We’ve recently been having some long discussions that essentially started as, “OMG Dungeons and Dragons 4th Ed. is just WoW!!!11!” I was very surprised when I was reading the 4th Ed. preview books I saw an acknowledgement of the influences of recent games like World of Warcraft on the tabletop genre. Dave’s number one response to any complaints about this is that good design elements help games, no matter where they’re taken from. What you have to remember is that WoW definitely isn’t the first MMO game, it definitely did not invent much of the aspects it uses, and the entire genre of MMO games were invented based on ideas presented in MUDs and before that games like D&D.
What I’d like to do now is look at many of the elements which are causing people to think that 4th Edition is just ripping off of WoW, what they will add to the game, and how they existed even before MMO’s started using them.
- Identified Class Roles: Including in the basic rules suggestions that a party include classes which fill basic requirements – Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader. This existed in 3rd Edition, it was simply an implicit factor of the game design and now they are improving the mechanics by including it. You can’t tell me that Challenge Ratings were set up to be balanced for fighting a group of 4 Wizards.
- Tieflings essentially look like Dranei: The Tiefling race has had their devil-like features exaggerated.Tieflings are half-devil humanoids with horns, tails, etc. Dranei are half-demon humanoids with horns, tails, etc. Who ripped off of who now?
- Talent Trees: Classes will have the equivalent of talent trees in addition to feats, etc. D20 Modern and Exalted used Talent Trees before WoW ever came out, but also Diablo used them even before WoW and Blizzard simply re-used a good mechanic. Not to mention the fact that 3rd Edition Feats relied heavily upon the same concept, it was again just implied instead of featured. Good mechanics ARE good mechanics, there’s not much escaping that.
- Racial Feats: Whether you pick Human, Eladrin, or Tiefling there are now racial feats that open up as a character levels which provide unique and racially significant abilities.I suppose a lot of the players complaining about this just love the fact that their 20th level Dwarf can be exactly the same as their 20th level Elf except for a few immunities and vision differences. Dragonborn can gain wings or a breath weapon as they level, humans gain increased versatility, dwarves gain toughness and resistances, and Elves gain speed and agility as they level. These options make the selection of race a bit more interesting, and thus improves character creation and adds to interesting choices throughout gameplay.
- Warlock as a base class: An evil-inclined spell casting class that uses curses, hexes, and high damaging abilities.Clearly WoW invented this concept fresh from their braintrust also. Consider the Sorcerer class was included in the base books for 3rd Edition and essentially stopped most people from ever thinking about playing a Wizard again, I’d say the inclusion of the Warlock is a natural way to include another spellcaster who can fill the damage dealing quota (assuming you lack a Rogue in your party) but also has aspects of the Controller (if you lack a Wizard). It also provides a choice that grants access to different spells and abilities instead of just being a Wizard-redux.
- Fighter as a “tank class”: The Fighter class is now officially in the ‘Defender’ role, with abilities that hinder monster movements and encourage them to attack the warrior (essentially taunt abilities).Yea, because Fighters in any other version of D&D had the same number of hitpoints and the same AC as every other character, and thus were expected to be attacked the same amount as the Wizards and Druids. Also a shock that they’ve now decided to give Fighters skills and abilities which now make them BETTER at doing what they’ve been doing the whole time. The designers have gone out of their way to say that if you want to create a Fighter who does not defend at all and attacks a lot you’re more than welcome, but when the rest of the party is dead you’ll be having quite a lot of fun just playing with yourself.
- “On Hit” effects: Now many weapons and classes (such as Warlord) have abilities and effects that activity on a successful hit.I see no way this can do anything but add to the game of D&D, there is always a huge let down when you’re rolling tons of dice in a combat and when you finally do hit you roll a ‘1’. On hit effects simply make combat more dynamic and make the entire act of rolling dice to hit more interesting. As far as the Warlord, many of his class abilities will be activated on successful hits which not only encourages them to get into combat, but provides the player with various choices once they have hit their target – adding a strong level of interesting tactics to what could otherwise be a boring hack and slash melee. If the only reason you don’t like this mechanic is because it is “stolen from WoW”, then you probably shouldn’t like WoW or anything else that’s been created in the last 10 years.
