PDA

View Full Version : More on 4th Ed Classes



Person_Man
2007-11-08, 03:03 PM
From WotC_Miko's Playtest Blog (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=20722&pagemode=2&blogid=7576):


I mentioned a playtest report that hadn't gone up yet on D&DI...so here it is. Imagine that you read it before the previous report. It's probably a little stilted since I was trying to be clever...or something...but anyway:

***

(originally written 10/19)

As one of the editors on the Player’s Handbook, I consider it my responsibility to be as hands-on familiar with all of the classes as possible. That means playing each one of them and putting them through their paces. It’s a tough job, I know, but somehow I endure.

Heh.

At the moment I’ve got three games in various stages and will soon be adding a fourth. I has characters! My characters, let me tell you them:

* Zanne, the half-elf rogue for Bill Slavicsek’s Thursday night game. Our group is leveling at a rate of a level per week, so we can put the classes through their paces at all tiers. During last night’s (10/18) 6th-level playtest, Zanne smashed a harpy out of the sky and into a chasm by using a power that knocks the target prone; when the harpy tried to fly out of the pit, the aftereffects of the power knocked her down again and she fell to her death. This made me laugh like a hyena for the rest of the evening, and also made me jot down a note to clarify the effects of "knocking prone" on flying creatures. This is why we playtest. But for one combat, it was glorious.

I’m happy with the rogue. She’s got a nice variety of ranged and melee abilities, some clever ways of gaining combat advantage by herself (and therefore sneak attack), interesting noncombat tricks that tie into skills, and the occasional ability to do truly massive damage in a single round. Just like a striker should.

* Valenae, the elf paladin for Greg Bilsland’s Tuesday night game. We’ll be 2nd level next session, but Greg has hinted that he might also do faster advancement for playtest purposes. I’ve only played her twice so I’m still feeling out the class, but I’ve already noted some nifty synergies between elf abilities and paladin abilities, like the additional movement that lets me get away with heavy armor and not lag behind the rest of the party. (Slower movement is a primary reason that I don’t play dwarves much, although I’m really hoping for an opportunity to try out a dwarf wizard sometime soon. They’re going to work really, really well.) Pulling out a daily power to take out the nasty undead thing? Very satisfying.

I’m happy with the paladin, even on short acquaintance. She’s sufficiently "tanklike" without feeling like an over-armored turtle, and she’s got enough healing ability to keep the party fighting without overshadowing the cleric or warlord. Her divine challenge "come hit me, not the squishy wizard" ability makes her look like the most attractive target for attacks. Just like a defender should.

* Kithri, the halfling warlock for Chris Sims’s "editor’s playtest" on Monday at lunchtime. (Chris used to be an editor, so that’s all right, and we allow new developer Peter Schaefer to play too because we’re friendly that way.) After the happy-go-lucky Zanne and the so-good-my-teeth-ac he Valenae, it was sort of fun to sink into the persona of a scrubby, vicious little thing. I should point out here that no, not all warlocks are malevolent or nasty . . . they draw on dangerous, untamable sources of power, but that doesn’t make them innately evil. In fact, I’d initially planned on playing her as the cheerful, bouncy kind of warlock before I started playing the other two and realized I wanted a change of pace. Anyway, she’s got some very interesting "riders" on her damage powers, things that grant temporary hit points or slide creatures across the battlefield. The warlock just might be the most unpredictable character in the game, since you never quite know what her powers will do. I’ve also been watching Jeff Grubb play a warlock in Bill’s game, and he’s similarly having a lot of fun with it.

I’m happy with the warlock. The class is dark, yes, but there’s room in their concept for other styles of play, and the distinctiveness of their pacts sets each one apart from another. Like the rogue she can do massive damage, with extremely distinctive flair. She’s hard to hit, hard to get ahold of, and has the ability to move away from enemies (or move them away from her) before they reach her. Just like a striker should.

I’ll soon be starting Chris Perkins’s game, where I’m hoping to play an aloof eladrin warlord. But even so, there are too many character concepts and not enough time: the intellectual dwarf wizard, the fierce *mumble* ranger, the anomalous tiefling cleric, the brash human fighter. But I’ve been seeing these (in every combination) being played at each of the gaming tables, and it’s extremely gratifying to see them all fulfilling their design purposes in individual ways. Just like they should.

***

Hey, it was a revelation when I wrote it: the warlock is a striker.

But wait! you say. Reports have warlocks doing controller things!, you say. Right here, live and in print, a first look at an actual sentence out of the 4th Edition Player's Handbook*:

"Some warlocks manage a lot of control."

Sure, my warlock can push opponents around the battlefield as an occasional effect, but she's still "built" to do striker damage on a regular basis.

If a controller uses a power that does a lot of damage to a single target, that doesn't make him a striker. If a defender uses a power to heal an ally, that doesn't make her a leader. Roles aren't straightjackets; they're general guidelines for how a class functions. Specifics are determined by what the class should do. Meanwhile, a controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller.

But you all figured that out already! :)

So, this is what we now know about the current lineup:

Cleric: Divine: Leader
Warlord: Martial: Leader
Fighter: Martial: Defender
Paladin: Divine: Defender
Ranger: Martial and/or Divine: Striker
Rogue: Martial: Striker
Warlock: Arcane: Striker
Wizard: Arcane: Controller

With only one Controller in the current lineup, I'm thinking WotC will add at least one more. I'm guessing the Druid, who will be able to Shapechange (PHBII variant), summon, and have nature based powers. There's also room for an additional Defender (Monk?) and/or Leader (Bard?)

Every class will most likely have Tome of Battle-ish abilities and/or Complete Scoundrel-ish Skill Tricks.

Trip attacks of some sort are still in.

Sneak Attack is in, though its not clear how its triggered, especially since flat footed AC no longer exists.

Elves get a movement related ability at 1st level.

Elves apparently make good Paladins. Now that Elves are essentially Wood Elves and Eladrin are Upper East Side/High Elves, perhaps Elves get a Wis or Cha bonus, and Eladrin get an Int bonus?

Paladins still have Lay on Hands or something similar. And apparently Warlocks can heal as well. I'm guessing pretty much any class will have easy access to healing of some form or another. Good.

The Paladin killed the Knight, took Test of Mettle, and renamed it Divine Challenge. Apparently, Aggro (http://www.wowwiki.com/Aggro) is now Core. Prepare for hundreds of posts about how D&D is becoming too much like WoW.

Warlocks are definitely Strikers.

Within 10 minutes of the 4th Ed PHB being released, someone will post a build on the optimization board about how X class can do X, Y, and Z roles better then the classes that were intended to fulfill those roles. Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Discuss.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-08, 03:05 PM
Looking forward to playing a cleric. Though I might play pally if I don't like how spellcasting for divine casters works.

*puts on Flame Retardant Suid* Aggro makes sense. Otherwise why have the option to wear heavy armor at all?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 03:07 PM
NO! Powers are coming back! It HURTS! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


This is seriously bad mojo, though Dalboz of Gurth will probably like this 2ed shift.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-08, 03:18 PM
Thank god for aggro being core, especially if casters are being toned down to the point where their squishiness is actually a disadvantage. I mean, if it's finally being set in stone that the role of melee combatants is to defend, then aggro makes sense. That would also imply that heavy damage dealing is being shifted away from the defenders and being given to the somewhat squishier strikers. I wonder if the Frenzied Berserker has no place in 4th ed?

brian c
2007-11-08, 03:20 PM
It would make sense for a Monk to be a defender, and for Bards to be Leaders; I'm really hoping Monks don't get cut from Core (have there been confirmation one way or another about that? I remember people speculating they might be gone)

Also, I hope that Eladrins having an Int bonus wouldn't pigeonhole them into being the Grey Elves of 4e, who are only ever Wizards. I guess it would require readjustment of the whole ability score system, or of the way it affects spellcasting, but spellcasting has been revamped so it's possible high Int doesn't make you the best wizard evar anymore (or that other classes have Int-keyed abilities).

