(A)D&D hardback spines

Say, you’re in a Half Price Books looking at the role-playing games. You’ll probably see some books that look like these. (Clicking it should show you a bigger version.)

(You may want to reference my D&D ID page and the time line in Wikipedia’s “Editions of Dungeons & Dragons” article while reading this.)

The top two represent first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons published by TSR. (Of course, it wasn’t called “first edition” at the time. That came later when second edition was published.) Later books had the orange spine. Some of the early books where later printed with new covers and the orange spine, but the contents are the same.

The third and fourth represent second edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons published by TSR. Again, the fourth one is later books. Some of the earlier books where printed with new covers and spines to match this new trade dress but, again, the contents are the same. Note that the later books lack the handy “2nd Edition” text.

Note that all edition of the game published by TSR are highly compatible.

The fifth spine represents “third edition” Dungeons & Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. Note, again, that there is nothing that explicitly says “third edition” here, although that’s what it is most commonly called.

The sixth spine represents “3.5” Dungeons & Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. The “core” books did say “v.3.5” on the cover, but other books didn’t. Honestly, though, I don’t have enough 3.5 era books to tell you much about distinguishing 3.0 from 3.5. Mainly I do it through knowing pretty much all the 3.0 products, so if I don’t recognize it, it is probably 3.5. ^_^ The good news is that 3.0 and 3.5 are very compatible.

The seventh spine represents “fourth edition” Dungeons & Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

I believe there was only one hardback ever published for “classic D&D”. i.e. The “non-advanced” D&D published by TSR before and parallel with AD&D. That is the Rules Cyclopedia. Everything else for classic D&D was, I believe, saddle-stitched or boxed sets.

Of course, what you really need is a “pocket guide”, but this is what you get. ^_^

I’d love to do something like this for the perfect bound books as well, but I don’t actually have any of them.

Hey, Wizards of the Coast! If you’re reading this, I hope you’ll understand why I don’t think “D&D next” should just say “Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover. Even if I’m playing “D&D next”, I’m going to occasionally see second-hand books, and I’d like it to be easy to tell unambiguously if a book with “D&D” on the cover is intended for the game I’m playing or not. Yeah, yeah, I know. You’re going for the “make it easy to use anything from any edition”, but as a customer, I still want every book to tell me what edition it was originally intended for. I shouldn’t have to have the knowledge of a collector for this. There is zero reason for this confusion to exist. I know everyone at TSR and Wizards thought it made sense at the time to do what they did, but you were wrong. Please, do not contribute to the confusion. Thank you.

D&D Next Classes

From EN World: What We Know About “D&D Next”:

The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition.

Surely someone else has already compiled this list, but since I didn’t find it, I compiled it myself.

Note that many classes appeared first in a supplement for a previous edition. I’m not listing the first appearance of each class. I’m listing its first appearance in Men & Magic or a Players Handbook (first PHB for editions with multiple PHBs).

In the non-advanced line, you had race-classes and the Mystic. Race-classes aren’t included because it seems that D&D next isn’t going that direction. The Mystic, rightly or wrongly, I’m counting as Monk.

AD&D2e had the “specialist wizard” & “specialist priest” which I am also omitting from this list.

• Assassin (1e PHB)
• Barbarian (3e PHB)
• Bard (2e PHB; optional 1e PHB)
• Cleric (0e Men & Magic)
• Druid (1e PHB)
• Fighting-man/Fighter (0e Men & Magic)
• Illusionist (1e PHB)
• Magic-user/Mage/Wizard (0e Men & Magic)
• Monk (1e PHB)
• Paladin (1e PHB)
• Ranger (1e PHB)
• Sorcerer (3e PHB)
• Thief/Rogue (1e PHB; the Holmes Basic Set)
• Warlock (4e PHB)
• Warlord (4e PHB)

For a grand total of 15 classes. Though I think there is the possibility of some of them being combined.

Note that a Psion class was also mentioned in the D&D Experience seminars.

Here they are in roughly chronological order...

