PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Design/Development: The Core Mechanic



Fax Celestis
2007-10-06, 12:13 PM
Link to article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071005)

Looks like they're getting rid of Touch AC, Flat-Foot AC, and strengthening the Reflex save by rolling Touch AC into it. Also, looks like weapon-like spells will be clearer and in core--instead of cursory in core and augmented in a splatbook. Also looks like saving "throws" are gone and the core rules will use something similar to the UA "Players Roll All The Dice" variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm).

In my opinion, these are all good things. Defense is startlingly less complex. Spells are easier to defend against ("Hah! The wizard rolled a one! He misses!"), and the players have more power in their hands.

What do you think?

skywalker
2007-10-06, 12:53 PM
I was never bothered by the complexity of 3.x. I've never been confused by my flat-foot or touch ACs (I'd be surprised if many players were). I like the drama and tension of one saving throw vs. death, although I can see how some others are, but death happens in D&D. That's been a truism for quite a while. That's why raise dead, etc. are so common and available.

As for mechanics, it all means that either touch attacks and breath weapons(etc.) will need to be weaker, or "saves" will need to be beefier.

I think that rolling a "reflex save" is a good thing. You get a chance to jump out of the way. If I have a set reflex defense that the dragon has to beat, it makes more sense to take no damage if the dragon misses, because he missed. It's certainly less complex, but it's less representative, I think, and draws closer to the "game" side of things, further away from the "role-playing" side of things. The same thing with the ability to just miss on a spell, or to deal double damage. My group already had a house rule that a 20 on a ranged touch attack dealt x2 damage, but I want to know how many spells this affects. Can magic missile miss now?

Fax Celestis
2007-10-06, 01:00 PM
From my understanding, there will not be strong/weak saves. They will be more akin to the saves of SAGA, where they're equal to your level.

UserClone
2007-10-06, 01:13 PM
Ick. I kind of like a bit of differentiation between the saves, though not to the current degree, and IMO a Barbarian SHOULD be able to walk through a stinking cloud with more confidence than a Sorcerer.

Matthew
2007-10-06, 01:14 PM
Yeah, it's looking like a 1:1 increase by level. I can't remember exactly how it works in Saga, but it's something like 10 + Level (X) + Focus (5), which should give a similar Defence to Armour Class.

[Edit] Ah yes, it's 10 + Heroic Level + Attribute Modifier + Misc

Star Wars Saga - Preview 4 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview4)

I like it, probably because it mirrors my House Ruled AD&D Game (and have been advocating for 3e for a long while). There will likely be some minor variance between Saves/Defences, determined by Class and Abilities.

It's also worth noting that this article lends some credence to the simpler Critical Hit system, dumping the unbalanced and frankly silly 3e varied critical hits (personally, I would want to dump Critical Hits altogether).

Now I am wondering how they will calculate Armour Class. Reflex + Armour? Sounds a bit strong.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-06, 02:15 PM
Now I am wondering how they will calculate Armour Class. Reflex + Armour? Sounds a bit strong.

I suspect not. They seem to be going with 4 types of defenses: will, fort, ref, and ac. If two of them were based on the same number (especially if one of them is the all-important AC) it wouldn't be a good job balancing the saving throws. But, of course, Matthew, I'm sure you'll argue that the current crop of designers are not immune to making mistakes.

Starsinger
2007-10-06, 02:50 PM
Now I am wondering how they will calculate Armour Class. Reflex + Armour? Sounds a bit strong.

Well if Reflex is 10+ Level + Dex, maybe AC is 10+ Level + Armor?

Matthew
2007-10-06, 02:59 PM
I suspect not. They seem to be going with 4 types of defenses: will, fort, ref, and ac. If two of them were based on the same number (especially if one of them is the all-important AC) it wouldn't be a good job balancing the saving throws. But, of course, Matthew, I'm sure you'll argue that the current crop of designers are not immune to making mistakes.

Yeah, I was thinking about the idea that Reflex Save is Touch Attack Armour Class and extrapolating with regard to how Saga handles Armour Defence, but I don't really expect it to work that way. Of course, you're quite right, no one is immune to mistakes, so you never know!


Well if Reflex is 10+ Level + Dex, maybe AC is 10+ Level + Armor?

If it follows Saga it's probably 10 + Armour + Dexterity or 10 + Heroic Level + Dexterity, whichever is higher. If Armour contributes to DR, then this might be the case, but there are a lot of 'ifs' and 'buts'.

my_evil_twin
2007-10-06, 03:23 PM
What caught my eye was how the reflex save mechanic will replace touch AC. I'm curious about what happens when some munchkin gets their reflex save higher than their regular AC.