@Person_Man: why do you say
Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 03:23 PM
Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:34 PM
Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

Ummm, no. The Warlock was supposed to be a Striker. Playtesting showed that... it's a striker with minor control abilities.

lord_khaine
2007-11-08, 03:34 PM
i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 03:34 PM
@Person_Man: why do you say

Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things
I'd like to know as well. Being able to do something in another role doesn't necessarily make it the best at doing so, they just have to take extra measures to ensure that they don't outshine the "real" classes of that role*. So there must be some other reason for this assessment.


*For example, there's nothing wrong with letting a Controller do some blasting as long as the actual Strikers are still better at it. The problem is making sure that the actual Strikers are, in fact, still better at it.



Edit:

i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.
Depends on how the "aggro" is described. If it's some schmuck with a sword yelling "HIT ME!" then yeah, suspension of disbelief can be broken. But if it's a holy warrior invoking the power of a deity to force an enemy to target him, no matter how much that enemy wants to target somebody else...well, that makes plenty of sense. So it all comes down to presentation.

Green Bean
2007-11-08, 03:37 PM
i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.

Well, at least now they're giving it to the guy who has divine magic. People may have a problem with insults making monsters focus on you, but channelling the light of the gods, making you appear to be the biggest threat is more plausible.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 03:39 PM
Hey, it was a revelation when I wrote it: the warlock is a striker.

But wait! you say. Reports have warlocks doing controller things!, you say. Right here, live and in print, a first look at an actual sentence out of the 4th Edition Player's Handbook*:

"Some warlocks manage a lot of control."

Sure, my warlock can push opponents around the battlefield as an occasional effect, but she's still "built" to do striker damage on a regular basis.

If a controller uses a power that does a lot of damage to a single target, that doesn't make him a striker. If a defender uses a power to heal an ally, that doesn't make her a leader. Roles aren't straightjackets; they're general guidelines for how a class functions. Specifics are determined by what the class should do. Meanwhile, a controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller.

But you all figured that out already! :)


We had been made believe warlocks would be controllers. Apparently, they changed the idea.

Morty
2007-11-08, 03:39 PM
As long as the divine challenge is something supernatural instead of "yo, come and fight me, despite the fact you don't give a damn about honour-bound challenges" I can swallow that. But the concept of "aggro" applying to table-top games eludes me. Also, I hope the paladins, fighters etc. aren't relegated to the role of meatshields protecting squishy damage dealers. What's the point of playing as a warrior if someone else is doing the fighting?

Starbuck_II
2007-11-08, 03:40 PM
Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

I read it differently:
Warlocks make great Strikers, but you can play them decently as a controller if need be.

I do wonder how the Rogue knocked a flying creature prone?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 03:42 PM
It says, Powers. Guess everyone is going to do either Exalted stunts, or have some arcane power.

Person_Man
2007-11-08, 03:42 PM
@Person_Man



Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things


Currently, the niches/roles are:

Leader: Heal and buff
Defender: Meat Shield
Striker: Kill Stuff
Controller: Battlefield Control

Now obviously, every class will have some way to deal damage in combat. And everyone should have a variety of Skills and/or abilities to do fun/useful things out of combat. But when you start handing out special abilities that blur who does what, then you destroy niche protection. And when you destroy niche protection, you get the CoDzilla problem. Why play a Fighter, when I can play a Cleric with similar fluff, roleplay it the same way, and be able to do everything the Fighter does but better, and more!

For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?

Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 03:45 PM
I do wonder how the Rogue knocked a flying creature prone?

You can do that in 3e already. Prone flyers go into a stall and fall at 150'/round.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 03:45 PM
It says, Powers. Guess everyone is going to do either Exalted stunts, or have some arcane power.
I figured it was just a generic name for "stuff the class does". Like Spells, Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc. would all be stuff that their appropriate class does, and thus just get called "powers" for the sake of brevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they're all sorta-casters or superhuman.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 03:48 PM
I figured it was just a generic name for "stuff the class does". Like Spells, Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc. would all be stuff that their appropriate class does, and thus just get called "powers" for the sake of brevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they're all sorta-casters or superhuman.

Yeah. "Powers" is a better word than "Class Features."

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 03:50 PM
I'd compare powers to the superhuman leaps from Tiger claw maneuvers, an extra added oomph for the normal thing.

Reinboom
2007-11-08, 03:53 PM
It's nice that they are actually trying different combinations, but I want to see some reports from a group that is intent on optimizing the hell out of their party.
I want to see how well the system works when everyone is bending it.

It's interesting to see phb2 material definitely being tossed in (Knight into Paladin, it seems), but with more reason.

It also seems that they have been playtesting longer than we'd imagine - PHB2, Saga, and all definitely appear to all be playtesting sessions given to us all.

I hope they don't screw it up.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 03:53 PM
Currently, the niches/roles are:

Leader: Heal and buff
Defender: Meat Shield
Striker: Kill Stuff
Controller: Battlefield Control

Now obviously, every class will have some way to deal damage in combat. And everyone should have a variety of Skills and/or abilities to do fun/useful things out of combat. But when you start handing out special abilities that blur who does what, then you destroy niche protection. And when you destroy niche protection, you get the CoDzilla problem. Why play a Fighter, when I can play a Cleric with similar fluff, roleplay it the same way, and be able to do everything the Fighter does but better, and more!

For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?

Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.
You coulda just said "WotC's track record", you know.

martyboy74
2007-11-08, 03:54 PM
I find it interesting that when the article is quoting the PHB that there is a asterik. Any ideas or knowledge about this?

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:55 PM
For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?
What? Um... because odds are, the wizard is much better at battlefield control? And has a whole variety of control abilities the Warlock doesn't? That's like saying "why would I play a Striker who kills his enemies, when I can play a Defender and defend my allies WHILE killing my enemies."


Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.
That sounds great... except that how effective it is depends COMPLETELY on the mechanics of those things. What if you fail the checks to push them back? What if because of your multiclassing, you're worse at all those things than the pure classes? It sounds like a good combination, in theory, but it could be anything from "totally useless" to "totally uber" depending on the mechanics.
Get a grip, man. Your build isn't uber until you know what it actually DOES.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 03:56 PM
I find it interesting that when the article is quoting the PHB that there is a asterik. Any ideas or knowledge about this?
The bottom of the original article has:


* (unedited, subject to change without warning, some restrictions may apply)

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 03:57 PM
Dear lord. It looks like they actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. If it's true, I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible. In fact, it may be the one thing to drive me away from 4e if it indeed goes further than just one class (and maybe even if it doesn't.)

It breaks suspension of disbelief, overrides roleplay and plot, and is just plain lazy on the designer's part (since, as we already have seen, they don't actually seem to have a very good idea how to make defender's ACTUALLY good at defending without such totally arbitrary things). And on top of all that, "gathering aggro with taunts" can already be done through roleplaying without a class ability WITHOUT infringing heavily on the spirit of the game.

Well, I hope it turns out to be something different than what it sounds like. I really do.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:59 PM
Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible.

As opposed to... spells that do the exact same thing? Hey, maybe the Paladin's ability is going to be (1) magical, given that it's divine, and (2) mind-affecting. Maybe it'll even have a save. If the Paladin's good enough, he can get the creature to attack him; if he's not--say, if it has a high Will save, i.e. a lot of willpower--it can force itself to do the more intelligent thing.

RandomLogic
2007-11-08, 04:00 PM
I have to admit I understand the concept of aggro, but it makes sense for a computer game where a computer is behind the scenes. But for a pen and paper game where your (hopefully intelligent) DM is behind the scenes, I don't think it makes sense.

I could see it being a way for newer players/DM's to be able to decide who to attack compared to randomly going, goblin 1 attacks.... YOU, goblin 2.... attacks Steve! etc etc. But in that case I wouldn't imagine they would go to the trouble of putting class features into the rulebook then.

Also, I must admit I haven't played D&D in a long while, but was really excited about 4e. I take it they have removed the Sorcerer and replaced that with the Warlock?

Artanis
2007-11-08, 04:00 PM
Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.
Prove that the taunt abilities make no sense. Oh wait, you can't, because we don't know what they are, how they work, what their basis is...or anything about them, really. For all you know, it could be an outright SPELL.

