though, is it?

[Moritz]

I haven't really checked out any previews and don't really care.

[Zachary The First]

That Paizo link appears not to work?

That The RPG Site is coming down neutral/anti is no great surprise though, is it?

Yeah, I'm not sure. That's what the copy link gave me. The poll is on the front of the Paizo website, if you're interested.

As for The RPG Site going neutral/anti, I don't know why it would be expected or not.

[blizack]

I'm very optimistic, but still think it's possible that it won't be to my taste.

[Gareman]

The rpgsite poll is pretty old as are Paizo polls I've seen. From what I've gathered, 4E enthusiasm increases closer to the date with the addition of new information. Between Enworld and the two Wizards Presents books, you can get a pretty good feel for what will be in 4E. None of that information would be reflected in a 2006 poll.

[Sangrolu]

That The RPG Site is coming down neutral/anti is no great surprise though, is it?

Considering a slight leaning towards oldtimers there: no, not really.

I am a bit alarmed at the preponderance of 4e kool-aid drinkers here though.

[Lizard]

Three things which make me nervous about 4e:
a)Book of Nine Swords
b)Star Wars Saga Edition
c)RPG.net likes it. :)

[MonsterMash]

Really unsure as I've been a bit too busy to really read all that much about it and I'm very much in the wait and see camp for whether I'd buy it.

[Blackberry]

4e sounds like one of the worst moves ever. They are quite literally undoing every positive step made by 3e. I understand nostalgia for 1e, but I thought old 1e books and Hackmaster took care of that.

[Juriel]

Three things which make me nervous about 4e:
a)Book of Nine Swords
b)Star Wars Saga Edition
c)RPG.net likes it. :)
The first two are what makes me think it's THE AWESOME.

But the last one does indeed worry me, too.

[Skiorht]

But the last one does indeed worry me, too.

Imagine the horror if 4E became the "RPGnet Darling of the Month". All those marketing dollars down the drain...:eek:

[Jim DelRosso]

Three things which make me nervous about 4e:
a)Book of Nine Swords
b)Star Wars Saga Edition
c)RPG.net likes it. :)

Well, RPG.net apparently likes 3.5 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=373911), too. ;)

[Mozart]

4e sounds like one of the worst moves ever. They are quite literally undoing every positive step made by 3e. I understand nostalgia for 1e, but I thought old 1e books and Hackmaster took care of that.

It's hyperbole like that which makes me vote for 4E just to spite the nay sayers.

[sizzle]

4e sounds like one of the worst moves ever. They are quite literally undoing every positive step made by 3e. I understand nostalgia for 1e, but I thought old 1e books and Hackmaster took care of that.

What do you see as 1e-ish? The only thing that comes to mind for me is the exception based monster design. That's certainly a change from the 3e approach, and if you feel strongly that rules based monster design is the way to go, I can see it being viewed as a step backwards, but that's only one element of 4e.

[Blackberry]

What do you see as 1e-ish? The only thing that comes to mind for me is the exception based monster design. That's certainly a change from the 3e approach, and if you feel strongly that rules based monster design is the way to go, I can see it being viewed as a step backwards, but that's only one element of 4e.

Fair enough, but there's also the fact that multiclassing will be restricted or penalized. 3e had multiclassing done almost perfectly; why change it?

[Blackberry]

It's hyperbole like that which makes me vote for 4E just to spite the nay sayers.

It's not hyperbole.

Major steps forward in 3e: balancing races, fixing multiclassing, introducing noncombat skills that were actually useful (unlike 2e noncombat proficiencies), making monsters into playable characters and treating them like everyone else.

Features of 4e: tieflings - which must be evil - as a major PC race, making multiclassing restrictive or impossible, removing noncombat skills as "dead weight", reverting monster stats to 1e form.

Each one of those is directly undoing the previous ones.

[Sangrolu]

Fair enough, but there's also the fact that multiclassing will be restricted or penalized.

Where's that coming from? I remember an early blog post by mearls talking about how they were playtesting mods to make sure that multiclassing always worked.