• Cleric (0e Men & Magic)
• Fighting-man/Fighter (0e Men & Magic)
• Magic-user/Mage/Wizard (0e Men & Magic)
• Thief/Rogue (1e PHB; the Holmes Basic Set)
• Assassin (1e PHB)
• Druid (1e PHB)
• Illusionist (1e PHB)
• Monk (1e PHB)
• Paladin (1e PHB)
• Ranger (1e PHB)
• Bard (2e PHB; optional 1e PHB)
• Barbarian (3e PHB)
• Sorcerer (3e PHB)
• Warlock (4e PHB)
• Warlord (4e PHB)

D&D (details & divisions)

Mike Mearls has started a new column on the Wizards of the Coast website called “Legends and Lore” to talk about the history of D&D. I think that’s a great idea. From what I know of Mike, I think he’ll do a good job of that. (Personally, I’m going to be very interested in any products Mike produces after he leaves Wizards.)

I’m going to join in criticizing his first installment, however.

Whether you play the original game published in 1974, AD&D in any of its forms, 3rd Edition and its descendents, or 4th Edition, at the end of the day you’re playing D&D.

We’re talking about at least three different games here. Sometimes differences are important and glossing over them helps no one.

This is our game, and it is as healthy, vibrant and important as we make it. The rest is details. Don’t let that details drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together.

Rob Conley has said, “Wizards needs to take leadership.” He’s right. Preaching unity while sowing division rings hollow. I say, if Wizards of the Coast is serious about fostering a community spirit, here’s what they should do:

1. Pull any products that are confusing history.
2. Start teaching history instead of obscuring it.
3. Admit that the marketing of “4th edition” was over-the-line with its attacks on previous editions (including 3rd).
4. Admit that pulling the PDFs from sale had nothing to do with piracy.
5. Make all the old TSR and “3rd edition” products available.

That’s not even leadership. That’s merely acting in good faith and refraining from putting obstacles in the community’s way.

Granted, Mike’s column may be a start on #2, but it will take more than that.

If I were them, I’d do #5 by simply declaring those products to be public domain. After all, they aren’t making any money off of those products anyway. Then the community could simply share what they already having instead of Wizards having to do any work to make the historical artifacts of this hobby widely available both now and for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, if Wizards wanted to make those products available again for sale, I think that would sow some good will among the community as well. Although, at this point, they’ve created competition that is trying to fill that niche as best as they can.

---

And now, according to the Joesky rule, a new monster for Labyrinth Lord:

Flame Salamander Guardbeasts

No. Enc: 1, Align: N, Move: 120’ (40’), AC: 4, HD: 4, Att: 1 bite, Dam: 1d6, Save: F4, Morale: 8, Hoard Class: XX

Flame salamanders often keep these elemental beasts to serve like guard dogs. Like their keepers, these quadrupeds have a lizard-like appearance and give off an intense heat. Those within 10’ take 1d4 points of fire damage per round. Fire-based damage does not harm them. They can detect invisibility to a range of 30’.

Once brought to zero hp, the guardbeast does not die. Instead it transforms into two guardbeasts, each half the size of the original and each having 2 HD. When these are brought to zero hp, they likewise divide into two beasts each one-quarter the size of the original with 1 HD each. When these are bought to zero hp, they (finally) die.

Proof 4e devours souls

El Mahdi on ENWorld charted the 4e adventures on a PowerPoint slide. Since only the soulless are able to use PowerPoint, 4e must have devoured his soul. QED ^_^

(Of course, I only “keed”. For all I know, El Mahdi has never played 4e, and it was a management position that devoured his soul.)

^_^

The D&D “sweet spot”

One of the things that Wizards’ “fourth edition” of Dungeons & Dragons was meant to do is expand the “sweet spot”. It was felt that the experience of “third edition” in the middle of the characters’ careers was clearly superior to the experience at lower or higher levels. “Fourth edition” would reshape the lower and higher levels to play the same as this “sweet spot”.