Many people have been very vocal about the fact that Wizards seems to be simply ripping ideas off from World of Warcraft,many going as far as saying there’s no reason to play D&D in favor of games like WoW. If the ripping off is a factor, than stop playing WoW right now because it is just a bastardized hybrid-spawn of Diablo and Everquest. When someone says that WoW accomplishes everything that D&D does, I just have to laugh thinking about them farming trash mobs for uncommon drops, running the same instance 30 times hoping to get one piece of equipment that will be useless come next expansion, or playing boring as broken rounds of Alterac Valley time and time again to get enough honor to purchase a piece of epic equipment that will ALSO be obsolete in a few months time. Not to mention the fact that the epic quest line they’ve just completed must feel super relevant when the unique monsters they killed repop after 30 seconds, or maybe the quest line is even awesome enough to drop off without any real end in the anticipation of a coming expansion sometime in the next year.
Let’s not forget how expensive D&D is, considering the base books will cost around $100 total and last you for anywhere between 4 and 8 years. How much does a year of World of Warcraft cost? Oh, right…$144 at its cheapest. Per year. Super good!
Next week we’ll discuss the aspects of 4th Edition that have already been announced which will make it a better game than 3rd Edition, oh and let’s not forget better than WoW.
I have managed to complely avoid WoW for sometime now, so I’m not sure of the finer details of the game. But I still just have to say…
Thank you, Bartoneus.
For speaking Truth to Fanboys, that don’t have a memory for anything published more than 5 years ago, I thank you.
For pointing out that just about every idea is borrowed from something else, or at least influenced by previous innovations, I thank you.
For evertime I had to listen to one of my friends say that WoW or MMORPGs in general have made the TableTop RPG obsolete, I thank you.
From the bottom of my heart, Thank you.
Great post! I don’t play WoW myself (as I have an addictive personality and would have no life/wife if I started) but agree that good mechanics should just be viewed as good mechanics wherever they came from.
Most (sensible?) people just realised that WoW didn’t really reinvent or revolutionise the MMO genre, it just picked the best bits and added polish.
They hysteria is a bit overdone, but I think people’s fear that D&D (the grand daddy of them all) borrowing from WoW is going to undermine its unique appeal. I think that nothing in the designers comments should really prompt this worry and that all the conjecture is very premature until we get a set of rules in our hands.
People also point to the D&D Insider monthly fee as “evidence” that the game is becoming an MMO, but D&D Insider is going to be this whole other thing (that’s somewhat vague at this point, but we know you’ll still be able to play D&D at a table without any fees.)
The one I DO agree with, however, is: “Tieflings essentially look like Dranei.”
Tieflings were around before, but had a totally different visual style (executed the best in Planescape by the wonderful DiTerlizzi.) The 4e ones are totally different and really do bear a strong resemblance to Dranei.
I lump the Tiefling issue in with many of the other game mechanics. Blizzard took the idea of the Tiefling and applied a vastly improved visual design to them – creating the Dranei. I think it would be a mistake to not adopt the ideas there and make the Tieflings a more interesting race. Plus it helps them match up to the Dragonborn and provides players with more interesting choices in race.
I would also like to say a big THANK YOU to Bartoneus for putting it all out on the table and saying it like it is. WoW is in no way original. Just look at Warhammer and you can see that Blizzard ripped off Games Workshop before even dreaming about the world of MMOs. Not saying Blizzard is evil or anything, just not original.
Another thing to look at is that there are people out there who will play DnD and be imagining WoW, since that is what they are growing up with. Personally, I grew up the the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon and the Basic box set, but for the newer generations of role players, the WoW visuals and Lord of the Rings movies are their only images in the fantasy genre. If that’s what they picture when they play DnD, then good. Let them play and enjoy. That’s the beauty of the game.
Great, über great article. Very well written. I am both a D&D and WoW fan. I think the main appeal of WoW is that it is a low-energy hobby. And D&D will always be high-energy.
Thanks all of you guys for the complimentary comments!
Yax: I don’t know that I would so easily classify WoW as a low-energy hobby, but it definitely has a lower sense of involvement and complexity than D&D. Some people manage to get QUITE energetic about WoW and while playing it, especially the more intense raids.
I guess I never invested enough time to get to the more intense raids.