But then, I was dubious that such rules would meet with much success (work cleanly and unintrusively). I think the solution in 3e is perfectly acceptable and objections to it were only fueled by the Prestige Class Hatah crowd looking for excuses to ding their pet pariah.

[Reverend Keith]

I'd like to cast my vote for "Cautiously optimistic, but not sold on it until I read the book myself", so I picked "undecided".

[blizack]

Features of 4e: tieflings - which must be evil - as a major PC race, making multiclassing restrictive or impossible, removing noncombat skills as "dead weight", reverting monster stats to 1e form.


Unless there was some obscure developer's blog post that I missed somewhere:

Tieflings don't have to be evil.
Multiclassing hasn't been detailed at all yet.
Are noncombat skills gone? I haven't seen that. (Where was this info?)
Monster stats are quite different from 1st edition ones, and while they don't work exactly like characters in every way, a lot of them can be modified heavily, whether that's with classes or otherwise.

[Pillsy]

Features of 4e: tieflings - which must be evil - as a major PC race,
Tieflings are a major PC race, but they certainly aren't required to be evil. Even in 3.5, tieflings are "usually evil", rather than "always evil", and all the information available about 4e tieflings suggests that the tendency towards evil will be even weaker.
making multiclassing restrictive or impossible,
We have no reason to think this has happened.
removing noncombat skills as "dead weight",
They haven't done this. They have consolidated a bunch of narrow skills into broader skills, but frankly the old situation was silly: who would want to be able to hide well, but not move silently well?

Broader skills mean characters will be able to have stronger non-combat roles, not weaker ones, and they'll be able to get access to them with much less fiddling and pointless complication. They've also said they've introduced more elaborate rules for non-combat encounters, including diplomatic ones.
reverting monster stats to 1e form.
OK, this one they actually seem to be doing.

[Tori Bergquist]

I stopped running D&D 3.5 about 14 months ago and will not return to it; the game died from bloat, I feel.

I think 4E is going to take what I liked most out of 3E and couple it with elements I most enjoyed from 1/2E.

I've never been bothered by D&D fluff; if I don't like it, I don't use it; if I had to annex all the Greyhawk garbage from 3E, I don't see any reason I may or may not have to do the same in 4E. But truth to tell, I like the changes they're making so far, and think it will introduce some fresh air to the conceptual architecture of the game, as well as bring it in closer step to the way I'ver been running D&D all along (less focus on alignment, for example, and the downfall of the Great Wheel as an all-pervasive approach to planar adventures).

No, I just don't see how it can go wrong, after a careful review of the "facts" floating around, as well as the preview books.

[Mr Jack]

OK, this one they actually seem to be doing.

They're really not. In 2nd & older, monsters are ad hoc and strongly tied to Hit Dice. In 3rd they have a strict structure modelled on how the players work which leads to overcomplicated and difficult to balance monsters. In 4th, they have a system to build monsters targetted at the end result.

[Juriel]

Fair enough, but there's also the fact that multiclassing will be restricted or penalized. 3e had multiclassing done almost perfectly; why change it?
We have a whole thread about how it isn't perfect... :D

[Tori Bergquist]

Originally Posted by Blackberry
Features of 4e: tieflings - which must be evil - as a major PC race, making multiclassing restrictive or impossible, removing noncombat skills as "dead weight", reverting monster stats to 1e form.

Unless there was some obscure developer's blog post that I missed somewhere:

Tieflings don't have to be evil.
Multiclassing hasn't been detailed at all yet.
Are noncombat skills gone? I haven't seen that. (Where was this info?)
Monster stats are quite different from 1st edition ones, and while they don't work exactly like characters in every way, a lot of them can be modified heavily, whether that's with classes or otherwise.

Boy I can only hope they offer up multiclassing restrictions and easier monster stat blocks and design rules. Crossing my fingers.

Of course, what would be best: the core rules have easy to use and design monster stats. The core rules give the DM plenty of ways to resrict multiclassing according to his campaign. But the rule expansions that will inevitably arrive include books on how to design complex monsters stats for those who want to, and new splat books for players which allow them loads of multiclassing options (that the DM can still veto or restrict if they are campaign-inappropriate). Then we could all be happy.