I think, however, that one of the things that made D&D successful was the stages that the characters moved through. That the experience changed rather than staying the same. That’s exactly what kept many people playing D&D instead of many of the other later games.

And really, why bother with levels if you want this static experience game? For that matter, if you like the “sweet spot” of “third edition”, why not just play it and stay in that spot?

And if there were problems with the areas of “third edition” outside of the “sweet spot”, perhaps making them both unique and better would be a better fix than extending the “sweet spot”.

D&D 4e—rhetorical questions

Would I like Wizards of the Coast’s Dungeons & Dragons “fourth edition” better if...

...there were more utility powers and rituals and fewer combat powers?

...utility powers and combat powers weren’t “silo’d” so that I could choose the mix of them that I want?

...if PC’s had access to all the powers of their class and level?

Per X abilities

I promised some good points about Wizards of the Coast’s Dungeons & Dragons “fourth edition”.

I like the basic idea of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities.

I’ve written before about the fact that per-X abilities can simply and abstractly simulate the fact that some abilities or “special moves” require specific circumstances. If you don’t like simple and abstract, then that’s bad. But I currently prefer simple and abstract.

Another good thing about many 4e abilities is that they have an alternate effect even when the player fails the die roll. ExploderWizard on ENWorld suggested that all per-X abilities should either work automatically (without a die roll) or an alternate effect if the roll fails. I definitely like that idea.

I think there should also be a general rule for getting to re-use a per-X ability. Like spending some sort of “meta-point”. 4e has some specific rules for this but not a general one.

P.S. Another thing about per-X abilities is that when abilities aren’t perfectly balanced (always the case, but can differ based on circumstance) one doesn’t get repeatedly used to the exclusion of the others.

McD&D

4e sort of feels like a McD&D to me.

—Rach

D&D 4th edition, second impressions

I know I promised to post about things I liked about 4e, but I’ve got some more dislikes first.

Second wind My general philosophy is that players don’t need to know the rules. They just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and it’s up to the DM to translate that into mechanics and then translate the results back into plain terms. This is an ideal that we perhaps can’t actually fully make it to, but I’d rather move towards it rather than away.

Second wind is not an action a player would ever think of his character wanting to take unless the player knew about the rule. Well, maybe. “I spend this turn catching my breath.” But you get the point, right?

Healing surges These seem like a completely unnecessary extra layer of abstraction on top of hit points.

The 15 minute adventuring day One of the things 4e sought to fix was that adventuring parties would often stop to take a full 8-hour rest and replenish “per day” resources. This didn’t seem to work, since our party did the same thing.

Too many subsystems? Powers, feats, skills, and rituals. Does the system really need and make the most of these subsystems? Feats in particular seem a bit redundant now that there are powers.

Unreliable magic One of the things I really liked about D&D is that magic spells tend to just work. Yeah, if a spell is cast on a creature, it might get a saving throw or magic resistance. And yeah, more and more spells that didn’t allow saving throws would in a new edition. Now, however, most spells are essentially attack rolls. I didn’t like having to roll to cast spells in any of the non-D&D RPGs I’ve played. I don’t like doing it in 4e either.

RPG development and releases

So, with D&D “fourth edition”, Wizards is planning on putting out a new Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual each year. These will be expansions rather than replacements. They’re considering them, however, “core” rather than supplements.

The distinction is a bit subtle. They typically avoid using a lot of stuff from supplements in adventures, preferring to stick to the core rules. Also, calling these expansions “core” make it easier for them to choose to delay certain things—e.g. gnomes, half-orcs, and druids—that they would normally consider something that should be “core”.

As I said, the distinction is subtle.

I actually think, to some extent, this isn’t a bad idea. It is quite a task to develop a game as involved and with the scope of Wizards’ brand of D&D. It seems daunting and risky to try to fully develop and playtest it before releasing anything.

They did test some parts of “fourth edition” as “third edition” supplements and in the Saga edition of their Star Wars RPG. But I’ll put that aside for now.

I think, however, that I'd go a more classic D&D BECMI→RC path.

