I think multi-classing actually became more realistic. Now, instead of your character literally being a "Rogue Wizard!", you're suddenly a Rogue with some spellcasting ability. It also means that, if you start as a rogue, you'll never have as much potential arcane power as someone who started from the get-go as a Wizard. In 3.5, you could pick your first level as a rogue and then go Wizard for the next 19, and be equal to a wizard around the same level (or damn close). Made me think about which class I took first a little more, that's for sure.

It also prevents people from taking one level in any given class simply because they want a single ability from the class, and then never touching the class again.

I can understand that feeling, because it looks that way from the PHB, but in practice you really aren't parented at all. It's just that now, if you're a newbie (we had one in our group last night), you're not thrown to the wolves right away. I don't think you've really lost any versatility in the game as a whole: for a quicky example (since this happens to be what I'm looking at on my sheet right now), the fact that there's now only 17 skills allows for a lot of versatility, for the DM especially, as to what those skills do. I think what people also need to keep in mind is that it's very hard to be able to strip 3.5 (and to some extend, 3.0) down from all the supplements and just look at the core books, because all 4th has right now is core books (or maybe it's just hard for me). That may or may not contribute to some of the loss of versatility people are feeling.

I also think there's a lot more versatility in terms of playable races; when I say playable, I'm not just talking about the PHB ones, but also the ones that they give you stats for at the end of the Monster Manual. It seems like WotC actually tried to make a lot of these races playable as PC's this time around, where as in 3.5, a DM would have had to do quite a bit of shoehorning to get some of these to work nice (Goblins weren't exactly a viable race in 3.5; now, they could be).

EDIT: For those that were/are interested, a fillable PDF form of the 4th Edition character sheet can be found here. It's not perfect, but I'm happy it turned out alright. Most of it lines up well, and it's a hell of a lot easier than constantly erasing stuff.

EDIT2: Holyf*ckpaladinsdon'thavealignmentrestrictionsanym ore.
Evil Warforged Paladin goodness heading for Rokrin. *crumples Eladrin Rogue*

You may not like the fact that multiclassing got yanked way way down, but think about it realistically.

Order of the Stick was spot on - it made no sense that a bard at 12th level or thereabouts just could go, "Hm, you know, I'm going to be a wizard now!" And suddenly it was retconned that he'd been looking at Varsuuvius' spellbook for a while and learning how to cast. It gave Elan in a matter of a split-second descision the ability to cast several 1st level spells and a few cantrips even though it took Varsuuvius a hundred years to learn.

Now you just pick up a few talents from the spellcasters. Now that sorcerers don't exist anymore you could just as easily say, hey, you know, the rogue in the party is suddenly developing sorcerous talents.

Multiclassing may be dead but it never really made sense that a character would spend years training in the academy and adventuring only to go out and forage a bit in the wilderness and suddenly he's got twin-sword style.

I've only read a tiny bit, but... well, it kind of annoys me that they more or less force you to abandon your character at level 30. Yes, I KNOW that I'll probably never get that far, and I KNOW that I'll probably be bored of him by then, and I KNOW you have to finish an epic quest first, but... they basically say that once your character's done that epic quest, they're gone from the mortal coil.

Basically, you win so hard that you lose. That bugs me.

Though I really like a lot of the things that they've done with the system, it also seems like they've fallen a bit to fanservice. I mean, Dragonborn are a player race, but not gnomes?

Mirai, please feel free to speak for me from now on, because it comes out better when you say it. :p

One interesting thing that came up in discussion on WotC's chat room was Two-Weapon Fighting things. This was brought up because, although all classes can take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, only Rangers really get an extra attack from dual-wielding; everyone else just get's a tiny attack bonus. Another thing that stemmed off of this was whether or not TWF should be a prerequisite for TW Defense, because [in someone's opinion] you don't need to know how to fight with a weapon to block with it. The counter-point to this from someone else was "if you're going to do that, just buy a dagger and use shield stats and mechanics". I thought it was an interesting debate, especially since TWF was one of the factors in my Eladrin Rogue creation.