Though I agree with most of your points, and I assume you’re just trying to balance the scales after tons of pro-wow commentary, I don’t know that I’d be so quick to state flat-out that D&D is better than WoW. I’m not trying to argue the opposite by any means, but the biggest thing you pointed out, in my mind, in this article is that they are two very different games with some common themes and inspirations.
This is a very interesting topic, though, for sure. From what I’ve read so far about 4th edition, I’m quite excited, and it seems to be making a really great effort to place D&D in its own category, one that can compete in today’s world.
Oh, one other point! A) kudos on using “Super Good” – god, I want more VBs. Secondly: Another company that puts out products that are not “original” is Apple. Yet they take an existing concept and polish it to the point where it becomes the definition of a genre – ipod personal mp3 player, meed WoW mmorpg!
I think I’m feeling what Yax is saying. I’d love to be able to get into D&D, but it does seem to have a much higher initial investment than your average MMO. I wonder how fun a one-off day of adventuring into D&D could be for me. Is there a such thing as a D&D Pick-Up-Game?
One of D&D’s biggest appeals is that it is cost effective. The books will cost you $100 – but only if you want to buy all 3 core books. I have always felt that the Monster Manual was optional for players, so I was able to get by just fine in 3.5 with 2 books, which will cost you ~ $65. And really, unless you are planning on running a game, you only need the PHB, which means you can play D&D for as little as $35.
And the game will last you for years. Pretty good investment, in my book.
I agree with most of what has been written here, but the cost analysis is a little skewed. Time should be figured into the equation… which means the value of D&D vs WoW will change depending on how much time you can spend on either of them. I play both. My friends any I manage to get together to play D&D zero to two times a month. So maybe 10 to 15 times a year. Let’s say 15, and let’s say I spent the $100. $6.67 per session for the first year (and there are enough supplements and other books to buy that the cost stays up year after year). World of Warcraft costs at most $15 per month, or $180 per year. I play WoW at least 3 times a week, or 156 times a year… leading to a cost per session of $1.15 per session. So for what I get in time returns per dollar ends up being FAR greater from WoW.
With all of that said… the two games fill different needs for me. One of them is with friends in person (the preferable situation), but we only manage to schedule it infrequently. The other is with friends online, but we get to talk on voice chat, raid dungeons, laugh, and generally have a good time even though we couldn’t get together in person.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that last part Kevin. D&D and WoW fill two different roles, yet a lot of people continue to senselessly compare them and claim that if D&D has too many similarities to WoW (oops, it always has) that they won’t play D&D and just play WoW instead.
DRAENEI ARE NOT DEMONS!
I agree with most everything…
Kevin – Cost analysis seems a bit skewed…in that case, WoW certainly gives you more time for your money…but if you play D&D more often or just for a longer period of time (almost every Saturday for the past 5 years, in my case), the cost/session goes way down…not just that, but we may also have to compare the quality of the gaming taking place…the essential BANG for one’s buck…
That, could vary depending on what that time is spent doing (farming for items or going on epic raids vs. crappy session interrupted by awesome movie or spectacular session filled with justhe right mix of story-telling, dice-rolling and humor)…
Just saying…neutral ground and such…
Konrad: The Dranei used to be a part of the Eredar race, a sub group of demons as far as Warcraft history goes that swore allegiances to Sargeras and were originally led by Archimonde. They are, at least mostly, Demons.
>Rant Warning<
WOW
I going to look like an inflexible old fart, but I cannot help but strongly disagree. Good games are about balance and playability, not new flash and chance for broader market appeal.
1. Identified class roles: Why? Table top players do not have to contend with the limited mechanics and pathetic AI of MMO games. Most people that have played as a first level mage know that you can still contribute to the group even if you have no useful class skills.
2. Tieflings essentially look like Dranei: Tieflings are plane touched humans that can have any number of strange appearance traits. I have not seen the e4 material… Did they revise the description to say they all look like goofy blue goat people? What would be the point of that? More importantly why are we talking about Tieflings? They are not going to be in the core rules are they?
3. Talent Trees: I have no problem with talent trees. They are what we already had… in a chart.
4. Racial Feats: So what, as my character gets more experienced, he gets more racial? I understand that they are trying to get away from uber level one characters, but again, this is a pen and paper game and as a DM I have always been able to come up with adequate drawbacks for playing the super race. And if I don’t want to deal with it, I tell my players X race is not available as a player. Simple. This would have to be done very delicately to not make the game even more focus on the mighty level.