As for the rest: I doubt the non-combat skills are going away. I'd be very, very surprised if they did. I'll make a bet they don't go away. They might be refined, and with any luck they will be (stealth, instead of Hide and Move Silently, for example; Notice instead of Spot and Search, etc.), but they won't be going away.

Tieflings are not inherently evil, nothing has said as much, and in fact I was under the impression the alignment system is getting overhauled, anyway.

[Mr Jack]

In any case, doesn't 2nd have more non-combat skills than 3rd, anyway? And seperated out so more players take the interesting rather than useful stuff?

[Alcamtar]

Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Kender are all showstoppers for me. They are okay in theory, in some other game, but all three are concepts that do not appeal to me.

They are also not part of the D&D vibe for me... and really that is the bottom line. There are a dozen games out there that are better than D&D in many ways, and even in all ways. If I want lizard men, then it's not D&D and I might as well play GURPS or something. Pretty simple really. The only reason to play D&D with all its warts and kitchen-sink weirdness is for nostalgia and that D&D vibe.

Oh well, I was cautiously excited when it was first announced.

Even if it weren't for the above, my kids don't like what they've heard of 4E so it's kind of a moot point. You gotta play what everyone can agree on...

[Spinachcat]

I ran 3.x and it was a steaming pile of shite. Most uselessly boring unfun RPG I have ever ran or played. 4e sounds like D20 redone right - but I won't know for sure untl I run it a dozen times. Still, WotC worships at the unholy altar of "Balance" so the fun factor may still be a problem.

I don't need 4e to be "My D&D" because I already have "My D&D" with my ever evolving OD&D houserule hybrid.

I could not care about the fluff. If XYZ fits in my homebrew POL, then great. If not, then out it goes. I have zero problem telling my players that Race X or Class Y does not have a place in my game world. I ran AD&D with no monks and good assassins and the weird gods from Judges Guild.

[ENHenry]

What do you see as 1e-ish? The only thing that comes to mind for me is the exception based monster design. That's certainly a change from the 3e approach, and if you feel strongly that rules based monster design is the way to go, I can see it being viewed as a step backwards, but that's only one element of 4e.

The things I see as 1e-ish:

1. Strongly defined class roles (1e had basically fighters, clerics, magic-users, and thieves; 3e got away from this somewhat; 4e has defenders, strikers, leaders, and controllers)

2. The monster design, mentioned above

3. less focus on magic items in the system's design

4. monsters having solid xp values by level and role (as per the James Wyatt talk; 1e had solid xp values, whereas 3E based it on CR of the creature.

5. focus on inches/squares/units instead of feet or yards

I'm not suggesting that 4e is 1E re-hashed or any such nonsense, but it does seem to me that the designers saw a lot of ideas from older editions did work better in some cases, and revisited them to see what could be learned.

[Blackberry]

Tieflings are a major PC race, but they certainly aren't required to be evil. Even in 3.5, tieflings are "usually evil", rather than "always evil", and all the information available about 4e tieflings suggests that the tendency towards evil will be even weaker.

Ah, I only have the 3.0 Monster Manual, not 3.5, and it says that Tieflings are always of evil alignment.

We have no reason to think this has happened.

Isn't there a thread about the fact that multiclassing will be restricted as it was in 1e?

They haven't done this. They have consolidated a bunch of narrow skills into broader skills, but frankly the old situation was silly: who would want to be able to hide well, but not move silently well?

I believe I read on ENWorld or in the "Mike Mearls' Fantasy Heartbreaker" thread that Craft and Profession were being dropped because too many players put points into them and they were "useless in combat".

Broader skills mean characters will be able to have stronger non-combat roles, not weaker ones, and they'll be able to get access to them with much less fiddling and pointless complication. They've also said they've introduced more elaborate rules for non-combat encounters, including diplomatic ones.

Interesting. I'll watch for that one. Still, 4e is nothing that I want to play, but maybe it will give some Burning Wheel flavor to my 3.5e game.