I also see someone downloaded my sheet. Good to know one person other than me might get some use out of it. =p

See? SEE!? I knew I wasn't the only one!

Edit: For those who are wondering how I edited in a quote with a post link, you have to do it manually. I think.

Yeah that was me. PDFs are wonderful.

One thing that I love is the two weapon fighting system. It was always ridiculous that shields gave you a plus one bonus, maybe a plus two if it was really big. There was no reason not to pick up TWF and get an extra attack.

And now they handled it really well - Rangers are the only ones whom are specially trained to be able to do anything useful with the second sword. Everyone else just has an easier time attacking. So sexy.
Heh, thanks, but I felt it was a really great example to show Order of the Stick, a comic that started out making fun of obvious jokes about 3.0/3.5 rules. It just does the explaining for you.

That and the multiclassing system is, like, an offense to all the characters that spend their lives learning how to be that class.

EDIT: To be fair Gnomes are probably going to be released later on with the next book once they introduce bards. And Dragonborn is just a part of the "We're controlling the powergaming now, fuckers" that WOTC is using as their philosophy.

Thank you for downloading it. There are some centering issues that bugged me at first, but Acrobat won't pick up all the square fields, so you have to manually input them...and after shitting a cow trying to line up the fields so that everything looks nice, and discovering that the numbers don't end up in the center of the circle, you pretty much just go "Screw it, if they want their numbers centered, they can hit the space bar" and drop it.
I will end up fixing it at some point. Maybe tonight or tomorrow. =p

This is true. It was an interesting debate, to say the least. I didn't even taken TWF as my first feat (Backstabber instead), but I bought a Dagger anyway and now I just say he dual-wields. XD

That was exactly my problem with it, and OotS does do a good job of illustrating the point. If you spent your life learning how to be a fighter, there is no fricking way you learned how to cast cantrips over a week. Not that I know anyone who would multiclass Fighter/Wizard, but that's beside the point.

I'm skeptical on that point, simply because of how they laid out the monster manual for races; while I'm sure new races will be introduced down the line, I think they'll leave gnome in the monster manual. Or else it's going to be identical to the monster manual, and they're just going to tell you what class the Gnomes like the best.

Dragonborn...I dunno. The whole Honor thing, coupled with their scaly heads, tells the geek inside me "Dragonborn (read: Klingon)".


On another note, I've now acquired the Keep of Shadowfang. I've scanned it (because I take my computer everywhere, I don't haul books), but I was wondering if anyone would be interested in ever using something like MapTool and running through some of it. Doesn't even have to be all of it, but I'm sure there's people who want to throw 4E into the arena and see how it comes out.

I can see nothing easier than the later books or Player's Handbook II being released complete with "New Races and New Classes!" that give you a new and improved gnomes.

Despite the sacrifices one would have to make, I can see some use in a Fighter who'd know how to cast a spell or two.

But maybe that's just me... seeing as I have no clue about DnD yet.

That was in reference to the old multiclassing system, but to answer your question-ish-thing, in DnD, armor inhibits your casting ability. As a result, a Fighter wearing something like chain, plate, scale, heavier leathers, etc, wouldn't be a good caster. That being said, you could take spells that do NOT have somatic components, and cast them fine, but there aren't many of those without investing heavily into the Wizard class...now, if you wanted to have your Fighter wear cloth, then you could explore it more.

I haven't looked that far into how armor affects spellcasting in 4E, mostly because I haven't taken a caster class.

Edit:

That would be nice. I'd like it if they seemed more...what's the word here...gnome-y?
I also want Bard back. I love that class.

Oh the really bad part is when the wizard takes a single fighter level which can double his melee combat power and uses that to qualify for a melee caster prestige class levels sooner than was ever intended. Of course I used to play this game too like when I used to take one level of samurai and then several levels of ninja because I wanted ninja powers but I also wanted to qualify for the Iaijutsu class in about half the levels it would take me as a ninja. That and it meant I didn't have to give up a feat to get a weapon proficiency I needed. That while fun generally made absolutely no sense and was way to easy to abuse.