And how do you propose that they make tanks be good at their job without SOME way to draw a monster's attention? Any halfway intelligent creature will think, "do I want to hit the pansy in full plate, or the squishy guy throwing fireballs at me? Definitely the guy in the dress" and smack the Wizard. The only possible way to keep that from happening is to either 1) taunt the enemy, or 2) physically impede the enemy's progress...and #2 doesn't work if they have a bow. Or magic. Or any of quite a few other things.


So really, only the last sentence of your post has any logical foundation.

Edit: last sentence of what I quoted, not the other last sentence that was edited in while I was typing :smallwink:

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 04:01 PM
Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible. In fact, it may be the one thing to drive me away from 4e if it indeed goes further than just one class (and maybe even if it doesn't.)

It breaks suspension of disbelief, overrides roleplay and plot, and is just plain lazy on the designer's part (since, as we already have seen, they don't actually seem to have a very good idea how to make defender's ACTUALLY good at defending without such totally arbitrary things). And on top of all that, "gathering aggro with taunts" can already be done through roleplaying without a class ability WITHOUT infringing heavily on the spirit of the game.

So...don't play?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:02 PM
As opposed to... spells that do the exact same thing?

Absolutely. Mind control is one thing. A TAUNT that somehow makes the beholders go after you exclusively for no good reason isn't. I can BUY mind control forcing you to do something.


Prove that the taunt abilities make no sense. Oh wait, you can't, because we don't know what they are, how they work, what their basis is...or anything about them, really. For all you know, it could be an outright SPELL. Yes, of course, we don't know anything for sure yet, so I'm very much hoping that it's not just a rehashed Knight Challenge ability.

If it's what it LOOKS like it is, that just opens the gate for all kinds of weird and senseless things like the PHB II Knight's "cover"-like ability that was fluffed as you jumping in front of an ally to take their blow... only to absorb half of their damage Shield Other style (while they still took the other half). Except now it's core, and thus the rest of the game is going to be based off of it, and thus far more problematic than just some random class lodged in the PHB II.


I have to admit I understand the concept of aggro, but it makes sense for a computer game where a computer is behind the scenes. But for a pen and paper game where your (hopefully intelligent) DM is behind the scenes, I don't think it makes sense. Exactly. The thing is, it's NOT just like WoW. It's FAR WORSE than WoW, because in the context of WoW, aggro actually makes some sense to implement (though, of course, you can't use it in PvP, for obvious reasons. No such restrictions existed for Knight Challenge, though. It is NOT fun when you get forced roleplay like "No, your character can't resist their taunt. No, it doesn't matter that you can't understand the language he's speaking. Your calm and collected character just can't resist to make a tactically suicidal position and attack the guy who flipped you the bird while the world is destroyed in a round by the eldritch machine having time to go off. HURRAY." God I hate Knights so much). In the context of pen and paper, it's just utterly horrible. Not to mention that it turns every knight into "Sir Talks Trash A Lot." That is the LAST thing I want to see paladins turn into.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 04:02 PM
Absolutely. Mind control is one thing. A TAUNT that somehow makes the beholders go after you exclusively for no good reason isn't. I can BUY mind control forcing you to do something.
Prove that that's what the Paladin used then. Prove to me that it wasn't a "force target to attack the caster" spell.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 04:05 PM
Absolutely. Mind control is one thing. A TAUNT that somehow makes the beholders go after you exclusively for no good reason isn't. I can BUY mind control forcing you to do something.

Okay. And you know that this ability isn't mind control... how?

Oh, and, psst! It's possible to convince people to do things that aren't necessarily the best idea. People do it all the time. Just like it's possible to shove someone off their feet.

Sure sounds like the kind of thing that should be handled by some kind of, I don't know, check or saving throw...

skywalker
2007-11-08, 04:07 PM
The taunt ability was stupid in 3.5, but it was a great gameplay mechanic, if your wizard was simply glass, and not a glass cannon(As were mine). I know my paladins(and I played a few) were always trying to defend the other, more vulnerable people anyway. It makes sense to me that if anyone would have the ability, it would be the paladin.

I don't really like these four defined roles anymore now than I did back when they were first proposed. Paladins are defenders, yes, but they are also smiters. The fighter should be able to kill things easier than the rogue, except in specific situations where the rogue has the advantage. You might as well take the "defender" label and replace it with "meat shield."

I'm excited about half-elfs not sucking tho. Hooray!

Kurald Galain
2007-11-08, 04:07 PM
It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible.

Of course many things in 4E are going to "reek" of MMORPG. Just think about the millions of people that play MMORPGs these days, and the billions of dollars spent on that. Of course WOTC is going to want a piece of that pie, and making the most well-known tabletop RPG resemble the most well-known MMORPGs is precisely how to accomplish that and make it appeal to a broader audience. Let's face it, tabletop RPGs are far more a niche market than MMORPGs are.

Indon
2007-11-08, 04:08 PM
I'm happy about the 'niche protection' thing. I think the idea of specialized classes with specific, non-overlapping intent made the classes uninteresting. If we get complaints about balance as a result of it (though if they were less blatant, that'd be nice), I don't care.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 04:15 PM
Yeah. "Powers" is a better word than "Class Features."

I always liked 'Abilities'...

Man, so Aggravation becomes Core. Well, it's not like it's unexpected or I particularly care anymore. So, Characters can cause opponent's to attack them over their companions... I dunno, do I really need a class specific mechanic to facilitate this? I can see it as a compulsion Spell, but otherwise it just seems unnecessary. Whatever.

Pokemaster
2007-11-08, 04:16 PM
Taunts have been around since Kender, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone complaining about them. There's a difference between a Paladin using the power of his God to try to force one of his enemies to attack him and random insults, and even random insults would work on an opponent with a low Will defense.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 04:19 PM
Taunts have been around since Kender, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone complaining about them. There's a difference between a Paladin using the power of his God to try to force one of his enemies to attack him and random insults, and even random insults would work on an opponent with a low Will defense.

That's probably because everyone was too busy complaining about Kender...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:20 PM
Okay. And you know that this ability isn't mind control... how? As I already said... I am going on the assumption that it is similar to Knight's Challenge, and I really hope that it is NOT that way. I never made the claim that I KNOW it will be that way.



Oh, and, psst! It's possible to convince people to do things that aren't necessarily the best idea. People do it all the time. Just like it's possible to shove someone off their feet. Obviously. And you can do that in ways OTHER than "will save or be a moron." And will save or be a complete moron has some pretty obvious issues with it. As I already explained. Not the least of which being, you know, you'd have to be retarded to fall for it the way they set up the mechanics for Knight's Challenge. "No, I don't share your language. No, I don't have the sort of personality that gives much credence to random insults from a guy who doesn't know me and thus can't really make any personally targeted jarring comments. No, I actually have an int score higher than 5, and I'm an experienced tactician. Yeah, next round I can see that that guy over there is going to activate the Eldritch Machine and Doom Us All. And no, that Knight doesn't look like he's much of a threat in any way that I need to worry about. I'LL ATTACK HIM!" And you get this kind of incident all the bloody time, since it's at the core of the knight class.


Sure sounds like the kind of thing that should be handled by some kind of, I don't know, check or saving throw... Yeah, see, like everything else you've said, I've already addressed this argument.


I always liked 'Abilities'...

Man, so Aggravation becomes Core. Well, it's not like it's unexpected or I particularly care anymore. So, Characters can cause opponent's to attack them over their companions... I dunno, do I really need a class specific mechanic to facilitate this? I can see it as a compulsion Spell, but otherwise it just seems unnecessary. Whatever.

It is unnecessary. You can completely have that effect and all the good things it adds to the game without any mechanical effect whatsoever.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 04:23 PM
As I already said... I am going on the assumption that it is similar to Knight's Challenge, and I really hope that it is NOT that way.

Doesn't Knight's Challenge offer a saving throw? He tries--and he's superhumanly good at it, by the way--to force people to respond to him. Those who are strong of will (high Will save) can resist; weak-willed creatures can't.
It's kind of like trolling a message board.

Techonce
2007-11-08, 04:29 PM
Dear lord. It looks like they actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. If it's true, I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible. In fact, it may be the one thing to drive me away from 4e if it indeed goes further than just one class (and maybe even if it doesn't.)