[Rook]

I believe I read on ENWorld or in the "Mike Mearls' Fantasy Heartbreaker" thread that Craft and Profession were being dropped because too many players put points into them and they were "useless in combat".
From what I've heard, they wanted to cull the list of skills down to those that would have a reasonable chance of frequent, meaningful use in a D&D campaign. A number of these are indeed non-combat in nature, but many of them are indeed relevant to adventuring overall. I believe I read on one designers blog that they would be putting in rules for crafting items, but they wouldn't require PCs to pay skill points for them.

I think I agree with this. I would prefer that players be encouraged to take traits and abilities that are primarily for background and flavor freely and simply write them into their description (within reason), rather than having to decide between 'adventuring skills" and "flavor skills". You don't need to pay points in D&D to have a meddling sister, I don't really think you should have to pay points to be a talented chef. If the skill is important enough that the DM thinks that it will come up in play frequently (I would say every other session or so) and meaningfully (not just tossing the poor PC a bone for taking Profession:Tailor), then they can add it onto the skill list with some design on what rolling that skill really means. I have to admit I particularly disliked skill-creep, where the appearance of a skill on a list seemed to indicate that you weren't competent in that activity unless you took it. I remember being dismayed several times when non-weapon proficiencies in 2e would crop up for skills that I always just put in my characters background. Now, all of a sudden, I need to spend NWP points for that?

[Danger Mouse]

Isn't there a thread about the fact that multiclassing will be restricted as it was in 1e?

There really hasn't been much info on multiclassing released yet; the most we have to go on is that there will be a "class training" feat that lets characters gain powers from other classes. Just a couple of months ago someone (I think Mike Mearls) said in his blog that the 4e multiclassing rules have gone through several iterations and they were still looking at different possibilities; my guess is that's why there hasn't been much on multiclassing in the previews so far.

I believe I read on ENWorld or in the "Mike Mearls' Fantasy Heartbreaker" thread that Craft and Profession were being dropped because too many players put points into them and they were "useless in combat".

I'd say "useless in an encounter" instead of "useless in combat", but yeah, they're getting dropped. I'm not too bothered by it; I never liked 3e's Craft rules and in my group Profession only ever got rolled during down-time to see if some money could be made. If you want to play a dude who makes his own weapons or whatever, I think it's easier for the the DM to just say "OK, it takes you X amount of time and Y amount of gold for materials," where X and Y are made up by the DM based on what makes sense to him, than to use 3e's poorly implemented Craft rules.

EDIT: Also, what Rook said.

[DestroyYouAlot]

Enjoying the shit outta 4e; just added three new players to the group.



Ohhh, you meant "D&D" 4e. Yeah, HackMaster's too superior to anything currently branded D&D for me to stray far. But B/X is fun.

[Jack of None]

I'd say "useless in an encounter" instead of "useless in combat", but yeah, they're getting dropped. I'm not too bothered by it; I never liked 3e's Craft rules and in my group Profession only ever got rolled during down-time to see if some money could be made.

Profession actually came up a lot in some weird corner cases in our D&D games -- with no actual 'Sail' skill, our pirates game ended up seeing a lot of people rolling Profession: Sailor, and in that same game I made a high-level character with max ranks in Profession: Gambler that I made a concerted effort to apply the skill in as many situations as humanly (or gnomely, as the case may have been) possible.

I would like to see a 'sail' skill, honestly, but I would be perfectly happy if my max-ranked Profession: Gambler character just had high Thievery or whatever.

[Lizard]

Profession actually came up a lot in some weird corner cases in our D&D games -- with no actual 'Sail' skill, our pirates game ended up seeing a lot of people rolling Profession: Sailor, and in that same game I made a high-level character with max ranks in Profession: Gambler that I made a concerted effort to apply the skill in as many situations as humanly (or gnomely, as the case may have been) possible.

I would like to see a 'sail' skill, honestly, but I would be perfectly happy if my max-ranked Profession: Gambler character just had high Thievery or whatever.

I've been pretty impressed with Spycraft's solution -- you have knowledges appropriate to your skills. So if you have a high Athletics skill, you can make Int-based skill checks for things involving athletics, and, presumably, jobs involving same. Most Craft skills fall under Mechanic, and so on.

It solves the problem I've seen in play of "10 ranks in survival, 0 in Knowledge (Nature)".