The problem with Fighter/Wizard in 3.5 is that you'd need a decent amount of levels in Wizard to get the spells that are significantly helpful (Cantrips are nice, yes, but I'm looking at pure damage output), and taking those levels in Fighter is generally a better choice, due to the rediculous number of feats and the high BAB.

*Doesn't have his PHB handy* Isn't Enlarge Person not available till 3rd level Wizard? That's the first spell I can think of that a Fighter would want, anyway. And really, the BAB and feats are more important to me >.>

Wizard/Fighter is a good way to qualify for Spellsword.

It would appear that it doesn't.

I'm going to have to check that after...I'm pretty sure you're right, and if that is the case, then a Wizard who takes a heavy armor proficiency is going to dominate the Weekly Battlegrounds.:shifty:

It effects it in exactly the same way it effects the use of any abilities one would use. That is it has a check penalty which is applied to the checks you make when using an ability. Seeing as how magic and melee have been balanced well it all works out in the end. Plus I do believe the classes that are meant to wear heavier armor get abilities to lessen the penalties from it. That and they don't have to waste feats getting proficiencies. A mage for example would need first leather, then hide, then chainmail, then scale proficiencies before being able to take plate.

People are pulling up the ridiculous things that could happen under old multiclassing but again I say that should be the DMs mandate. We've had situations where it made sense to multiclass, far more sense than keeping levels in the old class. I'll just houserule anyway but it seems like options are being reduced.

So the ranger has been confirmed as TWF king now? He was sort of like that in old edition but I was hoping they would completely redesign the ranger and focus far more on his nature abilities. I don't see why the fighter can't learn to fight with Two Weapons. It would seem one can only fight with two weapons if you go and live in the bush which doesn't make any sense to me.

So wait first you complain that the Ranger was too scattered and now you want to dilute the fighter's slightly unfocused abilities with two weapon fighting? The fighter is good as is and it doesn't really make sense for a heavily armored tank to dual wield. He should either be using one very strong very heavy weapon to squash stuff or a lighter one-handed weapon and a shield for extra tanking.

Also, the Ranger living in the bush stuff has been really toned down to basically nothing. He seems a lot more like someone that just wanders around a lot, both in the wild and in urban areas, and learns the ins and outs of fighting on the run in a flurry of steel or with several arrows. He's got a little bit of hunting skill but its not really his purpose. His purpose is using his superior mobility to bring death to his enemies in a series of hit and runs. Two weapon fighting, and its propensity for being quick and used by very agile people, fits a lot better with the ranger then with the fighter.

It's not that a fighter can't take TWF, either. He still gets a bonus to his attack, if I understand correctly. It's just that he doesn't get multiple attacks. I would say for all intents and purposes, the Ranger is better termed Hunter at this point (ouchWoW...), because rather than focusing on skills in the bush or a given environment, he's able to now kill things very efficiently.

It's my bad on the plated wizard, I didn't fully read the requirements for armor proficiencies. Good to see armor does something, though...

BHS, out of random curiosity, have you read the 4E PHB? I ask because if you haven't, then some of the misconceptions/disagreements that are occurring make far more sense.

I've started writing an adventure for 4E now; just trying to work around some mechanics and stuff, so this is really more of a preheat before I start cooking anything. And I made my Warforged Deathknight/Paladin; mayhaps I'll post a build later.

Warforged's a race in the PHB?

What are the races and classes?

No, Warforged is a race in the MM. At the end of MM, it gives you a listing of most of the races that can be played as PC's, and the stats and information you need to do it (a lot more convenient than 3.5 edition. :p). Races and Classes are:

Dragonborn
Dwarf
Eladrin
Elf
Half-Elf
Human
Halfing
Tiefling

Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Warlock
Wizard

I've read the bits that are scattered around the internet but we haven't got any copies here yet.
And the point with me wanting ranger focus was that I wanted him to be made into something wasn't just a fighter who can follow trails.
The fighter in 3.5 ed wasn't the heavily armoured tank but he could be. That role was mostly the cleric. He was unique in that he could adapt with every weapon proficiences and enough feats to go down many fighting trees. The fighter is summarised by fighting not any kind of real fighting.
I just don't see the point of the ranger class now. It could have just been a fighter with a few modifications. And I don't see why the fighter shouldn't be able to get the same benefits from Two-Weapon fighting as a ranger. Couldn't he just learn this style?
In 3.5 ed the only useful thing about the ranger was his TWF or bowness, which was part of the problem with the ranger in that he was just a poor fighter clone who could be outclassed by the fighter at what he does. The two ways to resolve this were to completely redesign the ranger or to make its TWF heaps better and I felt they went the wrong route. A ranger class shouldn't be defined by a fighting style. What does that have to do with being a ranger? Surely that should be about hunting and tracking and stuff, not using two weapons. I think WoTC have got Aragorn too stuck in thier mind.
Really, I would be happy if they just changed the name of the class. To like "Guy with two swords who hunts stuff occasionally but not all that well." Cause I don't see what being a ranger has to do with fighting with two weapons, especially as one of the major class features. Sure you could fight with two weapons if you were a ranger but it's hardly a prerequisite.

When you get a copy, you need to read Ranger in-depth.

Exactly. In 3.5 edition (not so much now), the Fighter didn't really specialize in anything from the get go. For lack of a better simile/metaphor, he was the one who was waiting to learn one of various martial arts, versus the one who already knows Ju-Jitsu (the latter being the ranger, as he was already apt at Two-weapon fighting).

Also, I believe it was the ranger who was able to use his Dexterity bonus instead of his strength bonus for attack rolls, which made him extremely useful (though that may have been the rogue, my 3.5E books are packed).

With all do respect, you haven't really seen the Ranger class at all.

Did you just say that the ranger class shouldn't be defined by a fighting style, and should be about hunting and tracking stuff, and then accuse WotC of having Aragorn stuck in their head? A ranger could take on many different forms. Look at Drizzt Do'Urden: he's able to track things, sure, but the core of his abilities are that of a Warrior. And don't tell me that's because it's based off DnD, because RA Salvatore could've written "and now he becomes a Doohickey of Mielekki" and the outcome would still be the same.

The Ranger can still hunt and track, but it shouldn't be limited to tracking. He should be able to fight with the best of them.

It's not a pre-requisite. In fact, in the sample builds that the 4E PHB offers, it talks more about the archery-related build than the two-weapon fighting one. You automatically get the ability to get an extra attack with a second weapon, sure, but if you're focusing on a ranged build, then you're staying at range. You won't be using it that often anyway. And in 4E especially, the Ranger excels at ranged combat more than the Fighter does, because the Ranger's dex bonus applies to both armor class and his ranged attacks. This applies to a Fighter as well, but if the Fighter is wearing Mail or heavier armor, he doesn't get dexterity added to his AC, and spreading your points when you're setting your ability scores so that he could fight decently at a range leaves him weaker in his main strengths, which are Strength and Constitution.

I will say this, it always seemed incredibly stupid that paladins had to be lawful good. All paladins are is a crusader for a specific god or cause, why couldn't it be an neutral or even evil cause or god? 4E seems to have fixed that, and now I want to play an evil paladin. Of course, the PHB's overwhelming bias for neutrality and good means there really isn't as much info on the evil gods, and that is kinda of irritating.

Also, I love how alignment violations no longer cause the loss of powers for a paladin. If you chose to fuck up, you keep your powers and are punished by your order. IE A good paladin can kill someone in cold blood and not lose their powers, and if they can keep it a secret it is totally ok! Or, since paladin powers are given through spoken rites and not by deities, then a person could theoretically pretend to agree to get the powers then do whatever they want.

Also, that Hunter's Quarry thing is pretty good.