Tren
2007-10-06, 04:31 PM
Well I suspect the dragon will switch to tail swipes and claw attacks.

Tallis
2007-10-06, 05:01 PM
...the ability to just miss on a spell, or to deal double damage. My group already had a house rule that a 20 on a ranged touch attack dealt x2 damage, but I want to know how many spells this affects. Can magic missile miss now?

All of this is already present in RAW, including your "house rule". Though it only applies to touch and ranged touch spells.

horseboy
2007-10-06, 05:03 PM
What caught my eye was how the reflex save mechanic will replace touch AC. I'm curious about what happens when some munchkin gets their reflex save higher than their regular AC.

I don't know if it'll be munchkin. I could see that happening with pretty much any class with evasion now.

lord_khaine
2007-10-06, 05:22 PM
I don't know if it'll be munchkin. I could see that happening with pretty much any class with evasion

you do know they are discussing 4th edition there?

Roderick_BR
2007-10-06, 05:24 PM
I'm not sure I like the static saves. It's easier to imagine a wizard casting an area effect, and the opponent jumping out of the way, instead of having the wizard having to precisely aim his "shot".

Thief: "Not that I'm not happy that your plan to kill us failed... but how the heck do you miss a mountain?"

Machete
2007-10-06, 05:39 PM
Is it just me, or has Wizards been slowly moving away from PCs having the advantage with Heavy Armored characters?

This new Defense System seems cool. I like how they are incorporating skills into the mix.

Hawriel
2007-10-06, 05:52 PM
I have always found it obserd that you can dodge dragon breath or fire ball. If you have cover and its close by then maybe. Evasion is a rather broken ability. Rolling against reflex alone? I dont know. The reason for a touch attack is that its not effected by armor, but you still get your dex bones. that is the reflex mod for a touch AC. honestly Dragons breath can be hot enough to melt rock how do you dodge that? THe heat alone can kill. I also would like some one to ask a Japanies soldier how they used high reflexes to dodge a marine flame thrower.....hmm you cant there dead.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-06, 06:15 PM
In action movies, people are always diving away from big explosions. Furthermore, being a couple of inches away from a giant lava field doesn't appear to do any appreciable harm to anybody. Action movies are really a better model for d&d than real world warfare.

Why, next you'll be saying that being stabbed or shot should always have the potential to be lethal!

Illiterate Scribe
2007-10-06, 06:20 PM
On the subject of Will saves, does anyone know if they will be ironing out the Wis/Cha redundancy?

Currently, they both seem to correspond to 'Force of character/soul/spirit'. I personally hope that they give Will to Cha, and something in return for will. This worked more in the last system (all wisdom-classes had Wis as a key stat), but, if there is some way of making variation in saves for different classes, it could still be good.

Jarlax
2007-10-06, 07:09 PM
as a DM i automatically love this change in the system for Fort, reflex and will. i play with anywhere between 5-9 players per session (last night it was 7) and the process of getting everyones attention at one time, getting them all to roll saves, get the people who were not listening to roll, get everyones saves back from them, organize who failed and deal out damage is a horribly time consuming trial.

if i had a table with everyones saves on it and could just roll once for the monster and TELL everyone who got hit i could save as much as a minute to two minutes of game time per party roll.

in the simplest terms its swapping who rolls to radically reduce the number of dice needed for a single event. when the BBEG fires a burning hands i roll once and the PCs save against it. when the PC wizard shoots off a fireball into 20 orcs the wizard rolls once and the orcs, with a single standard reflex value are either all hit or none hit.

Little_Rudo
2007-10-07, 12:50 AM
I have always found it obserd that you can dodge dragon breath or fire ball. If you have cover and its close by then maybe. Evasion is a rather broken ability. Rolling against reflex alone? I dont know. The reason for a touch attack is that its not effected by armor, but you still get your dex bones. that is the reflex mod for a touch AC. honestly Dragons breath can be hot enough to melt rock how do you dodge that? THe heat alone can kill. I also would like some one to ask a Japanies soldier how they used high reflexes to dodge a marine flame thrower.....hmm you cant there dead.

Pfft, convection schmonvection (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.ConvectionSchmonvection)... Honestly, if we're going to let cold hard physics dictate how the rules should be made, not only would they be much more complicated than is fun, we'd lose many priceless heroic adventure scenes, such as the nimble PC narrowly leaping out of the way of the dragon's fiery breath!