"Hey, Ranger Bob! Can we eat that plant?"
(Survival check) "Sure, it's safe!"
"What's it called?"
(0 ranks in K:N) "Beats the crap outta me!"

(I can see cases where this might be realistic, but mostly, it results in oddities best left to OOTS)

[ResplendentScorpion]

I've been pretty impressed with Spycraft's solution -- you have knowledges appropriate to your skills. So if you have a high Athletics skill, you can make Int-based skill checks for things involving athletics, and, presumably, jobs involving same. Most Craft skills fall under Mechanic, and so on.


Hmm, sounds intriguing. Ought to give it a look, given how often Profession and Knowledge checks crop up.

[Mr Jack]

Hmm, sounds intriguing. Ought to give it a look, given how often Profession and Knowledge checks crop up.

Feng Shui has a similar system (which I'm guessing SpyCraft got it from).

[blizack]

Ah, I only have the 3.0 Monster Manual, not 3.5, and it says that Tieflings are always of evil alignment.

The 3.0 Monster Manual must be the only place where they're described that way. They were a PC race in Planescape, wayyy back in the 2nd edition days, and even then you could take any alignment you liked.

[Blackberry]

I guess I really do play D&D differently. I play it like any other RPG.

[Sangrolu]

Feng Shui has a similar system (which I'm guessing SpyCraft got it from).

There was a discussion about spycraft's inspirations a while back; I don't think I saw any of the designer's mention that. I think the idea the way it's implemented bears a bit of resemblance to games that popped up in the 80s with a generic "knowledge" check, with the GURPSish idea of synergies added in.

I think it's pretty easy to see how it evolved independently, especially if you look at how the science skill works in spycraft and how skill checks are all things that are concrete benefits and all "trivia" uses of skills are shucked off to knowledge checks.

Profession actually IS still a skill in Spycraft, but outside of bonuses to related knowledge checks, the only concrete use for it was that it let you rack up reputation (which is basically cash in spycraft.)

[Sangrolu]

The 3.0 Monster Manual must be the only place where they're described that way. They were a PC race in Planescape, wayyy back in the 2nd edition days, and even then you could take any alignment you liked.

Not entirely true. In Planescape 2e, tieflings weren't allowed to be lawful good.

[Krypter]

I'm happy about the rule changes but unhappy about the world/meta-setting changes.

[PaladinCA]

I am completely undecided.

The high level of vitriol and meandering speculation (some founded in known facts and some founded in stuff pulled from cornholes) has done little to get my excitement level stoked. In fact, there has been so much blather about the game since the announcement that I have been turned away from even looking at it.

Yeah, right now I just don't give a crap. :D

[blizack]

Not entirely true. In Planescape 2e, tieflings weren't allowed to be lawful good.

I forgot about that - that might have opened the door to tiefling paladins. Sacrilege! Well, in 2e, anyway.

Thanks for the correction.

[Pillsy]

I guess I really do play D&D differently. I play it like any other RPG.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but the mechanical support for that play style has always been mediocre-to-terrible. From the what we've seen of 4e, it looks like, at worst, the designers are giving with one hand (extended non-combat challenges, et c.) and taking away with the other.

[Mr Jack]

There was a discussion about spycraft's inspirations a while back; I don't think I saw any of the designer's mention that. I think the idea the way it's implemented bears a bit of resemblance to games that popped up in the 80s with a generic "knowledge" check, with the GURPSish idea of synergies added in.

Fair enough. It was a complete assumption on my part :)

[Lizard]

I forgot about that - that might have opened the door to tiefling paladins. Sacrilege! Well, in 2e, anyway.

Thanks for the correction.

Nah, 'cause 2e still had those class/race limits. A half-orc could be LG, but not a Paladin.

[blizack]

Nah, 'cause 2e still had those class/race limits. A half-orc could be LG, but not a Paladin.

Good point again! I remember that, but it did sound like I was saying that if tieflings could be LG, then they could be paladins under 2e. Poor wording on my part.

2e had half-orcs? Were they in a later splatbook or something?