Well for one the twf is hardly a prerequisite to being a 4th ed Ranger. For two Ranger isn't a synonym for hunter nor should it be. It was the major mistake with the 3rd ed Ranger. If anything the 3rd edition ranger should have been called a hunter. I've always thought of a Ranger as more of a light infantry type of fighter. The kind of hardy loner that spends his life wandering the world fighting for himself and relying on agility and speed to win fights. The problem was never the ranger it was the fighter to begin with; as a class the fighter was given way to much versatility in 3rd edition. Plus with the redesign in 4th edition makes that impossible anyway. Of course, that's not to say the ranger does everything with TWF that could possibly be done. There is room for someone that simply stands in one place and uses his weapons to attack and defend evenly or parries with his off hand weapon while attacking with his main hand.

The mistake of thinking that there is only one possible way to fight with two weapons should not be made. There is certainly room for more than one two weapon fighting style. Certainly there are two weapon fighting styles that would be more fitting for a fighter. Like I said before the fighter as a class that can learn basically any fighting style is flawed in and of itself. It should never have been done that way in the first place because it reduced viable class choices and reduced game diversity. Not to mention that while on the basis of pure stats the fighter could come out ahead he lacked anything even remotely useful outside of combat most of the time. Every other class could at least be semi-useful most of the time. The way I see it 3ed fighters should never have existed in the first place and I'm glad they are gone. They, fighters, were horribly bland because they were nothing but a collection of game mechanics and they spread that disease everywhere. I mean talk about not having a class identity (Look at me I can fight is not an identity).

I agree with everything Sithdarth said there, but to expand a little bit on what I think he was talking about when he was discussing multiple TWF styles, you really need to look at the weaponry available. Dual-wielding axes, dagger and sword, dual daggers, dual swords, long and shortsword, axe and swore, axe and pickaxe, pickaxe and dagger...the possibilities for dual-wielding are nearly endless.

I'm glad someone else sees the Ranger class as something other than a goddamn park warden with a pet.

I know. One of my favorite things is that I can have a Warforged paladin that doesn't abide by every law. And the fact that it's gone from being a totally divine, never-do-wrong class to something that can have a darker sect to it makes it a lot more versatile, not only in combat, but also in how you RP the character.

Also, I am severely perturbed by the lack of Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Monk. They have been staples for a while.

Of course, I could deal with the lack of Monk if there was any way to increase the damage of an unarmed strike. I mean, a fighter could probably make a brawler, but there just isn't any martial arts type feats.

Another supplement I guess.

I was kinda angry that the character design seems much more rigid and restricting, but I am starting to lose that feeling. Its not restricting per se, its just restricting in different ways and more free in others that I am not used too.

On the topic of Rangers, I kinda mourn for the spell casting potential, but at the same time they really did run an interesting and frankly quite cool way with the Non-spell casting Ranger variant they put forth in the 3e PHB2.

Also, Half-elves seem kind of sexy with their ability to get any first level at will ability from another class and make it an encounter one.

You hit it on the nose: those classes are coming in a supplement (actually, was Monk ever confirmed as returning?)

You really start to notice how free character design is once you begin a session; it's quite interesting, because now the skills that seem to restrict you (because there's fewer) actually provide you with the ability to do more things than in previous editions.

Yummy Half Elves....it's just a matter of finding a good ability to steal. Like Twin Strike.
>.>
*cough*

Yes monk was confirmed as well as a psionic class and some others. Its right in the phb. Also, it seems a multiclassed half-elf would probably be an awesome ranger fighter cross. I'll have to look into that.

I wonder if they can learn eldritch blast? It is technically an ability gotten through a pact with an outside source, but the Half-elf text does say any.

In the player's handbook there's a specific section that details that they will eventually elaborate on the arcane, divine, and martial power-based sources, and even named shadow, psionics, ki, and nature.

If anyone gets around to making up a build, even just to see how the building aspect works out, they should post it. I'd love to see what other people are doing with the new aspects, and how they're working it.

I also realized how much of a bitch homebrew classes are now: I don't want to rip powers from other classes, which means there are 30 levels worth of powers that eventually need to get made. Holy crappers.

Well, I still think we kinda got a little gipped on the aspect of starter classes.

One more gripe, I don't like the way tieflings look. I prefer the 3rd edition looks, but w/e. Minor gripe if there ever was one.

EDIT: Also, can someone PLEASE explain healing surges to me? I am lost there.