5. Warlock as a base class: So let me get this strait. Wizards could summon lower planar baddies in AD&D. Then all those spell where removed in 2e. Then they bled it back in a little in 3e (spells back but things you can summon neutered). Now they are going to do a Warlock base class. This strikes me as the new sorcerer. A shiny new pointless class. I love how ever time whoever now owns the IP makes a new edition it all about the shiny new fluff. I’m going to make Chess 2e, where all the pawns can move to any square on the board. Wouldn’t that be cool? No? This frustrates me for another reason. In AD&D there was a very cool class called the assassin. It was removed in 2e because people decided that suggesting people play characters that are evil was a bad thing. Personally I have no problem with it, and I would much rather have the assassin class back then get a new class with a new mechanic that does pretty much what a wizard could do before.
6. Fighter as a “tank class”: Fighters have always been the most durable class. I see no need to pigeon hole them into a defender roll. And I see no need for taunting skills. If you are a fighter and you want to get something’s attention engage your mind and rollplay it.
7. “On Hit” effects: I don’t know enough about this to comment. It does sound pretty video gamish though.
I guess what I am trying to point out is that the MMO genre does not have a lot to offer the rollplaying genre. MMO games are still pretty much in there infancy, and D&D has been around for a long time. It also does not surprise me that WotC would try to move D&D closer to the computer; as they have a track record of doing whatever it takes to make a fast buck.
Oh, and I am also not trying to say that WOW is a bad game. WOW and D&D are like apples and oranges aside from the genre which they both owe to Tolkien.
Sorry about the rant, I don’t know what came over me.
I’m sure some other people might chime in here, but once I’m not at work anymore I’ll actually make another post addressing these and some other comments here.
“Good games are about balance and playability, not new flash and chance for broader market appeal.”
Indeed, which is why they listed balance and playability reasons for many of the design discussions discussed.
“1. Identified class roles: Why?”
These already exist as pointed out: pretty much every party needed a healer. Spelling them out makes it easier to play and DM, and doesn’t detract anything. So it’s mainly to help new players.
“4. Racial Feats: So what, as my character gets more experienced, he gets more racial? I understand that they are trying to get away from uber level one characters,”
That’s not really what the issue is, though it helps with that too. More the intent is to fix there being no real mechanical difference between being a high level Dwarven Fighter and a high level Elven Fighter. I want my character concept to matter at all levels, and be reflected in the rules.
“5. Warlock as a base class: …In AD&D there was a very cool class called the assassin. It was removed in 2e because people decided that suggesting people play characters that are evil was a bad thing.”
You can’t really blame them for trying to fix a past error by a different company, can you? 3e brought back all the evil things (and started using Demon and Devil again too.) Assassins were in 3.x, and they’ll be in 4e as a paragon path.
The Warlock will have abilities that differentiate it from the Wizard for sure. I do agree that conceptually it seems similar to the Sorcerer and would have rather they just kept the Sorcerer name.
Can’t argue your other points since they seem to be personal taste.
Thanks for responding to that, Game…
Saved me a lot of thinking time…
I apologize if my earlier post came off as offensive. After rereading my post I realize I my have some pent up frustration with past revisions of the game (like the qe edition). I have not problem with role definition, I’m just afraid of mechanics made to define roles at the expense of rollplaying. I also hate to hear someone get told to L2P your class just because someone wants to play a fighter armed with daggers. I feel the same way about Racal Feats. If done delicately it is a fine idea. But, if one race ends up blatantly stronger than the others everyone will want to play it (like everyone for a time wanted to play a Drow).
I will hold my tongue about warlocks until the game is released and I can read the final class description. But if it is a person in a robe casting spells that do the same thing as wizard spells only a little bit better I will be disappointed.
Again, I am not trying to be a troll here. All my points are conjecture and opinion as I not seen the final draft of the game.
Nero: you’d have to get a LOT worse to be called a troll here.
The Warlock will be very far from the same thing as a Wizard, helped along by the class roles: the Wizard is defined as a controller – dealing damage spread among multiple targets and effects that hinder groups, generally controlling the overall course of a battle in one fell swoop.