It breaks suspension of disbelief, overrides roleplay and plot, and is just plain lazy on the designer's part (since, as we already have seen, they don't actually seem to have a very good idea how to make defender's ACTUALLY good at defending without such totally arbitrary things). And on top of all that, "gathering aggro with taunts" can already be done through roleplaying without a class ability WITHOUT infringing heavily on the spirit of the game.

Well, I hope it turns out to be something different than what it sounds like. I really do.

Methinks you have some anger issues, but anyway...

Actually it makes some sense, cause no matter what a the NPC says, the Player will decide to go after the better target even if the NPC made fun of their mother.

Now if they have a high will save they will shrug off the effect of the taunt and do what they want, but if they are weak willed then maybe they give into the divine push to attack.

Kind of like a spell would make the player do, or are the charm person and command spells bad roleplaying as well?

Morty
2007-11-08, 04:29 PM
Doesn't Knight's Challenge offer a saving throw? He tries--and he's superhumanly good at it, by the way--to force people to respond to him. Those who are strong of will (high Will save) can resist; weak-willed creatures can't.
It's kind of like trolling a message board.

Knight's Challenge doesn't make sense. It offers a will save, great, but will save doesn't really represent what knight is doing by that ability. Why should sneaky burglar even bother that the knight is challenging him, regardless of his Will save? Paladin is likely to have higher will save than rogue, so he's more likely to ignore knight's challenge, despite being definetly more honor-bound than rogue. And I don't even imagine it being used on PC.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:31 PM
Doesn't Knight's Challenge offer a saving throw? He tries--and he's superhumanly good at it, by the way--to force people to respond to him. Those who are strong of will (high Will save) can resist; weak-willed creatures can't.
It's kind of like trolling a message board.

Again, I already responded to the issue of a save a couple of times. You've chosen to exclude the relevant text from your quotes and haven't replied to it, however.



Actually it makes some sense, cause no matter what a the NPC says, the Player will decide to go after the better target even if the NPC made fun of their mother. No they won't, because they're mind controlled since they failed their will save. No matter their personality, their motivations, the situation surrounding them, or what the enemy chose to say, or whether or not they can even understand what the enemy said.

The ability goes far beyond the normal ability of someone to insult people. And so apparently, it makes the class into "super miracle insulter man." That's seriously your claim to fame. And that sucks.

rankrath
2007-11-08, 04:32 PM
The problem I have with aggro/taunt is because it takes away a whole aspect of the game, Ie, actual tactics. Now, instead of the wizard having to, say choose between possible death and casting a spell, and the tank choosing between suffering an AOO or defending the wizard, he can just roll a few dice and solve the problem, instead of having to actually think of risk vs. reward. It seems that Wizards is taking even more steps to turn D&D from a complex game into something that a fifth grader could figure out, if he had the patience to read the rule books.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 04:32 PM
Knight's Challenge doesn't make sense. It offers a will save, great, but will save doesn't really represent what knight is doing by that ability. Why should sneaky burglar even bother that the knight is challenging him, regardless of his Will save? Paladin is likely to have higher will save than rogue, so he's more likely to ignore knight's challenge, despite being definetly more honor-bound than rogue. And I don't even imagine it being used on PC.

Judicious use of Circumstance Modifiers should alleviate that concern... What's that? DM fiat? Dunno what you're talking about, I'm just making use of the Rules as written...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:37 PM
The problem I have with aggro/taunt is because it takes away a whole aspect of the game, Ie, actual tactics. Now, instead of the wizard having to, say choose between possible death and casting a spell, and the tank choosing between suffering an AOO or defending the wizard, he can just roll a few dice and solve the problem, instead of having to actually think of risk vs. reward. It seems that Wizards is taking even more steps to turn D&D from a complex game into something that a fifth grader could figure out, if he had the patience to read the rule books.

One of my points EXACTLY. It would be far better if they made paladins and other defenders able to, you know, ACTUALLY DEFEND, instead of becoming the world's most talented issuers of your mom insults.

Dausuul
2007-11-08, 04:38 PM
As I already said... I am going on the assumption that it is similar to Knight's Challenge, and I really hope that it is NOT that way. I never made the claim that I KNOW it will be that way.

That... seems like an extremely unsound assumption, given that it's called "Divine Challenge" and not "Paladin's Challenge." Logic would suggest that when an ability is called "Divine X," there is a divine element involved.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:40 PM
That... seems like an extremely unsound assumption, given that it's called "Divine Challenge" and not "Paladin's Challenge." Logic would suggest that when an ability is called "Divine X," there is a divine element involved.

And what do you suggest it actually is? Some form of divine mind control that makes people want to hurt you specifically? That doesn't actually sound a great deal more reasonable and fitting for the paladin.

"I am a holy crusader, so my god has granted me the power to make you hostile towards me!"

RTGoodman
2007-11-08, 04:41 PM
And apparently Warlocks can heal as well. I'm guessing pretty much any class will have easy access to healing of some form or another. Good.

Yeah, and even Warlords are going to have healing - his Paladin has "enough healing ability to keep the party fighting without overshadowing the cleric or warlord." I guess Warlords are basically the replacement for the bard.

Also, I don't really mind the whole "Divine Challenge" thing - in fact, I think it's very cool, and has been around a lot longer than MMOs. Look at a lot of fantasy novels (or even "The Iliad") - single heroes of one army challenge the heroes of the other all the time. This is the same kind of thing.

Jasdoif
2007-11-08, 04:41 PM
One of my points EXACTLY. It would be far better if they made paladins and other defenders able to, you know, ACTUALLY DEFEND, instead of becoming the world's most talented issuers of your mom insults.How would you recommend they be able to defend, in the case of dealing with ranged attackers? I'm genuinely curious.

Arbitrarity
2007-11-08, 04:42 PM
My opinion on aggro management in D&D:

Iron Guard's Glare and Defensive Rebuke FTW :smallbiggrin:

Abilities that leave the opponent with choice among targets, but penalize them for it, work pretty well. Mind you, Knight's Challenge isn't as bad a mechanic as some make it out to be, even if it could use a bit more in the way of restrictions. But it doesn't force you to attack, just to not attack any other target.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:44 PM
How would you recommend they be able to defend, in the case of dealing with ranged attackers? I'm genuinely curious.

My own rebalanced paladin can defend allies from ranged attackers effectively (with the defensive specialization). They can cover allies with their shield when adjacent, and later they can block line of effect with ease (thus letting them do things like stop dragon breath in its tracks or block spell effects). They can take a lot of blows for their allies, both in melee and at range.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c73/OneWinged4ngel/75436.jpg
This is COOL. Making jokes about the demon king's mommy isn't.

rankrath
2007-11-08, 04:45 PM
How would you recommend they be able to defend, in the case of dealing with ranged attackers? I'm genuinely curious.

Stand in between the attacker and the squishy, relying on his larger HD and AC to enable him to engage the attacker in melee.

Wulfen
2007-11-08, 04:46 PM
i havent really been following the 4th ed stuff so i may be posting blind here...

but does this ability to taunt allow intelligent/classed monsters or npcs to do the same thing? pull characters out of position/act stupid?

because if it could be used on PC's... it opens up a whole world of hurt on them.

"sorry sir meatshield o'blocker is too far away, beating up on the creature immune to bladed weapons, so wizard blastem'all gets jumped by all the other guys... "

Mephisto
2007-11-08, 04:47 PM
As I already said... I am going on the assumption that it is similar to Knight's Challenge, and I really hope that it is NOT that way. I never made the claim that I KNOW it will be that way.

So basically you have no idea how it will work, but you're complaining about how it will ruin the game. :smallconfused:

Short term solution: quit complaining about 4th edition until it's actually out so that you know what you're talking about.

Long term solution: houserule it so that it works how you want. Trivial stuff is easy to fix, I don't see why everybody is saying 4th will ruin D&D.

Dausuul
2007-11-08, 04:47 PM
And what do you suggest it actually is? Some form of divine mind control that makes people want to hurt you specifically? That doesn't actually sound a great deal more reasonable and fitting for the paladin.

"I am a holy crusader, so my god has granted me the power to make you hostile towards me!"