The quick explanation: Classic D&D was released in a series of boxed sets: Beginner, Expert, Companion, Master, & Immortal. These were later compiled into a single Rules Cyclopedia.

The first year books would’ve been the Heroic PHB, Heroic DMG, and Heroic MM. They would cover only levels 1–10. (Which “fourth edition” calls the “heroic tier”.) In exchange, they would’ve covered more classes and races.

The second year would see the Paragon versions of the three core books. The third year, the Epic versions.

Then, once the game is fully developed, the fourth year would see all three tiers compiled into the Complete PHB, Complete DMG, & Complete MM triple along with errata and any other fixes that developed over the years.

I think it would be easier to develop and test more classes/races over a single tier than fewer classes/races over all three tiers.

D&D 4th edition, 1st impressions

Played in my first Dungeons & Dragons “fourth edition” session Saturday.

“Blasting people with magical energy”

My first level Wizard, Tothamon, can launch silvery bolts of force, engulf his foes in a column of flames, and create a whip-crack of sonic power that lashes up from the ground. He can do one of these things every six seconds. Once an encounter, he can hurl an force-grenade.

Note that my other choices for these four powers were pretty much the same sort of things. This is exactly what I was afraid Andy Collin’s statement—“Being a wizard is about blasting people with magical energy”—meant.

He can cast a sleep spell once a day, and he has some nifty minor (non-combat) cantrips, and he has a couple of (non-combat) ritual spells. But he doesn’t get any “utility” spells until second level!

This is not what I think of when I think “wizard”. This is not what I think of when I think “D&D magic-user”. You cannot create a wizard by these rules who doesn’t have at least three “blasty” powers at first level.

That’s fine. I’ll enjoy it. “When in Rome.” But if you wonder why I might choose to play an older edition of D&D sometimes—if you wonder why I say “it’s not just a new edition, it’s a new game”—there’s at least one reason why.

“And when everyone’s super, no one will be.”

After looking at the rules, I said, “everyone’s a spell-caster”. After playing a session, I’d refine that.

Where playing a fighter or a magic-user used to be two very different experiences, now they are very, very similar. It’s not just that playing a fighter is now more like playing a wizard. It’s also that playing a wizard is more like playing a fighter. The engineer part of me loves it. The gamer part of me isn’t so sure.

This really has me rethinking some of my own homebrew system ideas and some of the systems I was looking forward to trying.

“If you can’t say something nice...”

There are definitely some things I like about the system too. I’ll try to post some about those things too.

4e races

The player-character races in (original) D&D suggested a Tolkienesque world.

AD&D added gnomes (more generic fantasy—perhaps), half-elves (more Tolkien), and half-orcs (more Tolkien).

D&D “third edition”: Same as AD&D. By this time, however, the influence of D&D has made that set somewhat generic fantasy itself.

D&D “fourth edition”: Dragonborn, Eladrin†, and Tieflings are added. (Gnomes and half-orcs are saved for later supplements.) This game suggests a world of its own.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Is it better to have the core books stick with tradition and save the other races for supplments? Is it better to put races in the core books that best exemplify the mechanics of the new game? Is it better to present a default setting and choose the races for the core books accordingly?

I don’t know.

†Squint and they look like elves, so you could say they aren’t new.

ENWorld: What is wrong with 4E?

Skills, feats, spells and so on were described in terms of what they did in the game world. The mechanics of how they worked within the rules was secondary.

—ENWorld: What is wrong with 4E?

I’m not sure that comparison is fair. Older editions had plenty of mechanics that didn’t seem justified in-game.

I do think it is a fair expectation about what a role-playing game ought to provide.

Except for a game like Risus, where the mechanics are intentionally very abstract. Translating between the abstract mechanics and specifics in the game world is—to an extent—what such games are all about.

Adventures in Gaming: 4pocalypse Not

with 4E they are doing exactly what they need to do to appeal to the new generation of gamers

—Adventures in Gaming: 4pocalypse Not

I’m not convinced of that.