Well I guess if they have redefined the fighter as well the ranger so that the fighter is like the heavy tank and the ranger is the roaming light weight fighter than that's ok because everything described before was just a 3rd ed fighter. I do think they really need to change the names though.
Firstly because those names have heaps of 3rd ed baggage and secondly because they're not very accurate.
Fighter could be any kind of fighter, to me anyway. Not necessarily a heavy dude.
And Ranger is a hodge podge name. It could imply a scoutish kind of role, a wandering type person, a shock trooper, all number of things. The standard definition involves a roving nature on the borders of other. So it maybe works but a name change would work better.
I do like that they are willing to take new routes with all the classes I guess I just wish they went different ones. I guess I'm mostly annoyed because I got a lot of purchase out of the 3.5 ranger abilites and had some really great villains whose personalities were really shaped by the ranger class as it was. Oh well, I'm sure it's for the best.

Dragonborn, Eladrin, Tiefling, where can I see some pictures, since I dont feel like illegally obtaining a 4th Ed book. Also, what is an Eladrin, and I assume Dragonborn are half dragon?

Healing surges are basically daily abilities that you use outside of combat. They regenerate your HP.

I also dislike the Tiefling look for 4E.

I totally agree: Fighter and Ranger both needed some major refinement in 3 and 3.5, but there was also a lot of potential there in the way of NPC's. That being said, I think as a player you'll be very happy with a lot of the character-oriented changes they've made, and as a DM, pleasantly surprised at how well NPC's still work (personally I think they're a little harder to make now with the new power system, but they handle fundamentally better in combat once you're running the adventure).

I think "Warrior" handles Fighter well enough, because that takes him from being a broad term that could include martial artist, to a term that generally means "OHSHATZPLATEKTHXBAI".

Should be able to find some decent pics on the actual website here.

Dragonborn- Basic Descendants of Dragon. They're a lot uglier when they're not wearing that much armor.

I can't find good pictures of Tieflings or Eladrin via google images, but needless to say, Eladrin are like ethereal elves. They're fey. :p

Here are pics.

Eladrin seem to be more typical 3e Elves, while the elves are more like wood variety.

I shall elaborate.

A healing surge is equal to 1/4th of your HP. You get a number of Healing Surges equal to your class's Healing Surges a Day plus constitution. When you're not in combat you can restore yourself using them as much as you'd like. Cleric healing provides you with restoring Healing Surges.

So that way it's not 1d8, which is great for a level 2 wizard but downright useless for a level 20 fighter.

Actually that worries me a bit. One thing I liked about 3.5 was how I could throw an NPC together basically on the spot. Important people I would craft but random henchman in the wilderness outpost that I never expected the players to find (it was on the opposite corner of the globe! Damn my players!) are easy once you've bene playing a while.

A question for those who have a copy of the rules: I've heard the skills have been changed a lot. We play quite a political came with HEAVY use of pretty much all the Cha skills and things. Are these all still in place? I'd be a little concerned if they've been rolled up into one skill because like combat orientated groups will explore all its little niches we have over time found all the different areas that one skill will take you and have quite enjoyed that little aspect.

The skills are as follows

Acrobatics
Arcana
Athletics
Bluff
Diplomacy
Dungeoneering
Endurance
Heal
History
Insight
Intimidate
Nature
Perception
Religion
Stealth
Streetwise
Thievery

The only skill that seems to be rolled up into a single skill would be disarm trap, pickpocket, and the other thieving skills. In fact it looks like they added another CHA skill in the form of Streetwise. But even if they did roll em up, why couldn't you just separate them out again? All the information from 3e is still valid, and 4e still runs on d20s so its not like matching a square block to a round peg.

Even if these are the "rules" one of the major sticking points for a DnD game is that the rules can be changed.

I'm glad that, in the Skills department, WotC took up the suggestion offered by every game in the last five years and made individual skills ball up the entire spectrum of what certain classes do.

I've downloaded the 4e handbooks and I have to say that just about everything in this game just makes me slap my forehead and go, "Oh, man, that's perfect, and it's about time!"

