The End of 4e D&D.

[Username17]

Ah. Yes, the 3e material included errata in later printings. The second printing of Defenders of the Faith is actually very different in a lot of key ways. As far as I know, that shit ended in 2003. I personally have never seen a copy of the 3.5 PHB that gave Rogue's their Sap proficiency.

Interestingly, I cannot find anyone anywhere mentioning that they have a third printing 4e PHB. The second printings were supposedly drawn up before 4e even had a release day (Pathfinder did the same thing, in both cases so they could announce a "sell out" on preorders alone). But if the 3d printing of the 4e PHB ever happened or ever contained any errata, I can find no mention of it on the internets or amongst anyone I know.

-Username17

[Username17]

OK... PHB1s can't be backordered anymore apparently, and every single copy at local game stores is still a first printing.

Does anyone anywhere have any direct evidence of there being any second printing PHB1s for 4th edition? I don't mean the little thing where Slavicsek and Rouse said they existed, I mean seriously has anyone ever seen one?

There appear to be zero discussions online involving anyone having a second or third printing or comparing a second or third printing of 4e D&D to a previous printing. Anywhere. It's really looking like the only 4e book that got a reprint at any point is the PHB2. What the fucking hell?

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Another Essentials preview.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Another Essentials preview.

I love the marketing speak. How can anyone take superfluous "moving forward"s seriously?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Um. Wow. So they wanted to remove the one real selling point of 4th Edition (4E fighters get to do sooooooo much more than 3E fighters!) and then kick it back oldschool so that fighters mainly use basic attacks?

I mean, if the auras and stances were something substantial that would be one thing, but they're just fucking minor bonuses from what we see so far. Fighters don't even get a separate 'pinch hitter' attack anymore, their preview attack is just raw, filthy damage.

I don't see how anyone can see this as anything other than Bill flailing about while desperately trying to avoid getting fired with the rest of the clowns. They can't even keep their own talking points straight and they're eliminating what few advantages (perceived or not) the system has.

[Archmage]

So they wanted to remove the one real selling point of 4th Edition (4E fighters get to do sooooooo much more than 3E fighters!) and then kick it back oldschool so that fighters mainly use basic attacks?

This pretty much is their goal at this point, yes. There have been statements made about how in 4th edition "every class is equally complicated to play" or whatever and that there are hypothetical players in search of a simpler alternative. Or that the game requires a number of classes that fall in different places along some spectrum of "play difficulty."

Recall the admittedly stupid arguments of shadzar when he claimed that he knew lots of people who were annoyed that they couldn't just play "a simple fighter" in 4e or whatever.

Maybe there really is an audience for a character who does nothing but close to melee and swing a weapon every round.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Maybe there really is an audience for a character who does nothing but close to melee and swing a weapon every round.

... then they should play 3rd Edition D&D?

[Archmage]

... then they should play 3rd Edition D&D?

A) WotC doesn't make any money off that, and

B) You have to make choices in 3.5e, like Feats. IT'S TOO HARD.

[ScottS]

Does anyone anywhere have any direct evidence of there being any second printing PHB1s for 4th edition?

There was the "there was so much pre-order demand that we had to do a 2nd run on the initial printing" announcement (May 08); and there was also the Deluxe/foil-back/hologram/whatever PHB in Oct 08 (which included errata and came out with the comment "future PHB printings will also include current errata"). Was there ever specifically a "we completely sold all our PHB1's, therefore we need to print more" statement at some point?

[Username17]

Does anyone anywhere have any direct evidence of there being any second printing PHB1s for 4th edition?

There was the "there was so much pre-order demand that we had to do a 2nd run on the initial printing" announcement (May 08); and there was also the Deluxe/foil-back/hologram/whatever PHB in Oct 08 (which included errata and came out with the comment "future PHB printings will also include current errata"). Was there ever specifically a "we completely sold all our PHB1's, therefore we need to print more" statement at some point?

In August of 08 Bill Slavicsek says that they are "well into" their "third printing" of the core books.

But not only can I not find any evidence anywhere of there actually being any third printing PHBs, I can't find any evidence of there even being any second printing PHBs. Like, seriously the last orders to be filled from distributors (literally the last, since you currently can't order any more) were first printings.

-Username17

[DragonChild]

But not only can I not find any evidence anywhere of there actually being any third printing PHBs, I can't find any evidence of there even being any second printing PHBs. Like, seriously the last orders to be filled from distributors (literally the last, since you currently can't order any more) were first printings.

Were the PHB1+PHB2 double packs the second printing of the PHB1s, or just old warehouse stock?