New game, old name

It’s ironic that fans of older editions of D&D have to come up with new names...

• OSRIC (c. 1978 AD&D)
• Labyrinth Lord (c. 1981 D&D)
• Pathfinder (c. 2000 D&D)

...while the new game keeps the old name.

Yeah, I’ve got the 4e PHB. I haven’t had a lot of time to spend with it yet. My impressions so far—which my friend Don tells me is holding true as he reads the PHB and DMG—is that it may be a good game, but it is a very different game.)

How else are they going to make money?

Given that the main reason TSR/Wizards puts out new editions of D&D is economic (I mean, how else are they going to make money?)

—ENWorld—[Pseudo-rant] If you don’t like 4e, don’t play it (and quit complaining! ;)

How else are they going to make money? Hmm. I dunno...maybe...

• Publish supplements for D&D
• Publish other role-playing games
• Make new miniatures
• Publish a new miniatures game
• Publish a new expansion of a trading card game
• Publish a new trading card game
• Licensing the D&D brand
• Selling PDFs and reprints of out-of-print TSR and Wizards of the Coast products
• Publish new board games
• Reprint classic Avalon Hill board games
• Publish novels

And that’s not even touching on the vast number of ways Hasbro as a whole can make money. e.g. Continue to print Monopoly

In fact, they’re doing most of those things. I don’t think any executive at Wizards green-lighted a new edition of D&D because they couldn’t think of any other way to make money.

When reading D&D “4th edition”...

Perhaps few things drive role-playing grognards nuts as much as someone looking at an older game and seeing only the rules. Like many games, role-playing games are often more than just the rules.

So to my grognard friends—when you read the D&D “fourth edition”† books—I think this is an important point to keep in mind.

Not that I’m saying you have to like it or anything. I’m just saying: Try not to make the same mistakes in critiquing it that you would fault in someone else’s critique of your favorite game.

†I am, of course, speaking about the “4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game” that is being released next week—not the original D&D Fourth Edition from 1983.

D&D 4th Edition Multiclassing

4th Edition Excerpts: Multiclassing...

The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:

1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible.

Interesting. I think these would be my goals for a multiclass design...

1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them
2. Enable multiclassing for the occasional unusual character or twist of fate
3. Ensure that multiclass characters don’t outshine single class characters
4. Don’t worry about making any multiclass option playable or attractive

Pathfinder RPG

Pathfinder RPG: “Today marks the beginning of a year-long Open Playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License.”

The really odd thing here is that the company doing a minor revision to the D&D 3.5 rules are doing a year-long open playtest while the company that is doing a major revision did a six-month closed playtest.

(Yeah, yeah. Wizards of the Coast playtested 4e in-house longer than that. (In-house playtesting is not playtesting.) And they’re using concepts that were tested via 3.5e supplements. (Testing a concept is not the same as testing a specific implementation of that concept in the context of an entire system.))

I actually had a draft post about how, if I were Wizards, I would do inexpensive, low-production value preview versions of the rules and not put out a fancy hardback version until the system had been widely played and stablized.

Mearls plays original D&D

Mike Mearls—lead developer of Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons—posted about his experience playing the original D&D recently.

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs.

— Original D&D Discussion - Kardallin's Palace, Session 1, 2/15/08

See! Those of us who think they are different games are not insane, overly nostalgic, crotchety grognards, or such.

Well...OK...we may be all of those things, but that’s not why we think the ancient and modern editions are different enough to be considered different games. We think that because it’s true!

A lot of the fun parts of the session (the talking skull; the undead and their bargain) were possible under any edition of D&D. However, I think that OD&D’s open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking “What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?” rather than “What’s the logical thing to do according to the rules?”

Exactly! This is the thing I’ve been trying to get at myself. As much as I enjoy mastering a complex set of rules, that’s not what I want in a role-playing game. Besides, when it’s about playing the rules, most people at the table end up not having as much fun—in my experience—as a few people at the table. When it’s about playing the role rather than playing the rules, the game becomes more enjoyable for everyone at the table.