As for something relevant to the conversation, I do think this is something DM's will likely appreciate more, since it can really streamline the process of a monster attacking PC's. Since I'm not very familiar with the 4e rules I really can't comment much more than that. I am all in favor of streamlining rules that don't gain anything by being more complicated, though!

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-07, 01:09 AM
I don't think I like the way they are handling the saves. If a player rolls low against a spell with a fixed DC, he can't blame it on anything but the dice. If the caster rolls, the defender can't do anything about it, so the player who just got blasted will be more upset than if it was his fault.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-10-07, 01:31 AM
Well, if that's the case, then why don't players make an AC Roll against a monster's fixed Attack DC to avoid the attack? Surely that would be better. I view victims rolling saves as an acknowledgement of either the overpoweredness of spells in general or a way of saving the GM from excessive dice rolling when a fireballer goes up against the party.

But knowing that spells can crit makes me wonder if they'll tone down the blasting spells' damage. They already cause enough damage to drop an equal-level character with average HP almost down to 0; will crit spells be the new insta-kill?

Otherwise, I approve of rolling To Hits on spells, as long as there's a separate roll on each victim. ("The mind flayer rolled a 20 on its Domination; you are all now his eternal thralls.")

Orzel
2007-10-07, 09:22 AM
All I know is that I'm gonna make a rogue that is easier to stab with a sword than touch with a sword.

"The halfling stabs at the air. You take 10 damage."

Justin_Bacon
2007-10-07, 11:19 AM
Looks like they're getting rid of Touch AC, Flat-Foot AC, and strengthening the Reflex save by rolling Touch AC into it.

It's difficult to tell given the paucity of information they're giving us, but I only see two possibilities here:

(1) Your ability to dodge attacks will be dissociated from your AC (which makes no sense).

(2) Your Reflex bonus will be added to your AC, which will result in significantly higher AC values.

And I'm guessing that they'll go with the former, given the completely wrong-headed design ethos which seems to be in vogue at the WotC design department right now.


Also looks like saving "throws" are gone and the core rules will use something similar to the UA "Players Roll All The Dice" variant.

That would be interesting, but that's not what's actually being described. In 4e it sounds like the aggressor is always the one to roll the dice.

This will almost certainly speed up play, which can be particularly noticed with area effects: Instead of everyone in the area rolling a saving throw, the character using the area effect rolls once and the result is applied against everyone in the area.

But I have to admit that I'm not happy about losing saving throws.


If I have a set reflex defense that the dragon has to beat, it makes more sense to take no damage if the dragon misses, because he missed.

That doesn't make any sense. The difference here is:

3rd Edition: 1d20 + Reflex save vs. 10 + #
4th Edition: 10 + Reflex save vs. 1d20 + #

The equation is, in point of fact, exactly the same. The only thing that's shifted is who's rolling the d20.


From my understanding, there will not be strong/weak saves. They will be more akin to the saves of SAGA, where they're equal to your level.

This is probably one of my biggest complaints in what I've seen in 4th Edition: They may be aiming to "make the game easier to play", but they seem to be largely accomplishing that by (a) getting rid of the ability to draw meaningful mechanical distinction and (b) designing mechanics that make little sense if you think about them in terms of the actual game world.

By way of analogy, if I wanted to play an RPG about stock brokers on Wall Street, I guess I want that RPG to look a little bit more like the movie WALL STREET and a little bit less like MONOPOLY.

Similarly, I want my D&D to look a little bit more like THE LORD OF THE RINGS and a lot less like the DARK TOWER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Tower_(game)) board game.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Kurald Galain
2007-10-07, 02:33 PM
This will almost certainly speed up play, which can be particularly noticed with area effects: Instead of everyone in the area rolling a saving throw, the character using the area effect rolls once and the result is applied against everyone in the area.
Yes, but in spite of the speed-up I would prefer if the players couldn't always count upon the same result. In this case, if the rogue's save is better than the fighter's, the rogue will never be hit unless the fighter is also hit. That's weird.



This is probably one of my biggest complaints in what I've seen in 4th Edition: They may be aiming to "make the game easier to play", but they seem to be largely accomplishing that by (a) getting rid of the ability to draw meaningful mechanical distinction and (b) designing mechanics that make little sense if you think about them in terms of the actual game world.
QFT.
They're also (c) making lengthy hype posts that really aren't saying much. If there's anything I've learned from Magic: the Gathering set releases, it's that WOTC can make the most mundane old yawn look like an awesome new development on their website.

Jarlax
2007-10-07, 05:07 PM
Yes, but in spite of the speed-up I would prefer if the players couldn't always count upon the same result. In this case, if the rogue's save is better than the fighter's, the rogue will never be hit unless the fighter is also hit. That's weird.