The Warlock is defined as a striker, similar to the Rogue and Ranger, in that it focuses on doing high amounts of damage quickly to a single target. Warlocks will retain the Eldritch blast ability and modifiers from 3.5e, but gain abilities like Curses and other effects which will in general make life harder for a single target (snares, teleports, etc). Also a Warlock’s abilities are enhanced when he is attacking a target that he has cursed, so it’s even more a focused attack kind of class. I promise a post today or tomorrow that starts to talk more about 4th Edition because it seems many people are unfamiliar with the material.
Just remember, we’re dealing with D&D players and not MMO players in the D&D setting…any respectable D&D player wouldn’t let role definition adversely affect role-playing…that may happen with some new players, but they’ll come around one way or another…
I have to tell you…I hate WoW. I play City of Heroes as a MMO is concerned. I’ve been a playing DnD for 29 years and WoW does not do it. There is nothing like siting down with group of friends and gaming for hours. People always want to compare apples and organges, its just like comapring to WoW to DnD. First of all most people on that game are rude, and senseless munchkin gamers. They are not helpful or even willing to tutor a newbie to the game.
We as true table top/imagination immersion gamers are always willing to welcome some into the fold.
I’m gonna hush now cause I really can start a rant about this.
P.S. all of these computer gamers need to shut up. Every MMO out there and Rpg owes its life to DnD…35 years this game has been around…no MMo can say that, no other Rpg for that matter can say that.
“any respectable D&D player wouldn’t let role definition adversely affect role-playing…that may happen with some new players, but they’ll come around one way or another…”
Amen, Rev!
Lol youre all such n00bs! I’ll pwn your a$$es and Ninja youre lootz wit dat new game!
Yeah, tabletop RPGs will always have at least one up over MMO 🙂
🙂
I’m coming in to this a bit late, but to try to tackle your other issues, Nero:
2: Tieflings look like Dranei.
Nope. Tieflings look like this.
I really don’t see the resemblance to Dranei at all.
Also, just because I can link it, Dwarven women got a lot more potentially sexy.
4: Racial feats
This is to keep any one race from being exceptionally better. As such, I don’t think your worry about any race ending up blatantly stronger than the others is really going to be an issue.
6: Fighter as Tank
While you make a good point, mechanics to back up the role are always a plus, especially for new players. And players with bad DMs.
7: On-Hit effects
What, like Vorpal? Flaming? Flaming Burst?
We’ve had these effects for a while. The difference is that they used to be on magic items. Now, more of them are character abilities, and more of them are nonmagical. No real difference, though.
Hmm… I suppose the two links in my comment got it moderated?
Alrighty.
Also, just as a third post here. 🙂
“More importantly why are we talking about Tieflings? They are not going to be in the core rules are they?”
Well, actually, yes they are. Core book, PHB, alongside halflings and dwarves.
People like the concept, and they’re incredibly flavourful. Their backstory has been altered nicely to have their existence make sense (they’re not half demon, but rather demon-cursed humans).
I was unsure at first as well, but I’ve grown to like the idea.
I got it Graham, funny thing is I get an e-mail for comments but not when they go to moderation first.
As far as what you said:
I’ll find some images to illustrate the Dranei-Tiefling comparison. They definitely improved on the visual styles of every race, EXCEPT the halfings which I’m kind of aggrivated about the direction they’ve taken with them.
Races: Remember that in other editions all races were NOT equal, and typically the Effective Class Level adjustment didn’t work to balance things any better. Now they’ve beefed up all of the normal races so that everyone should be on an even playing field.
Thanks, Bartoneus.
As for Dranei/Tiefling, the Tieflings now (across the board) have horns. That’s about the only similarity I see, and Dranei don’t even always have horns. I’d post more reference images, but would get moderated again. So I’ll link you to the art gallery page from Races and Classes instead.
And just to continue my streak of double-posts, I actually like that they’ve made halflings a bit taller. It makes more sense to me.
Also, I was just told yesterday that the only halfling bard in the FR books (possibly the only halfling to have his height listed, but I don’t know that) is 4 feet tall. I can’t confirm this myself, but was told by two diehard FR fans.
About Tieflings: Obviously they’re not exactly the same thing, but the visual style they now have is clearly influenced by the same things that the design of Draenei was. I actually don’t think it’s a bad thing at all, but some people have brought it up as lame justification for D&D ripping off WoW, is the only reason I brought it up.