More like, "I am a holy crusader, so my god has granted me the power to forbid you to attack my allies... until you have defeated me."


Again, how do you propose they do that? How do you suggest they make Fighters capable of getting an intelligent enemy to attack the low-damage armor block over the man in a dress throwing energy bolts at them?

What I'd like to see for fighters would be some sort of "intercept" ability, which lets you put yourself in front of an attack coming at an adjacent ally, effectively making it target you instead.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 04:49 PM
What I'd like to see for fighters would be some sort of "intercept" ability, which lets you put yourself in front of an attack coming at an adjacent ally, effectively making it target you instead.
That's about the only way I can think of other than a taunt, and that opens up having to deal with positioning instead (i.e. the more allies you have together, the more you can cover, but the more that'll be hit by that Fireball's AoE)...which may or may not be a bad thing.



Edit: other positioning things could be like a fight against archers, where the Fighter can stay next to the Wizard, doing nothing but soaking up arrows, or he can attack the archers, allowing some to shoot past him at the Wizard. That sort of thing.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:49 PM
Again, how do you propose they do that? How do you suggest they make Fighters capable of getting an intelligent enemy to attack the low-damage armor block over the man in a dress throwing energy bolts at them?

Geez, I just posted a response on this. See my post right above yours. :smallannoyed:

Seriously though, I can rattle off plenty of ideas to do it off the top of my head.

1) "If an enemy does not pay attention to you, you can make a devastating attack to them." A la Frank's Knight. The enemy pays attention to you because you're an actual threat if they don't.

2) "You can cut down enemy mobility and decimate people who try to flee from you (includin enemies with teleport and all that)." A la the Lockdown Fighter build and similar things. AoOs serve this purpose in some capacity.

3) "You can lockdown and disable enemy abilities, preventing them from fighting effectively." Debuffs do this.

4) "You can act immediately to intercept or interrupt enemy movement or actions." Casters and maneuverers already can do it.

5) "You can "cover" allies, switching places with them or absorbing attacks for them when you're adjacent."

6) "You can have an "improved delay" ability, allowing you to have a more versatile ready action and effectively intercept enemies as they act." A la Frank's Fighter.

7) "You can block line of effect." A la Seerow's Fighter or the Rebalanced Paladin


Just for starters. I can give you more if you want.

Seriously, the options are indeed many, and the thing is... pretty much all of them are more fun than having people wrest control of your character (whether you're a player or DM) with questionable fluff (especially when you could already attract an enemy's attention with insults WITHOUT mechanics thanks to the miracle of roleplay). And they all require more tactical thinking, as opposed to "Okay, I hit the aggro button."



What I'd like to see for fighters would be some sort of "intercept" ability, which lets you put yourself in front of an attack coming at an adjacent ally, effectively making it target you instead.

This can be accomplished either by a sort of Cover immediate action, or by an Improved Delay type ability.

Anyways. The whole idea of aggro is just awful for pen and paper for myriad aforementioned reasons, especially if it can be used on PCs (and with the Knight, it can.) Not even MMOs let aggro work on PCs (and in MMOs, aggro actually makes some sense to be implemented, as already explained). But the Knight does it anyways.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 04:51 PM
Geez, I just posted a response on this.
Hence why I deleted the post...you hadn't posted the reply yet when I started typing it :smallredface:

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 04:54 PM
Hence why I deleted the post...you hadn't posted the reply yet when I started typing it :smallredface:

Aha. :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-11-08, 04:54 PM
Judicious use of Circumstance Modifiers should alleviate that concern... What's that? DM fiat? Dunno what you're talking about, I'm just making use of the Rules as written...

If an ability requires DM fiat to make sense, it's bad ability. And if DM needs to swap on circumstance modifiers for an ability to make it look sensible, then I just prefer to roleplay in-combat challenges.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-08, 04:57 PM
Again, how do you propose they do that? How do you suggest they make Fighters capable of getting an intelligent enemy to attack the low-damage armor block over the man in a dress throwing energy bolts at them?

The problem is caused by grid movement. Before there was grid movement, the fighter would simply state that he stands between the charging troll and the squishy wizard. Note how in 3E, there is no effective way for a melee character to block a corridor that is more than 5 feet wide.

Thus, the problem can be solved by disallowing the charging troll to move around the fighter. Logically, it makes perfect sense to allow the fighter to step in between.

Interpose (feat, fighters gain it for free at level 2). Whenever an enemy intends to move into a square adjacent to you, you may, as an immediate action, step into that square yourself instead. This forces that enemy to abort his move; the enemy may opt to attack you (or bull rush you) instead of whatever else it was planning. If the enemy hits you with a trample or overrun attack, it may continue its movement.

You may not use this against flying enemies (unless you fly yourself), enemies you can't see for whatever reason, incorporeal enemies, or swarms.

Improved interpose (feat, prerequisite of the above, free for fighters at level 5) ditto but with a range of two squares.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-08, 04:59 PM
The warlock just might be the most unpredictable character in the game, since you never quite know what her powers will do.

Am I the only one who read this sentence and became rather worried?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:00 PM
The problem is caused by grid movement. Before there was grid movement, the fighter would simply state that he stands between the charging troll and the squishy wizard. Note how in 3E, there is no effective way for a melee character to block a corridor that is more than 5 feet wide. Yeah there is. I already mentioned several possibilities to do exactly this in some of my previous posts. Many of which are things already in use by some of the better quality homebrew variants out there.



Thus, the problem can be solved by disallowing the charging troll to move around the fighter. Logically, it makes perfect sense to allow the fighter to step in between.

Interpose (feat, fighters gain it for free at level 2). Whenever an enemy intends to move into a square adjacent to you, you may, as an immediate action, step into that square yourself instead. This forces that enemy to abort his move; the enemy may opt to attack you (or bull rush you) instead of whatever else it was planning. If the enemy hits you with a trample or overrun attack, it may continue its movement.

You may not use this against flying enemies (unless you fly yourself), enemies you can't see for whatever reason, incorporeal enemies, or swarms.

Improved interpose (feat, prerequisite of the above, free for fighters at level 5) ditto but with a range of two squares.

Interpose is okay early on, but you'll need more than that once enemies have better options to get around you.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 05:01 PM
If an ability requires DM fiat to make sense, it's bad ability. And if DM needs to swap on circumstance modifiers for an ability to make it look sensible, then I just prefer to roleplay in-combat challenges.

Heh, I know people think so. I believe I was having a back handed jibe at 3e through a 2e solution, since DM fiat has been codified for 3e (but largely ignored). For the record, I consider it a necessary role of the DM to make the system make sense via fiat whenever it would otherwise fail, since no system will work in every circumstance unaided.

Person_Man
2007-11-08, 05:01 PM
Re: Aggro


Pros:

The Paladin has high AC, hit points, and the ability to heal itself. In order to make these abilities relevant, he needs to be able to get people to hit him more then his fellow party members. Otherwise, theres no reason to play a Paladin instead of a Striker.

They've eliminated iterative attacks, and have expressly said that they want to make D&D more mobile, so that every class can Move and then Do Something every round. So it will be a lot easier for enemies to just walk around the Defenders to beat down the party members with fewer hit points, and then gang up on the Defenders.

You can play 4th ed online. For better or for worse, this will essentially be another D&D video game. Aggro is clearly an important part of most team play video games out there. So it makes sense to include it in 4th ed, even if its less then desirable for the more roleplaying intense 4th ed played on the tabletop in my basement with friends.


Cons:

DMs don't use optimized tactics. They use appropriate tactics. And thus Aggro really isn't as necessary as it seems. Although its possible that the orcs understand that they should run around the Paladin and kill the Wizard first, they don't. They try and hit the Paladin first because he's wearing big shiny armor and standing in front. But maybe the Drow are magic savvy, and recognize that they need to take the other Arcane enemies first. Divine Challenge clearly undercuts the DMs abilities to have enemies with distinct motivations, personalities, and tactics.

It makes combat monotonous. Almost every combat will feature enemies who charge the Paladin, regardless of the plot, and perhaps regardless of the enemies. Monotonous combat makes for a boring game.