QFT.
They're also (c) making lengthy hype posts that really aren't saying much. If there's anything I've learned from Magic: the Gathering set releases, it's that WOTC can make the most mundane old yawn look like an awesome new development on their website.

actually the reflex save make sense, but your looking at it backwards. don't think of it as the rouge only getting hit unless the fighter gets hit, rather that if the rouge, with the highest save, has been hit, there should be no possible chance that the fighter manages to get away. its just the same as AC has always been, if a roll can get past a fighter in full plate, there should be no chance it would miss the rouge in studded leather.

that said we still don't know the exact mechanics, it may be that for spells with an AOE you make an attack against every person affected. in which case the fighter doesn't rely on the same roll as the rouge.

also you need to understand the goals of their posts, and its not to give players and DMs a preview into 4E. its to keep you excited and interested and discussing 4E for the next 7 months while we wait for the game to actually be released. the reason that we get little or nothing from these articles is because a lot of 4E has not been finished (and for some parts, started) yet.

TheOOB
2007-10-07, 05:32 PM
From playing Star Wars: Saga edition, I can tell you that making it so the attacker always rolls the die while the defender uses a static number is a really good feature. First and foremost this speeds up things incredibly, when you throw a grenade that hits 5 people, instead of each of the five people making a reflex save you make a single attack roll and the grenade deals full damage to those it hits, and half to those it misses(barring evasion of course).

This also allows for varying degrees of success on spells and effects. Depending on how high you roll on your check, or how much you beat their defense by, a spell could be more or less powerful, making it so that even if a spell doesn't deal variable damage, it can still have the different degrees of effects, you can get an outright amazing result, or stutter and only be at a fraction of your normal power.

Matthew
2007-10-07, 06:11 PM
It's difficult to tell given the paucity of information they're giving us, but I only see two possibilities here:

(1) Your ability to dodge attacks will be dissociated from your AC (which makes no sense).

(2) Your Reflex bonus will be added to your AC, which will result in significantly higher AC values.

And I'm guessing that they'll go with the former, given the completely wrong-headed design ethos which seems to be in vogue at the WotC design department right now.

If it's anything like Saga, Reflex and Armour Class will interact, as discussed above.


This is probably one of my biggest complaints in what I've seen in 4th Edition: They may be aiming to "make the game easier to play", but they seem to be largely accomplishing that by (a) getting rid of the ability to draw meaningful mechanical distinction and (b) designing mechanics that make little sense if you think about them in terms of the actual game world.

By way of analogy, if I wanted to play an RPG about stock brokers on Wall Street, I guess I want that RPG to look a little bit more like the movie WALL STREET and a little bit less like MONOPOLY.

Similarly, I want my D&D to look a little bit more like THE LORD OF THE RINGS and a lot less like the DARK TOWER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Tower_(game)) board game.

I don't think getting rid of Strong and Weak Saves is dumbing down the game. 3e Saves are absolutely borked. Moving them onto a 1:1 Scale with Level is a good move, they'll be differentiated by Attribute and probably some small Modifier, which means the gap will be closed, but still apparent.

Josh the Aspie
2007-10-07, 06:36 PM
That doesn't make any sense. The difference here is:

3rd Edition: 1d20 + Reflex save vs. 10 + #
4th Edition: 10 + Reflex save vs. 1d20 + #

The equation is, in point of fact, exactly the same. The only thing that's shifted is who's rolling the d20.


You have cast summon mathematician!

The expected value of rolling 1d20 is 10.5. So if we place the expected value into the equation above, we have

3rd edition: 10.5 + reflex save vs 10 + #
4th edition: 10 + reflex save vs 10.5 + #

If we subtract the first line (the current) from the second line (what things are projected to become) we gain the projected change.

Projected Change: -0.5 vs + 0.5

We collect the terms on the side of the attacker.

0 vs +1

So we see that using the above assumptions, the advantage shifts one point to the attacker.

horseboy
2007-10-07, 09:06 PM
From playing Star Wars: Saga edition, I can tell you that making it so the attacker always rolls the die while the defender uses a static number is a really good feature. First and foremost this speeds up things incredibly, when you throw a grenade that hits 5 people, instead of each of the five people making a reflex save you make a single attack roll and the grenade deals full damage to those it hits, and half to those it misses(barring evasion of course).