[Monkey King]

I'm happy about the rule changes but unhappy about the world/meta-setting changes.
Pretty much my take. Those details are easy enough to excise, rewrite, or whine at the DM until he lets you play an old-style tiefling. My impression remains optimistic, unless something rules-wise comes along that completely blind-sides me with utter stupidity.

I expect that to be a much more insidious process, skirting along the edges of my perception. It won't be until years down the road before I realize just how stupidly rule X is written. :D

[Novatian]

2e had half-orcs? Were they in a later splatbook or something?

I think they were found in "The Complete Book of Humanoids," which was one of the Player's Handbook Reference books.

One of the things I've wondered about has to do with background. I play Rules Cyclopedia D&D and 2nd edition, as well as C&C and 3.5. So I have a fairly broad taste in the forms of D&D I enjoy... and I'm looking forward to 4e. I won't stop playing the stuff I've been playing to play the newest version, I'll just add it to the pile... which is what I've been doing all along.

I wonder how many of the people looking forward to 4e are in a similar situation: they play one or more versions of out of print D&D and enjoy it, as well as possibly playing 3.5, and are eagerly awaiting yet another variation on the theme of Dungeons & Dragons.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the people who are dreading 4e have only ever played 3.5 (or have played earlier versions but disliked them and don't play them anymore).

[Dagor]

I'll wait and see. I was a bit more interested at first, but the preview articles I've seen haven't done much to stoke my enthusiasm and I find the hype I sometimes see here on both sides of the argument ('We don't know enough yet, but we'll stomp out any doubts about its GREATNESS anyway!' -- 'We don't know enough yet and that's because the designers are scared to admit it SUCKS!'...and yes, this is me shamelessly trying my hand at some hyperbole myself) a bit off-putting.

I'll say this, though: When I get my own hands on the core 4E books for the first look, what I find there had better pull me in right away. Otherwise I may just decide to at least wait for a later printing that hopefully already includes some of the inevitable errata. :)

[mhacdebhandia]

Everything I have heard about Fourth Edition leads me to believe it will be the best and most fun version of Dungeons & Dragons ever published.

So yes, I'm pretty positive.

[Ken Finlayson]

Like mhacdebhandia, I'm feeling good about Fourth Ed. It looks promising. I won't really know if the game is what I want until after reading and playing it in July, but until then, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, because I like what I'm hearing. So I voted option #1.

[Jack of None]

I've been pretty impressed with Spycraft's solution -- you have knowledges appropriate to your skills. So if you have a high Athletics skill, you can make Int-based skill checks for things involving athletics, and, presumably, jobs involving same. Most Craft skills fall under Mechanic, and so on.

It solves the problem I've seen in play of "10 ranks in survival, 0 in Knowledge (Nature)".

"Hey, Ranger Bob! Can we eat that plant?"
(Survival check) "Sure, it's safe!"
"What's it called?"
(0 ranks in K:N) "Beats the crap outta me!"

(I can see cases where this might be realistic, but mostly, it results in oddities best left to OOTS)

That seems to be a good way to handle it.

Although I'm reminded of Ned Land and Conseil from 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas. One of them knew all the properties of the fish, and the other knew all the names and classifications. Between them, they made a fine naturalist :)

[Mozart]

I've got two players in my current Ptolus campaign who are heavily invested in Craft and Profession skills.

The Ranger has a lot of Ranks in Craft: Bow, and makes her own weapons and ammunition, including her own masterwork composite longbow (the work of much downtime across several sessions - now enchanted).

The Sorcerer has a background as a military engineer and has an assortment of engineering and crafting skills to suit. He once used his skills to design and build a collapsible crane to help the party steal a gold statue throuugh a skylight.

I'd say that both of those players are invested in the skills, but they'd both jump at the chance to free up the skill points for more practical adventuring skills and adopt some sort of "assumed knowledge" approach to crafting and profession skills. Hell, if every character had one hobby skill and one background profession skill for free they'd both be more than adequately covered.

[Turloigh]

EDIT: Dang, double post, sorry.

[Turloigh]

Undecided.

There's not enough information to form an intelligent opinion (nor can there possible be until the PHB is actually out).