My big problem with the new look of Halflings is simply that ANY image in the preview books, it looks exactly like a human. The only way you can tell is because it’s labeled “Halfling Fighter”, and that they all have braided hair. I think it’s great to have halflings like this, but they’re going towards excluding the hairy-foot style halfling entirely simply because they can’t envision someone that small/weak being a hero. Yet LoTR was a huge success based around those stumpy guys.
I think it’s very shortsighted when compared to everything else they’ve done for 4th Edition.
>Graham<
2: Tiefling Look like dranei
Sorry, I find the Tiefling change very disappointing. I am a big Planescape fan, so I probably will not be happy with any change to the wonderfully open ended way the Tiefling description was originally done. I can’t help but see locking them in one form as a step backward. And the only reason I can think of that they would do this is to ease the making and sales of miniatures. I have never played with miniatures, and I never will. Also, if they have changed the races appearance and background they should just call them something else. It is disrespectful to the original concept to mangle it so badly.
Dwarf women have always been sexy =)
4: Racial Feats
As I see it, more racial attributes will make racial balance harder, not easier. I am not against this concept as long as it is done intelligently. Which is why I am concerned.
7: On hit effects
The big difference is that with the effects on the items I can control the fantasy level of my game by controlling the availability of magic. I could be over reacting here though as I do not know what these effects will be. Are they released yet?
Thanks for your reply Graham, oh, and what happened to your Red wizard… is he sleeping?
Nero: What they’re doing with racial attributes, as I understand it now, is adding more for the base classes so that they are more on par with the previously more powerful races (such as tiefling, hobgoblin, etc). The purpose of this is to eliminate ECL, thank god.
On Hit Effects: One of the examples is the Warlord has an ability (tentatively titled “Feather Me Yon Oaf!”) that he can use which allows party members to get instant and free ranged attacks against his target. I’m actually not sure this is an on-hit effect, but the way it was written I believe it to be. Also Clerics are supposedly gaining effects that when they hit, the party gains a bonus to healing / instant healing. It’s not so much magic, and you could easily limit the player’s choice of powers as easily as limiting magic items, and it adds a level of dynamic choice to combat which I think will be very fun.
re: Tieflings
to Bartoneus:
I do understand why it was mentioned, and that they (obviously, due to the subject matter) share some stylistic influences. I just believe that the directions each took are pretty significantly different, and don’t believe they actually look like each other at all at this point. That’s really all I wanted to say. 🙂
to Nero:
The one big reason for giving Tieflings a standardised “norm” for their appearance is to help people visualise things. I, too, am a fan of Planescape, but I don’t necessarily believe that Planescape’s method is the only, or even the best, way to do a demon-touched race.
In any case, it’s all just flavour text, so you’re always free to change their appearance however seems best to you. As such, I’m pretty sure this is a minor point.
And yes, Dwarf women always had sexy potential. But now, in addition to drawing them more femininely (new picture, my favourite of the bunch), they’re actually specifying their lack of beards! Hooray!
re: Halflings
Bartoneus: The hairy-footed halfling was gone back in 2e, when the Kender-like halfling was introduced. Hobbits didn’t exist in 3e either.
The thing is, nobody ever had a problem picturing a 2.5-3 foot short, squat, hobbit-type halfling (though, if you look at the LotR movies, they’d be about 3.5 feet anyways, as Gandalf is something like 7 feet tall).
It’s the Kender-like, human-shaped halflings that D&D has had for the past two editions which are hard to picture at 2.5-3 feet.
re: Racial Feats
We’ve actually already had these. Any feat that says “Dwarf only” or “Elf only” in the pre-reqs. Any Prestige Class with the same thing. All of these were attempts at the same thing, but were kind of tacked on.
Most of these came in the “Races of ____” books, near the end of 3.5e. These books were both very well balanced, and very popular.
With this, it’s becoming integrated into the system from the beginning. This means that the system is being built with them in mind. And I can only see this as a good thing, both for flavour and balance.
Do note, as well, that these feats, while being options unique to their respective races, won’t necessarily be any more powerful than standard feats, and won’t be any more powerful than another race’s feats.
(There was an example of a racial feat in the Elf writeup on WotC’s site. I’d link it, but I’m already at my one link for this post. I’ll post again right after this, with the link.)
re: On Hit
Bear in mind that these will be closely tied to the class’s power source. A Fighter, for instance, may have an on-hit power that (when it hits) pushes the target back. Or he may have one that, on a hit, lets him make another attack against a second opponent. Or maybe one that, on a hit, trips or distracts the opponent. All martial, not magical.