This also allows for varying degrees of success on spells and effects. Depending on how high you roll on your check, or how much you beat their defense by, a spell could be more or less powerful, making it so that even if a spell doesn't deal variable damage, it can still have the different degrees of effects, you can get an outright amazing result, or stutter and only be at a fraction of your normal power.
That really does sound a lot like Earthdawn.

Rockphed
2007-10-07, 10:18 PM
Yes, but in spite of the speed-up I would prefer if the players couldn't always count upon the same result. In this case, if the rogue's save is better than the fighter's, the rogue will never be hit unless the fighter is also hit. That's weird.

If it really bothers you, just have an attacking mage roll against every defender's Reflex Save. Behold! The Rogue can fail while the Fighter Succeeds!

Thinker
2007-10-07, 10:29 PM
Unfortunately what it seems like WoTC is doing with these excerpts is saying things without actually telling us anything. They put out tidbits of information, from which we can draw conclusions. These conclusions are usually drawn from too little information and anything we figure out may as well be a guess. I'd even go so far as to say that these releases are meant to gauge public reaction before it goes live. There's nothing wrong with this, I just warn against jumping to conclusions and overreacting in one way or another.

Person_Man
2007-10-08, 12:24 AM
I like this article and what it implies a lot.

I'm guessing they're going to eliminate No Save spells, Touch Attacks, and Flat Footed attacks. Instead, every single possible spell or attack will roll to hit AC, Fort, Ref, or Will. If you roll equal to or above the enemy's defense, then you hit and deal full damage. If you roll lower then the enemy's defense, you miss (if its a targeted effect) or deal half damage (if its an area of effect, which can be reduced to no effect if you have Evasion or Mettle). They're essentially missile weapons that might have an area of effect.

This is a hugely good idea, because it eliminates a basic mechanical imbalance in 3.5 (spells almost always trump physical attacks) and it streamlines the game because everything must roll to hit, and everything only requires 1 roll to resolve.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-10-08, 01:18 AM
I'm guessing they're going to eliminate No Save spells, Touch Attacks, and Flat Footed attacks. Instead, every single possible spell or attack will roll to hit AC, Fort, Ref, or Will. If you roll equal to or above the enemy's defense, then you hit and deal full damage. If you roll lower then the enemy's defense, you miss (if its a targeted effect) or deal half damage (if its an area of effect, which can be reduced to no effect if you have Evasion or Mettle).Others have also theorized that spells that formerly included two rolls -- say a touch attack and a Fort save -- might use one roll and compare to both defenses. For example, if the roll is under your Reflex defense, you dodge the attack and take no damage. If it hits your Reflex, the same roll would be compared to your Fort defense. If your Fort is higher, you take (reduced effect X); if the roll is higher, you take (full effect Y).

That sounds fairly agreeable to me as well, since it reinforces the light guys as always needing to be nimble and the heavy guys as being able to tough things out every now and then.

Justin_Bacon
2007-10-08, 02:30 AM
actually the reflex save make sense, but your looking at it backwards. don't think of it as the rouge only getting hit unless the fighter gets hit, rather that if the rouge, with the highest save, has been hit, there should be no possible chance that the fighter manages to get away.

But this removes all random chance from the game world. The guy with a 5% edge should not win every single time.

In other words, there's a reason why "on any given Sunday" and "this is why they play the game" are well-known sayings. (Well, in America anyway, in the case of the former one.)


its just the same as AC has always been, if a roll can get past a fighter in full plate, there should be no chance it would miss the rouge in studded leather.

This is less relevant because an attack can never be simultaneously directed at two separate characters. Thus there is never the phenomenon of "if you hit character A you will ALWAYS hit character B", because there will always be a different dice roll for the two characters.

Now you can reintroduce this element into the system by, for example, having the wizard casting the fireball make a separate roll against the Reflex defense of each target inside the fireball. But, if you do that, you've removed the only meaningful advantage of the new system, so you might as well leave the saving throw mechanics alone.


also you need to understand the goals of their posts, and its not to give players and DMs a preview into 4E. its to keep you excited and interested and discussing 4E

Coupled with the fact that WotC has a long history of lying about the content of new editions (even right up to the day of release), this is why I'm withholding any kind of final judgment on 4th Edition until I see it.

But this post doesn't actually keep me "excited" or "interested" in 4th Edition? In fact, it has exactly the opposite effect: It turns me off and makes me apathetic.

It may "keep me discussing it", but since my discussions have largely been thi thread and telling my gaming group about it this afternoon (with their response being wholeheartedly negative), I'm not really sure it's the type of discussion WotC is hoping to create.

At the end of that discussion this afternoon, I was the only one at the table saying that I would still give 4th Edition a chance.