[Username17]

But not only can I not find any evidence anywhere of there actually being any third printing PHBs, I can't find any evidence of there even being any second printing PHBs. Like, seriously the last orders to be filled from distributors (literally the last, since you currently can't order any more) were first printings.

Were the PHB1+PHB2 double packs the second printing of the PHB1s, or just old warehouse stock?

You're talking about These, right?

As far as I know, neither of the books in the set are revised. I don't think they constitute a new printing of the books themselves, or at least not a revised printing.

Those were First Printing PHBs from backstock and had no errata in them. Basically, WotC seems to have way overestimated how many people wanted 4th edition PHBs, and the first printing left them with a huge pile of unsold material.

What I want to know is what the hell they are talking about with these supposed 2nd and third printings. As near as I can tell, they don't really exist.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

That said, I think that scene-long stances and auras done as At-Wills are actually a pretty good idea.

They're a nice way to do buffs without getting in the problem of combining a bunch of them and forming Voltron. Or doing the Winds of Fate thing and not having a 'take on the horde' buff when you need it. Or having to restrict how many powers people get in the first place.

I don't particularly care for how 4E did their stances, because for the most part stances/polymorph/auras/etc. were for the most part the best powers of their level. This isn't anything wrong with the idea or even how they implemented it, but how the rest of the game worked. Combat lasted too damn long (1), so a stance of 'add your wisdom bonus to damage' is BETTER for most characters than a daily attack that did an extra three weapon die of damage and some ongoing damage (2). The fact that you could only have one stance activated at a time was a limitation, but the problem was that there were more encounters in a workday than daily powers (3). Ironically, characters built according to a 15-minute workday concept ended up being more interesting than those built for the long haul.



So D&D Essentials had the right idea of making stances At-Will. I just wish the stances were then something interesting that people would give a fuck about. Something like the Shock Trooper / Sun School / Elusive Target feats from Complete Warrior. But hey, baby steps.

[hogarth]

OK... PHB1s can't be backordered anymore apparently, and every single copy at local game stores is still a first printing.

Interesting. I was browsing through a bookstore today, and the copy of the 4E PHB1 they had one sale claimed to be a first printing as well.

[Doom]

I find stances to be pretty mindless, though. They dovetail with the 'everything always works' paradigm to the point that there's no real strategy involved with them.

I mean, if they had a 'minor to sustain' penalty or something to them, then at least the monsters could consider doing something to counter it (a slight chance in most fights, of course...but something). As it is, it's just another "I win" button, writ small or large depending on the stance.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I mean, if they had a 'minor to sustain' penalty or something to them, then at least the monsters could consider doing something to counter it (a slight chance in most fights, of course...but something). As it is, it's just another "I win" button, writ small or large depending on the stance.

What's your opinion of magical swords, feats, and class features then? I mean, they operate on pretty much the same principle.

I prefer stances because they can potentially compact a lot of abilities without turning it into a 'Cleric pwns all' situation where they pwn because of getting a grab-bag of minor bonuses. This of course means getting rid of stances that do bullshit like 'deal an automatic 8 damage a round to an adjacent foe' or 'deal an extra -2 penalty to enemies you mark' and making stances more like 'You have access to the Sun School feat from Complete Warrior'.

[Psychic Robot]

This of course means getting rid of stances that do bullshit like 'deal an automatic 8 damage a round to an adjacent foe' or 'deal an extra -2 penalty to enemies you mark' and making stances more like 'You have access to the Sun School feat from Complete Warrior'.

But this won't ever happen.

[TOZ]

Checked the PHBs at my local Barnes and Noble, and they all say 'First Printing 2008'. What would it say on second printing? Would they even bother stating it is the second printing if nothing was changed?

[RandomCasualty2]

I find stances to be pretty mindless, though. They dovetail with the 'everything always works' paradigm to the point that there's no real strategy involved with them.

Well that's the problem with 4E in the first place.

[Doom]

What's your opinion of magical swords, feats, and class features then? I mean, they operate on pretty much the same principle.

These things are built into the character, as much a part as "strength 16". I can design for that.

But if I build an encounter not expecting the stance to be used, it becomes an irrelevant encounter if the stance is used (I'm using Boundless Endurance as an example, although I've seen it with other stances). An "I win" button.

If I build an encounter expecting the stance to be used (very tough, pure theory here, since a stance won't affect the other players for the most part), I might well be off the scale if the player, for whatever reason, decides not to use the stance.

In the former case, there's nothing I can do on the fly to make things relevant; in the latter, I have to sit around and hope the player figures it out soon.