It forces DMs to use silly workarounds. Lets say there's a cult that hates arcane magic, and always targets try to kill magic users on sight. Or I have an BBEG who's the sworn enemy of the Wizard in the party, because he foiled the BBEG's previous attempt at world domination in an earlier adventure. Now, I also have to make the enemies immune to the Paladin's Divine Challenge somehow in order for my plot to make sense. Except there's no in-plot reason to do so. "Its just a coincidence that the arcane hating cult is made up entirely of plant people who are immune to Divine Challenge. Really."

Instead of a Divine Challenge, they could just make the Paladin have powerful Shield Another abilities. That way they could just stand next to the Wizard, and every time an enemy hits him, I have a X% chance of having it apply to me and my AC and hit points instead. You can be a Defender without having psuedo mind control abilities. And it make more fluff sense.


On balance, I think I'm anti-Aggro. But I'd like to see the details before I make a judgment.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 05:01 PM
Am I the only one who read this sentence and became rather worried?
I was...curious. It's one of those things that'll probably be either really awesome or really terrible.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:04 PM
Divine Challenge clearly undercuts the DMs abilities to have enemies with distinct motivations, personalities, and tactics. Exactly.


It makes combat monotonous. Almost every combat will feature enemies who charge the Paladin, regardless of the plot, and perhaps regardless of the enemies. Monotonous combat makes for a boring game. Exactly.


It forces DMs to use silly workarounds. Lets say there's a cult that hates arcane magic, and always targets try to kill magic users on sight. Or I have an BBEG who's the sworn enemy of the Wizard in the party, because he foiled the BBEG's previous attempt at world domination in an earlier adventure. Now, I also have to make the enemies immune to the Paladin's Divine Challenge somehow in order for my plot to make sense. Except there's no in-plot reason to do so. "Its just a coincidence that the arcane hating cult is made up entirely of plant people who are immune to Divine Challenge. Really." Exactly.


Instead of a Divine Challenge, they could just make the Paladin have powerful Shield Another abilities. That way they could just stand next to the Wizard, and every time an enemy hits him, I have a X% chance of having it apply to me and my AC and hit points instead. You can be a Defender without having psuedo mind control abilities. And it make more fluff sense. Exactly.

Well put.
:smallsmile:

Quite simply, I cannot see this idea as anything more than terrible design sense.

horseboy
2007-11-08, 05:08 PM
I'm surprised no one else caught this:


I’ll soon be starting Chris Perkins’s game, where I’m hoping to play an aloof eladrin warlord. But even so, there are too many character concepts and not enough time: the intellectual dwarf wizard, the fierce *mumble* ranger, the anomalous tiefling cleric, the brash human fighter. But I’ve been seeing these (in every combination) being played at each of the gaming tables, and it’s extremely gratifying to see them all fulfilling their design purposes in individual ways. Just like they should.Yeah, everybody is playtesting the same old cliches. Intellectual wizard, brash fighter, misunderstood member of an "evil" race. Pick your stereotype, boys, cause until they show, say 5 completely different views of the same class (and I want more than just race/class combinations) I'm still not going to be impressed.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-08, 05:09 PM
I was...curious. It's one of those things that'll probably be either really awesome or really terrible.

Yeah. To me this is a bigger deal than a taunting ability, which sucks, but doesn't necc ruin an entire core class. This could mean that a warlock is like a wilder... shudder...

Hopefully, since some other articles seem to indicate that the 4E warlock found the 3.5 Binder in a dark alley, kicked his farm animal, and took his class abilities that the 'never really know' factor is on the basis of what vestiges they have bound that day and not on the basis of some random mechanic.

Overall, that makes the most sense with the 'warlocks can x behold the new CoDzilla' panics. It may just be that a warlock with one vestige bound can be a little bit of a controller, with another vesige bound be a bit of a healer, and with another kick the living heck out of things.

Temp
2007-11-08, 05:12 PM
Yeah. To me this is a bigger deal than a taunting ability, which sucks, but doesn't necc ruin an entire core class. This could mean that a warlock is like a wilder... shudder...
...Yeah... It potentially ruins the entire core combat system...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:12 PM
I'm surprised no one else caught this:
Yeah, everybody is playtesting the same old cliches. Intellectual wizard, brash fighter, misunderstood member of an "evil" race. Pick your stereotype, boys, cause until they show, say 5 completely different views of the same class (and I want more than just race/class combinations) I'm still not going to be impressed.

Definitely. As I've said before, I'm quite concerned about how 4e seems to be focusing on stereotypes. I still pray my fears are unfounded, but I dunno... it doesn't look like it so far.


...Yeah... It potentially ruins the entire core combat system...

Indeed, I think the aggro thing is the most worrying news yet, as it *does* pose the potential to wreck havoc on the entire combat system, as opposed to just being an annoying aspect of one class. This is because it's a core class mechanic and all balance and such is going to based around it (and thus it has the potential to be difficult to remove easily from the game. A 3.5e example would be alignment), whereas with the Knight you could pretty much just ignore him and pretend he didn't exist without consequence.

Redblade
2007-11-08, 05:14 PM
Well when I read it I thought more of some divine illusion effect. Something like:

"You are approached by a group of four, one turns into a bear, the second charges with a sword drawn, the third creates fire between his hands. The last stands seven foot tall and alight with holy flame, his eyes glow with divine wrath"

Ok maybe described better then that but can you see what I mean? A smart enemy would still be able to figure it out but against the averaged pack of goblins it could serve as a good diversion.

Artanis
2007-11-08, 05:15 PM
I'm surprised no one else caught this:
Yeah, everybody is playtesting the same old cliches. Intellectual wizard, brash fighter, misunderstood member of an "evil" race. Pick your stereotype, boys, cause until they show, say 5 completely different views of the same class (and I want more than just race/class combinations) I'm still not going to be impressed.
I saw it, but didn't get the same impressions. The Fighter I'll give you, but the Cleric and the Wizard I don't think are that bad. You don't often hear of Tiefling Clerics, regardless of how stereotypical said Tiefling otherwise is. And Wizards pretty much have to be "intellectual" in order to actually function, while a Dwarf one is pretty atypical as far as stereotyping goes.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 05:16 PM
I dislike the implementation of the Knight's Challenge - it strikes me as inelegant. I think, as said, there are other ways it can be done, but I truly believe WotC's primary concern is a younger audience, and to effectively market it to such an audience, things just have to be simplified.

There's a reason why GURPS isn't popular - and it's not because it's a bad system. It's because you have to sit and do a fair amount of reading before the game can begin, and kids don't want that. They don't need that. They want a game that can be played as soon as they bring it home from the store, and they do not care if all the details really make sense. This is why Aggro is acceptable to them when playing games like WoW, this is why Aggro would be acceptable to them when playing D&D 4.0, should be take the route so many people suspect it will. Kids don't want an abstract system that simulates believeable fantasy combat, they want a game that's quick to pick up, and somewhere mentions the words "fireball", "sword", and "dragon".

I think it'd suck if it came to that, but I can still take what I like from the system, houserule the rest, and still might have a good time. So, whatev.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:17 PM
I saw it, but didn't get the same impressions. The Fighter I'll give you, but the Cleric and the Wizard I don't think are that bad. You don't often hear of Tiefling Clerics, regardless of how stereotypical said Tiefling otherwise is. And Wizards pretty much have to be "intellectual" in order to actually function, while a Dwarf one is pretty atypical as far as stereotyping goes.

Not really. Dwarves were totally wizard-y way back in Tolkien. Just Gimli wasn't a wizard.


I dislike the implementation of the Knight's Challenge - it strikes me as inelegant. I think, as said, there are other ways it can be done, but I truly believe WotC's primary concern is a younger audience, and to effectively market it to such an audience, things just have to be simplified.

There's a reason why GURPS isn't popular - and it's not because it's a bad system. It's because you have to sit and do a fair amount of reading before the game can begin, and kids don't want that. They don't need that. They want a game that can be played as soon as they bring it home from the store, and they do not care if all the details really make sense. This is why Aggro is acceptable to them when playing games like WoW, this is why Aggro would be acceptable to them when playing D&D 4.0, should be take the route so many people suspect it will. Kids don't want an abstract system that simulates believeable fantasy combat, they want a game that's quick to pick up, and somewhere mentions the words "fireball", "sword", and "dragon".