A Paladin, on the other hand, will have ones that might cause bonus holy damage. One of the given “Smite” abilities used divine energy to “blind” the enemy, giving the target a penalty to hit the Paladin’s allies (though not the Paladin).
A Warlock, for a different bent, will channel arcane energies. A strike with a Warlock’s scepter/mace/rod/whatever might channel electricity through the weapon and into the target. Or it might teleport the target a short distance. In any case, very arcane-themed.
In all cases, though, in order to limit the fantasy aspect, you’ll want to limit classes. If you want a low-magic game, you shouldn’t have Wizards or Warlocks around. By doing so, you also get rid of the arcane on-hit abilities.
If anything, creating and running low-magic/no-magic games should actually be easier because of this, since classes like Fighter and Rogue have purely Martial powers, and can get along just fine without magical assistance (unlike in 3e, where without magic items you weren’t even close to your normal power level, especially as a Fighter).
Elf:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20071221&pf=true
Racial Feat is at the bottom.
On-Hit abilities: Paladin Smites:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071128&pf=true
Flavourful, “Divine Protector”-themed abilities, which just happen to activate on a successful hit.
By the way, Bartoneus, you can make it email you when a comment is moderated as well, if you want to. It’s in
Options->Discussion->”Email me whenever”
This post is late, I know. Sorry.
Personally, I’d like to see new gamers brought to this hobby of old-school role playing. I play with a group of people in their mid-late thirties, with three of us turning 40 this year. We have one player in his 20s, and I wish we had more.
If a change in the appearance of the Tiefling gives new players a feel for playing a more fantastical (i.e., monstrous humanoid-like) character than a more mundane race, I’m all for it. I think that’s a good thing. The half-orc just didn’t fit well in as wide a variety of classes or character concepts.
And as much as I enjoy playing 3.5e, it can stand a lot of improvement, frankly. I like the direction they’re taking. Sure, you can make the argument that either game draws from the other. Both need to evolve. I don’t see a problem with that for D&D, since my games today are all about how I choose to run them. Don’t like warlocks? Don’t have ’em in your world.
[As an aside: I played a warlock for a year after the class appeared in Complete Arcane, and I found the flavor and feel to be awesomely fun. I applaud its new position as a core class.]
We have one player in his 20s, and I wish we had more.
Don’t worry, we’re around. I’m 24, and my entire group is in our 20s.
Ully: I actually asked some of the Wizards people about their initiatives to attract new players and to bring back lapsed ones because it was fresh in my mind from your post. So thanks for the inspiration!
Our entire group is in their 20’s, many of us getting close to the 30 mark, and I don’t see us stopping anytime soon.
“Our entire group is in their 20’s, many of us getting close to the 30 mark”
Gahh, don’t say that.
to the Draenai in World of WarCraft
They are no demons, and they never were demons
They were Eredar, which was a race with magical ambitions, when Sargeras corrupted them, many became demons, but the Draenai we know never followed this path and are most likly divine fighters, not half demons 🙂
anyway its imho a bit hard to compare D&D with WoW, one is a Computer and one a P&P game, do you also compare birds to fish?
I think its not necessary to say who ripped off from whom, but how the gamesystem works… and i think both have their own Pros & Contras
Long live the D
Joddi
Joddi: I actually called them half-demons, so I suppose I was half-correct. 😛
I consider what the Eredar were as essentially “good demons”, because I’m sure Blizzard developed them as demons and then said ‘hey what if they used to be good guys?’
Nonetheless, their appearance in WoW is clearly inspired by the concept of a half-demon, and it should be clear to anyone reading 4E that the new appearance of the Tiefling is inspired by things like the Dranei from WoW.
do you also compare birds to fish?
Only if they’re flying fish.
Grahams last blog post..Final thoughts after marathon 4e release day events
To my mind the question is not whether WoW (or more broadly, MMORPGs in general) has influence D&D, but whether that is a bad thing. And I don’t think it is.
I think the case can be made that P&P and CRPGs have always cross fertilized each other. They are two different mediums for realizing the same idea: imaginative and usually non-competitive fun.