This also allows for varying degrees of success on spells and effects.

Not it doesn't. There is nothing about this mechanic which makes it any more or less possible for there to be varying degrees of success.

malcolm
2007-10-08, 02:36 AM
Sounds awesome! I've always believed that the onus should be on the attacker to hit somebody's static defenses (whether Reflex Save or flat-footed AC).

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-08, 06:50 AM
Wow. This sounds like utter crap.

I have been displeased with 4e more or less since I heard the first talk about it. My group has invested so much cash in 3.5; not counting how much we put into 3.0 before they pulled the same crap. I think I will wait the extra 6 months for 5.0 to come out.

Back to the issue at hand, attacker rolling saves, it sounds really dumb. So instead of the caster who has a weak save DC only getting maybe 1 or 2 people to fail the save, instead if he rolls good he gets everyone. Brilliant.

I assume then that means that they will be getting rid of Critical Hits? I mean if we look at things as they are now (obviously it may or may not work anything like this) a caster can boost his save DC... or I guess it would be his "to hit".. to pretty absurd levels. If he gets a roll to hit on top of that, with let's say the possibility of an improved critical type feat or ability.... and people complain about the power of spellcasters now?

This could turn every caster with an AoE into a TPK.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-08, 07:06 AM
actually the reflex save make sense, but your looking at it backwards. don't think of it as the rouge only getting hit unless the fighter gets hit, rather that if the rouge, with the highest save, has been hit, there should be no possible chance that the fighter manages to get away. its just the same as AC has always been, if a roll can get past a fighter in full plate, there should be no chance it would miss the rouge in studded leather.
Except that you roll separately to hit the fighter and the rogue (not rouge), and by the new rules you roll only once for a fireball. Combat is supposed to be slightly more fickle than that.



also you need to understand the goals of their posts, and its not to give players and DMs a preview into 4E. its to keep you excited and interested and discussing 4E
Yeah, I get that, but it's entirely failing to keep me excited and interested.
I seriously doubt that any part of 4E has "not yet started" or anything; did you know that the card text for a MTG set is complete almost a full year before it's released? Same goes for rulebooks. Logically, the central rules would be complete for a long time already, and they're working on details like individual spells. Don't underestimate the time it takes to print a million rulebooks for distribution.



Coupled with the fact that WotC has a long history of lying about the content of new editions (even right up to the day of release),
They do? I'm not really surprised, but I'd like a link anyway.



But this post doesn't actually keep me "excited" or "interested" in 4th Edition? In fact, it has exactly the opposite effect: It turns me off and makes me apathetic.
Conspiracy Theory #48: they put out numerous well-crafted rumors to tick people off, so that when 4E actually surfaces it will be nothing like those rumors and people will like it. And then, of course, they will do the same for 4.5E.

(edit) technically, there are two things wrong with this mechanic. First, the optional rule of "players rolling all the dice" has the advantage of speeding up play. However, attackers rolling all the dice does not have this advantage, because more often than not the attacker will be an NPC.

Second, this system has a problem with randomness. Under the old system, an attack spell like Fireball would take out roughly 2/3rds of the attacking orcs (because they fail their save) or would severely injure 1/3rd of the PC party. Most of the time, because many rolls average out. Under the new system, barring Evasion and the like, the fireball will either take out everything (on a good roll) or be very ineffective (on a bad roll). The most obvious result is that a single good roll or crit can either win an encounter or cause a TPK.

Jarlax
2007-10-08, 08:58 AM
Yeah, I get that, but it's entirely failing to keep me excited and interested.

I seriously doubt that any part of 4E has "not yet started" or anything; did you know that the card text for a MTG set is complete almost a full year before it's released? Same goes for rulebooks. Logically, the central rules would be complete for a long time already, and they're working on details like individual spells. Don't underestimate the time it takes to print a million rulebooks for distribution.

i never stated it was succeeding, only that it was the goal. they give us no information because they want speculation or discussion. positive or negative they don't care as long as we keep discussing 4E and keep our focus on it until release.

as for the not started yet part, go listen to the first 4E Q&A podcast (thats last months one), last month they had not even addressed the idea of encumbrance or assigned weight to items. they are still working on it and probably will be until they send it to the printers two months before release.

Mike mearls blog two days ago stated classes are only just now done and that feats are not, they still need to add a few more, and that both remain to go through yet another phase of playtesting to detect problems that may result in further revision.