I think it'd suck if it came to that, but I can still take what I like from the system, houserule the rest, and still might have a good time. So, whatev.

You argue they're going for simplicity at the cost of design quality. Before I go into all the other reasons that's just silly, look at the example dragon encounter and explain to me how they're emphasizing simplicity. *Rolleyes*

If they're trying to emphasize simplicity to the point of taking steps as extreme as eliminating defensive tactics from defenders, it really looks like they *don't know what they're doing.*

Artanis
2007-11-08, 05:20 PM
Not really. Dwarves were totally wizard-y way back in Tolkien. Just Gimli wasn't a wizard.
Perhaps, but Gimli (or characters like him) is what everybody thinks of when they picture a stereotypical Dwarf: a melee fighter with a big axe and a scottish accent.

horseboy
2007-11-08, 05:20 PM
Am I the only one who read this sentence and became rather worried?

Nope, don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 05:21 PM
You argue they're going for simplicity at the cost of design quality. Before I go into all the other reasons that's just silly, look at the example dragon encounter and explain to me how they're emphasizing simplicity. *Rolleyes*

I only took a glance at that, when it was released...but honestly, it didn't look that complicated to me.

Plus, I played Magic: The Gathering. The game is more complex now, yet also simpler in other ways. It certainly feels a lot more aimed at younger crowds. If it's working, I think it's quite plausible that will motivate them to apply that same method again, to other games.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:24 PM
I only took a glance at that, when it was released...but honestly, it didn't look that complicated to me.
Adding plenty of actions like that can go a long way to bogging down a combat round, and it's certainly more complex than adding an actual defensive ability to the paladin instead of aggro. If you wanted to simplify things and make combat rounds run more smoothly and all that, reducing the actions per round and such would go a much longer way towards accomplishing that.

It's not that complicated (seriously, D&D is very simple), but having actual defensive abilities instead of an aggro button isn't that complicated either.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 05:28 PM
Adding plenty of actions like that can go a long way to bogging down a combat round, and it's certainly more complex than adding an actual defensive ability to the paladin instead of aggro. If you wanted to simplify things and make combat rounds run more smoothly and all that, reducing the actions per round would go a long way.

(As a side note, that article looked WAY too much like "look how big the DM can make his **** look with dragons! You still can't ever defeat one and will probably be under-rewarded for defeating them! /Stupid Hype Post!!")

Isn't there only a single attack per round? And wait, what exactly did they do, again? The Fighter used an attack that took away half the Dragon's health, the Rogue tried to sneak up but got tail-slapped or something, and Cleric simultaneously hit something and healed their Wizard, who was on fire.

Do you have a link to the article? I cannot access the site, and if I could give a more detailed look, perhaps I might have a better idea of the situation.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-08, 05:29 PM
...Yeah... It potentially ruins the entire core combat system...

Sigh. No, it doesn't. If it's just one class feature (or power, or wheel of cheese if that's what they want to call it) then simply avoiding it's use or swapping it out for another ability isn't going to undermine the entire class.

If all the classes abilities were built on some reandomized mechanic on the other hand...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:31 PM
Sigh. No, it doesn't. If it's just one class feature (or power, or wheel of cheese if that's what they want to call it) then simply avoiding it's use or swapping it out for another ability isn't going to undermine the entire class.

That's assuming that it stays safely isolated to one class, and doesn't have a ripple effect spreading throughout the system's mechanics (example I used before was alignment). If it's confined to one class, sure, I can just make Rebalanced Paladin 4e and be done with it. However, since it's in core, it has the POTENTIAL to reach out its ugly tentacles and corrupt the whole system.

Temp
2007-11-08, 05:31 PM
Adding plenty of actions like that can go a long way to bogging down a combat round,
Wait... Wait... you're saying you think combat will slow down with six dice rolls, five different die-roll modifiers and six different defense scores in a single monster's turn?

Nah... that'd be utter crazy-talk.


[edit:]Upon looking at the article in greater detail, I realize those numbers are actually quite optimistic.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:33 PM
Wait... Wait... you're saying you think combat will slow down with six dice rolls, five different die-roll modifiers and six different defense scores in a single monster's turn?

Nah... that'd be utter crazy-talk.

Oh I know, I must be insane. I also must be insane for suggesting that the concept they proposed of having large numbers of enemies in 4e and emphasizing group combat will ALSO likely add to complexity more than having an aggro mechanic would supposedly reduce it. Thus further countering the silly argument that they've got to have aggro for the sake of simplicity. I mean come on, how hard would it be to implement any of the several suggestions I made before?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 05:35 PM
I only took a glance at that, when it was released...but honestly, it didn't look that complicated to me.

Plus, I played Magic: The Gathering. The game is more complex now, yet also simpler in other ways. It certainly feels a lot more aimed at younger crowds. If it's working, I think it's quite plausible that will motivate them to apply that same method again, to other games.

It's possible that the target is the same audience, and you're just older.


Sigh. No, it doesn't. If it's just one class feature (or power, or wheel of cheese if that's what they want to call it) then simply avoiding it's use or swapping it out for another ability isn't going to undermine the entire class.

Aren't they also removing the AoO? Without AoOs, defense becomes much harder, and an aggro-like effect like this would mean being able to provide some.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-08, 05:37 PM
That's assuming that it stays safely isolated to one class, and doesn't have a ripple effect spreading throughout the system's mechanics (example I used before was alignment). If it's confined to one class, sure, I can just make Rebalanced Paladin 4e and be done with it. However, since it's in core, it has the POTENTIAL to reach out its ugly tentacles and corrupt the whole system.

Well, so does any silly mechanic in any class until we know more. At this point though I don't see that we have any reason to suspect that it will be any more prevasive and viral than the PHBII knights challenge ability.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 05:38 PM
Well, so does any silly mechanic in any class until we know more. At this point though I don't see that we have any reason to suspect that it will be any more prevasive and viral than the PHBII knights challenge ability.

Hell, they may decide they don't like it and get rid of it.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:39 PM
Well, so does any silly mechanic in any class until we know more. At this point though I don't see that we have any reason to suspect that it will be any more prevasive and viral than the PHBII knights challenge ability.

By virtue of being core, it will ALMOST CERTAINLY be more pervasive than the PHB II knight's challenge ability. See for reference: Any aspect of core classes in 3.5e. Heh.

Also, this (and all other threads about 4e) are inherently threads about speculation. I know that. You know it. Anyone intelligent posting in here knows it. So you and others don't need to constantly remind us that we don't know for sure. That's obvious. It's been said before. We know.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 05:42 PM
It's not that complicated (seriously, D&D is very simple), but having actual defensive abilities instead of an aggro button isn't that complicated either.

D&D is indeed very simple. And, I agree, the idea of having actual defensive abilities isn't hard to manage. For us, that is.

It depends on your frame of reference. For instance, I do not see GURPS as all the complicated, but it downright confuses other people, because they're just not used to seeing such a comparitively lengthy character creation process.

If a WoW-loving audience were to be attracted to D&D, they'd need to see something familiar, that invites them. If they already understand the basic concept, I suspect it would be easier to learn the actual rules behind them. I imagine it's a "safer bet", when trying to nab the kids.

As for the dice rolls, I do not agree that makes the game inherently complex. I don't know where there might be six rolls with five modifiers...that sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. I had the impression that some things were going to be clear-cut and quick-to-read, and that the gameplay itself would follow a similar pattern. Can you please link an article to explicity support the idea of how complex the combat is going to be?

Temp
2007-11-08, 05:42 PM
See for reference: Any aspect of core classes in 3.5e. Heh.
What about Resist Nature's Lure or Slow Fall? Eh? Eh?

[edit:]Anyway, if the design philosophy for making "Defenders" do their job is to just say "Screw it, the villains are going to attack the guy in the armor," the entire basis for combat tactics could well be mangled.

And because all we've really heard so far is a vague blurb about the Paladin, it's all we have to work from. We've really no reasons yet to assume the Fighter would function very differently.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-08, 05:43 PM
By virtue of being core, it will ALMOST CERTAINLY be more pervasive than the PHB II knight's challenge ability. See for reference: Any aspect of core classes in 3.5e. Heh.