Healing Surges especially. Cure Light restoring a fourth of everyone's hit points regardless of class or level? Moderate curing half? Serious curing three-fourths? Um, yes please.

Now that. That makes sense.
I don't know what'll do to balance but that's not something I'm concerned about. Cause it makes total sense.

I was looking over the character advancement chart and I must say a few things.

1. You now get feats way faster. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 are all feat giving levels for example. Hopefully this will give more niche feats a place on the character sheet in our campaigns. Before very few people took the +2 to whatever skill feats.

2. Stat gains are more generous. the first 2 are at 4th and 8th like usual but then they start to get a little more frequent. Also, you get more than one stat point, and some levels raise all of your stats. I must say I am a little iffy on this one, but maybe it will play out for the better.

3. Constitution doesn't add to your hp as you level? WTF man? Sure you get your HP value+your full con at level one, but Con never comes up again for your hp. Oh and you don't roll for HP anymore, its a set number per level. Ok, I admit I don't like this at all.

Also, I had an idea. (Which I may be ripping off from earlier in the thread, but meh.) Why don't we make a character and post it. That way people who refuse to look at the leak can see how characters look, and we can all get some practice rolling characters up in this edition. (For those of us who haven't already made em anyway.

Feats have been modified heavily. They act alot more like the suppliment books that have been coming out for years, giving you extra bonuses to specialize in the way you fight or cast (IE, "Backstabber" gives you a d8 instead of a d6 for Sneak Attack damage, or "Escape Artist", giving you a bonus 2 to Acrobatics check and escape-grab attempts become minor actions.)

Not all of it is just "+2."

This is one of the things I'm loving the most about this edition. Why do you ask? Well, simple.

Take a 20th level fighter, and give him a bastard sword and full plate. Take a 10th level fighter and give him appropriate level magic equipment.

10th level wins every time. He may not hit as often but his attacks do a fuckload more of damage. And even if he doesn't win outright, he's still a strong competitor.

They gave the defensive/stat/offensive bonuses to make it so the levels mean more than equipment, which is sexy as hell. 3.0/3.5 was easily an equipment-laden game, requiring that you had appropriate level gear otherwise you were either too powerful or too weak.

I wish I could describe how many games that have been ruined in DND because you were given too much gold and dumped it all into a few weapons that allow you to conquer something way more powerful than you.

Hit points - with the system they got now, each character each level has a set number of hit points. Each fighter will have the same hit points as another fighter his level (plus or minus bonuses from feats and such). Instead, Constitution modifier adds to how many Healing Surges he gets. And as you get bonuses to stats, you get even more.

The constitution bonus will judge how long he can keep fighting in a day.

I mean, if you ask me that makes more sense.

Plus, there's no jealousy over the Barbarian who rolled a 12 vs the guy who gets fucked because he rolled a 1.

Getting more ability points to spend as you level is another of the aspects I find almost unspeakably great. No more shifting numbers to and fro to make sure every single of your stats is an even number at the start because you can realistically boost only one ability!

Well this was an area that 3.5 fell down especially because they didn't use the unspoken role that odd number abilities are for feat qualification enough. It was important for a few of them but I still thought that really great feats should have had odd stat abilities prereqs more often just to mess with people.

More stat points is a good change though. Why? Cause it's fun. Everyone loves stat boosts. They just fun.

Like a candy shop for things that make other things burn.

Yay! Someone else thinks we should post builds. Mine'll come up after my damn realtor is done showing my house later.

To whoever was asking about charisma skills (BHS?): I focus heavily on roleplaying and politicals when I play (since my character ends up being the delegate for HR half the time :shifty:), and the new skill system works great. There's still enough skills that you aren't using one check for everything, but few enough that the DM doesn't spend 20 minutes trying to decide if what you need to give the court to prove the politician is guilty is a geography Knowledge check or a religion Knowledge check.

Here a text version off the character sheet that I spent some time putting together. Could be better but that requires text formatting and for some reason you can't upload .rtf files to the forums.

Thread failed its saving throw.