But this removes all random chance from the game world. The guy with a 5% edge should not win every single time.

but its not a win or lose situation, its not an attack roll with a weapon that hits or misses.

if a fireball hits a fighter and a rouge and the caster beats only the fighters reflex save but falls short of the rouges. then the fighter takes full damage but the rouge still takes half damage even though he saved against it. they have both lost, just to varying degrees

its not removing the random chance at all, instead they are moving the element of chance away from the each PCs ability to evade and onto the single casters ability to attack in order to resolve effects more swiftly.

the end result is the same as 3.5, the rouge comes out of a fireball better off than the fighter on most occasions, sometimes the fireball caster is going to roll low and they both make it out with half damage, just as if the fighter had rolled high on his 3.5 reflex save.

Tren
2007-10-08, 10:17 AM
We should also keep in mind that we don't know exactly how a spell or effects chance to hit versus a rogue's typical reflex will be calibrated. It's very well possible they intend to make it rather difficult for a spell to hit a rogue for full damage, and have a moderate chance to hit a fighter of equivalent level. It's all speculation at this point, but it might be a more fair perspective to look at it not as "If the rogue fails the fighter has no chance" but "If the fighter makes it the rogue will definitely be okay"

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-08, 11:32 AM
Rather than break into yet another rant of "The Good Ole Days of AD&D, When We Used Ampersands and Not Lower Case 'N's," I'd like to note that if they have to change something, I'm a fan of simplicity over complexity, and this new system looks a step in the right direction. The less complex it is, the less my DM and his wife will argue over the minutia of multiple mechanics.


... I want my D&D to look a little bit more like THE LORD OF THE RINGS and a lot less like the DARK TOWER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Tower_(game)) board game. ...

That game rocked! I had a friend who had that back in the days when it was new. We played that game until it busted from overuse.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-08, 11:42 AM
Mike mearls blog two days ago stated classes are only just now done and that feats are not, they still need to add a few more, and that both remain to go through yet another phase of playtesting to detect problems that may result in further revision.

Precisely my point: the core mechanics have long been decided upon, and they're now working on details. I'm sure they can still be figuring out whether a fighter has d10 or d12 hit dice (which is a detail) or testing a few extra feats (which is also a detail) but they have written down a long, long time ago what the foundations of the classes and feats are.

Matthew
2007-10-10, 01:32 PM
I recently read an amusing quote on the subject of 4e in general, which was sigged by Grimjesta over on the Kenzer and Company Forums:


For me, it starts and ends here. Why play "D&D written by people who don't like D&D, for people who don't like D&D"? Why not make a game called Fantasy Quest, or something else, and build the new edition of D&D on the successful design elements which kept it popular through more than 30 years? - Melan (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/member.php?u=988)


Anybody know if there a Thread discussing the About the 4e Lead Designers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071005a&authentic=true) Article knocking around the Forums that I have missed?

Indon
2007-10-10, 02:48 PM
I really don't much care what they do to the mechanic, just so long as it doesn't make combat slower than it already is.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 03:34 PM
I recently read an amusing quote on the subject of 4e in general, which was sigged by Grimjesta over on the Kenzer and Company Forums:


Anybody know if there a Thread discussing the About the 4e Lead Designers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071005a&authentic=true) Article knocking around the Forums that I have missed?

There were successful design elements of D&D other than brand recognition? :smallconfused:

Indon
2007-10-10, 03:38 PM
There were successful design elements of D&D other than brand recognition? :smallconfused:

Modularity comes to mind.

Matthew
2007-10-10, 04:00 PM
I just thought it was hilarious that the game designers are openly talking about WoW and 'instanced' dungeons as though they are a novel concept for D&D.

Counterspin
2007-10-10, 04:07 PM
Show me a case of the developers talking about instanced dungeons. The concept doesn't make any sense in D&D so it seems very unlikely. Instancing is what allows two groups to run the same dungeon at the same time.

Matthew
2007-10-10, 04:08 PM
Read the article linked above, I think it's towards the end. Actually, better yet, I'll just quote the excerpt for you:


It's no accident that the site-based adventure model that inspired my plans for the Forbidden City campaign sounds a great deal like the instanced dungeons in World of Warcraft. I'm playing WoW a lot less than I did for a while, but that is one element of the game's story design that has stuck with me. An instanced dungeon is very much like a D&D dungeon, with a little more realism than the rest of the computer-game world, in that the things you kill stay dead. It's just your party against the monsters, a lot like it is in D&D. (Of course, the main difference is that when you leave an instance and come back, everything is reset to the way it was when you started.)