I prefer stances because they can potentially compact a lot of abilities without turning it into a 'Cleric pwns all' situation where they pwn because of getting a grab-bag of minor bonuses. This of course means getting rid of stances that do bullshit like 'deal an automatic 8 damage a round to an adjacent foe' or 'deal an extra -2 penalty to enemies you mark' and making stances more like 'You have access to the Sun School feat from Complete Warrior'.

See, now the autodamage totally nukes any minion encounter; the extra penalty totally nukes any 'concentrate fire' encounter, and there's nothing I can do about it (ok, the latter, might have a few options).

An extra feat might not be much...but I'd just like a stance not to be an 'autoalwaysnostoppie' thing, so that even if it is the perfect stance for an encounter, it's not necessarily an auto-win.

[Username17]

Speaking of the new Fighter for a moment, the Knight's Aura doesn't stack with marking, but it doesn't say that it doesn't stack with itself. If you just had five Knights in a pile as your team, wouldn't all solo encounters become basically meaningless? Just turn on your Fighter Glow, surround the enemy dragon, and beat on it with basic attacks until you win. Any single target attack is going to be at -8 to-hit. Hydras can suck your giant metal nuts.

It would be even more boring than a Knights of the Round paladin party, but it looks like it would be if anything even more effective.

-Username17

[sake]

. Any single target attack is going to be at -8 to-hit. Hydras can suck your giant metal nuts.

*shrug* You can already do that or at least close to that now in 4E: The Public Beta Edition. My current group has a cunning bard and a whip using paladin in it, and when they feel like it, they can reduce a single monster's attack down into the all but automiss range.

Hell, we're fighting something that should,by all rights, be a TPK (a lv 10 solo controller purple dragon that our DM actually doubled the HP's of. And we're a level 6 group with no controller) but we're beating it down pretty easily, granted it took an entire sesson just to grind it down to bloody, but we're slowly handing it it's ass just because of the bard and pally stacking hit penalties on it.

And yeah... we're not letting him dm for awhile after this story is over.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If I build an encounter expecting the stance to be used (very tough, pure theory here, since a stance won't affect the other players for the most part), I might well be off the scale if the player, for whatever reason, decides not to use the stance.

In the former case, there's nothing I can do on the fly to make things relevant; in the latter, I have to sit around and hope the player figures it out soon.

Again, what's your opinion on magical items?

What if for whatever reason an encounter you designed around the player using a Hackmaster +12, but they decided that they wanted to be a damn monk and fight with their fists?

You can't balance encounters towards people doing stupid things. Don't even bother. Balance them around people being mostly rational and at the very least doing what the system tells them to do.

Also, if the system did its job right, you should not have to worry at all about what happens if a player picks a 'wrong' power/stance/item for an encounter. That kind of micromanagement brought down D&D. As long as the abilities are roughly equivalent in aggregate it really doesn't matter if the player decided to use the Shock Trooper stance over the Elusive Target stance. In fact if you try to balance your encounter on the expectation that a player will use the ET stance specifically then you're in fact fucking up balancing the encounter.

[Username17]

Checked the PHBs at my local Barnes and Noble, and they all say 'First Printing 2008'. What would it say on second printing? Would they even bother stating it is the second printing if nothing was changed?

Behold the magic of printing nomenclature.

-Username17

[Doom]

Again, what's your opinion on magical items?

What if for whatever reason an encounter you designed around the player using a Hackmaster +12, but they decided that they wanted to be a damn monk and fight with their fists?

Again, same answer--I know what magic items are going to be in the party, I know what they can do, and I can plan for it. If the item is so powerful that it totally can swing the tide of battle (eg, a scroll of summon fire elemental), then, at least the item is used up. An "I win" button that works once isn't something to worry about, it happens when it happens.

Unlike a stance, which can be a problem for every, single, encounter.

Now how about a "auto 5 damage to anything adjacent aura" stance? What does that do to minions? Do I never use them again, only use them in really special circumstances, use hordes in every encounter? The mere presence of this stance affects everything in the campaign, forever.

That's a contrived example, but no worse than the 'possibility' a player decided to fight barehanded when he's got a great magic weapon.

Nobody's gonna put aside the +12 sword, that's silly. But not use a daily power? Yeah, that happens all the time.

Stances can be very swingy for an encounter, and never go wrong when they 'go off'. So, always a problem, always around, never to be stopped.

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but there should be at least a tiny bit of strategy to them, or something that can go wrong, or a way to stop them..."stance ends when you critical hit", "...ends when critically hit", "..ends on a six, roll each turn as a saving throw", "...sustain minor", "...ends when you move more than 1 space in a turn". All these possibilities so that it's something besides a sure thing and we get...nothing.