What works well about instanced dungeons in WoW is the quest model. You might spend a while adventuring in the world to pick up a handful of quests that will lead you into Blackfathom Deeps, for example. Then you get a group together and venture in, completing as many of those quests as you can. Inside, you find one or two more quests that lead you back outside the dungeon. Once you leave, you might get more quests -- reasons to go back into the dungeon.

In D&D, that model works even better. When you leave a dungeon and come back, it can change in response to what you've already done. There might be more guards to replace the ones you killed, better prepared for your assault. The mastermind might have moved his secret hideaway, or a new mastermind might have come to take the place of the one you killed. It's that dynamic response to your actions that gives a sense of realism to your D&D adventuring, a sense that your characters occupy a world that works like ours does -- actions have consequences, and you can make a difference.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 04:56 PM
Modularity comes to mind.

? What modularity?

Matthew
2007-10-10, 05:02 PM
There were successful design elements of D&D other than brand recognition? :smallconfused:

Levels and Archetypes, maybe?

Jarlax
2007-10-10, 07:44 PM
Read the article linked above, I think it's towards the end. Actually, better yet, I'll just quote the excerpt for you:

wow, i...uh. i actually have to agree with that quote. there are a lot of things about wow that i think would NEVER NEVER NEVER work in D&D for a variety of reasons. but the overall design of WOW's instance dungeons is one i can agree with, for people who do not know instances are enclosed spaces for a group of no more than 5 players to explore, which contain guards and boss monsters all with a thematic tie. in other words a instance dungeon is your classic D&D dungeon crawl. but their excellent design has kept each dungeon fresh for 35+ dungeons, not including the more complex ones which require 10-25 PCs rather than 5.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-10, 08:28 PM
Wow. This sounds like utter crap.

I have been displeased with 4e more or less since I heard the first talk about it. My group has invested so much cash in 3.5; not counting how much we put into 3.0 before they pulled the same crap. I think I will wait the extra 6 months for 5.0 to come out.

Back to the issue at hand, attacker rolling saves, it sounds really dumb. So instead of the caster who has a weak save DC only getting maybe 1 or 2 people to fail the save, instead if he rolls good he gets everyone. Brilliant.

I assume then that means that they will be getting rid of Critical Hits? I mean if we look at things as they are now (obviously it may or may not work anything like this) a caster can boost his save DC... or I guess it would be his "to hit".. to pretty absurd levels. If he gets a roll to hit on top of that, with let's say the possibility of an improved critical type feat or ability.... and people complain about the power of spellcasters now?

This could turn every caster with an AoE into a TPK.

First of all: the "I wasted all my money" thing is a lame excuse; you had plenty of reason to believe that there was going to be a 4th edition at some point, and you made the choice to buy every one of those books with the knowledge that they may, at some point, be made obsolete by a new edition. (By the way, it was more than 6 months between 3.0 and 4.0)

Next: Even if the "1 roll against a group of enemies" works as you're describing it, that isn't breaking until we know what the AOE spells actually do.

Besides, simple house rule fix: Have the caster roll against each enemy's Save AC individually.

horseboy
2007-10-11, 06:26 PM
I really don't know why they don't just bite the bullet and hire Gav to finish 4th edition. Inquisitor is everything 3.x and apparently 4th try and lie to themselves that they aren't but really are. What with their "What you want your character to cook? Just write 'can cook' on your character sheet" combat centric and foremost development philosophy.

Artemician
2007-10-11, 07:55 PM
I really don't know why they don't just bite the bullet and hire Gav to finish 4th edition. Inquisitor is everything 3.x and apparently 4th try and lie to themselves that they aren't but really are. What with their "What you want your character to cook? Just write 'can cook' on your character sheet" combat centric and foremost development philosophy.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3266991&postcount=52

I see your #1 and raise you a #3.

horseboy
2007-10-11, 08:14 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3266991&postcount=52

I see your #1 and raise you a #3.

I'm a Rolemaster player, so my vote is for #4.

Artemician
2007-10-11, 08:16 PM
I'm a Rolemaster player, so my vote is for #4.

I reiterate #3. I also point out #5, even though #3 is more pertinent at this moment.

Indon
2007-10-11, 08:28 PM
5 with an irrelevant mention of 2.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-11, 08:39 PM
I'm probably going to have to go with...

#6. Well, the changes to the game seem -- Hey? Is someone bakin' cookies? Oooh boy!

TimeWizard
2007-10-11, 09:12 PM
Numero Cinco, which as we all know is Frances (that would be German for you non-linguists) for five. Really, what Wizards just said boiled down to is "Spells are randomized, like physical attacks, against a set DC". Stay the torches and pitchforks, folks.