Like, say, Bardic music? Yeah, that would TOTALLY screw up the entire combat system it if were removed... say... for bardic knack. :smallwink:

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 05:46 PM
Like, say, Bardic music? Yeah, that would TOTALLY screw up the entire combat system it if were removed... say... for bardic knack. :smallwink:

Straw Man Arguments are Wrong. Just Say No. :smallannoyed:

I didn't say it was intrinsic to the combat system. I said it was more pervasive than the Knight Challenge ability, and it definitely is. Also... you realize Bardic KNOWLEDGE is removed for Bardic Knack, not Bardic Music, right? And that Bardic Knowledge isn't a mainstay class ability?


What about Resist Nature's Lure or Slow Fall? Eh? Eh?

[edit:]Anyway, if the design philosophy for making "Defenders" do their job is to just say "Screw it, the villains are going to attack the guy in the armor," an entire fourth of the game will be mangled. Since all we've heard about is the Paladin, there's no reason to assume the Fighter would function too differently.

Exactly. Heck, the choice to use aggro appears to be laziness on the part of the designers from my perspective. They really are saying "We can't think of anything more creative or functional. Screw it, the enemy is GOING to attack the guy in armor arbitrarily."

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 05:47 PM
It's possible that the target is the same audience, and you're just older.

Highly possible. Maybe they were always going for the same crowd (and might not be reaching to younger ages), but I just meant a new generation.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 05:50 PM
Highly possible. Maybe they were always going for the same crowd (and might not be reaching to younger ages), but I just meant a new generation.

Yeah. Now, I didn't mean that in a ZOMG TEH OLDZ sort of way, just an observation.

brian c
2007-11-08, 05:59 PM
Doesn't Knight's Challenge offer a saving throw? He tries--and he's superhumanly good at it, by the way--to force people to respond to him. Those who are strong of will (high Will save) can resist; weak-willed creatures can't.

Uh huh


It's kind of like trolling a message board.

I loled

Corlis
2007-11-08, 06:50 PM
I think this thread may have convinced me that having forced-attack taunt would be a good bad idea, but I still think that some kind of taunting system might work out if it didn't actually force your opponent to attack you. Say for instance that you could make an Intimidate check or something against your opponent's will save (or I guess defense in 4.0), and if you succeed you would give them a penalty to attack anybody except yourself, and they have to make a Concentration check (or something similar) to cast spells that don't affect you. After all, out of combat the Intimidate and Diplomacy skills also cause NPCs to act in ways that they normally wouldn't, and this would just be an in-combat form of that.

Edited for reversed meaning

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 07:25 PM
I think this thread may have convinced me that having forced-attack taunt would be a good idea I think you typoed here in a manner that significantly changes your message's meaning. If so, might want to edit.
, but I still think that some kind of taunting system might work out if it didn't actually force your opponent to attack you. Say for instance that you could make an Intimidate check or something against your opponent's will save (or I guess defense in 4.0), and if you succeed you would give them a penalty to attack anybody except yourself, and they have to make a Concentration check (or something similar) to cast spells that don't affect you. After all, out of combat the Intimidate and Diplomacy skills also cause NPCs to act in ways that they normally wouldn't, and this would just be an in-combat form of that.

Like Iron Guard's Glare (a level 1 Devoted Spirit stance in Tome of Battle that penalizes enemies who attack people who aren't you). I am totally fine with Iron Guard's Glare. That's way better than Knight's Challenge. If they did something like that, I'd probably be okay with it (though I would not like to see something like that as a centrally important (mainstay) paladin ability).

Orzel
2007-11-08, 07:26 PM
With aggro being added, I hope rogues get an optional "Yo mama" power to fake a defender role.

Rogue: I make fun of the troll's mama.
DM: The troll makes it's will save and ignores you.
Rogue: And his grandmama! I'll use my swift action.
DM: The troll charges at you with its club.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-08, 07:35 PM
With aggro being added, I hope rogues get an optional "Yo mama" power to fake a defender role.

Rogue: I make fun of the troll's mama.
DM: The troll makes it's will save and ignores you.
Rogue: And his grandmama! I'll use my swift action.
DM: The troll charges at you with its club.

Awesome. WotC, include this or pay the price.

Serenity
2007-11-08, 08:02 PM
Wow, so much vitriol over something of which we know nothing but the name. Point me to where it says Divine Challenge=Aggro. Note the word 'Divine' in the name, as in a God being involved somehow. Maybe Divine Challenge charges the paladin with their God's power, giving them a visible divine aura that makes them appear as the most dangerous creature on the field. Maybe their God inflicts a curse upon the target unless he confronts the paladin. Maybe, maybe, maybe. And maybe, even if it is an Aggro ability, which would be stupid, it will be easy to refluff it as one of the more sensible options and throw on a Will save.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-08, 08:38 PM
Awesome. WotC, include this or pay the price.

Isn't this just a Diplomacy check: just roll really low (take 1) and it makes them want to hurt you more. If Unfriendly (most enemies who are enemies are) rolling 1-5 will make them Hostile:
Read the Hostile text: Will Take Risks to hurt you.

So Diplomacy already makes Aggro possible.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 09:24 PM
Isn't this just a Diplomacy check: just roll really low (take 1) and it makes them want to hurt you more. If Unfriendly (most enemies who are enemies are) rolling 1-5 will make them Hostile:
Read the Hostile text: Will Take Risks to hurt you.

So Diplomacy already makes Aggro possible.

It doesn't force them to make an illogical decision about how to carry out that hostility, however! It also cannot be used on PCs! Thus, not the same thing. :smalltongue:

Still, saying that Diplomacy makes something happen is NOT a good argument in favor of that something. Because, you know, Diplomacy is broken to the point that it's on the CharOp most broken list ranked right next to Pun Pun (See: Campaign Smasher thread), and it's pretty much the only thing on that list that doesn't take a whole lotta cheese effort. Quite simply, Diplomacy is ALSO an element of bad design.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-08, 09:55 PM
More like, "I am a holy crusader, so my god has granted me the power to forbid you to attack my allies... until you have defeated me."



What I'd like to see for fighters would be some sort of "intercept" ability, which lets you put yourself in front of an attack coming at an adjacent ally, effectively making it target you instead.

Hmm. They should give sword and board fighters the feat "Cometary Collision" activateable as an immediate action, but it uses up their move for that round AND their swift action.

That actually would be nice.

*thinks about it some more*
Really nice.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 10:12 PM
Hmm. They should give sword and board fighters the feat "Cometary Collision" activateable as an immediate action, but it uses up their move for that round AND their swift action.

That actually would be nice.

*thinks about it some more*
Really nice.

Kinda close to the Improved Delay suggestion I made, except in reverse on the time scale. Instead of giving up your current turn to delay until later in the round to act, you give up your ability to act next turn (being stuck just with a standard action, which is lame).

Improved Delay (one of my several suggestions) does essentially the same thing, except it works better in more situations. And doesn't make up a new type of action. It's also ridiculously simple (It's like a delay, but you don't have to declare when you're delaying to, so it's even simpler). Heh.

Oh, and it's also EXACTLY like my intercept suggestion, except that your suggestion creates a new type of action that stops you from being able to use full round actions ever (since you'll likely want to be defending often, and when you do intercept people you won't be able to follow up with full attacks or anything, if 4e even has something like that).

Nonah_Me
2007-11-08, 10:23 PM
Yeah...about that....

Um... Look! A zepplin!

*runs away*

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 10:24 PM
Um... Look! A zepplin!


What? Where?



*runs away*

Oh... sonvoa...!

MCerberus
2007-11-08, 10:25 PM
I like what they're doing with giving the Fighters bonus abilities for specific weapons... hopefully no mention of bonuses to the spiked chain are included...




or the spiked chain at all.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 10:26 PM
I like what they're doing with giving the Fighters bonus abilities for specific weapons...

I've been saying they should do something like that for... ever. Armor needs to be differentiated, too (seriously, there's like 3 types that matter. Think for a second about the *dozens* of unique and flavorful fantasy armors you could have, all with unique and differently-valuable abilities. Now look at 3.5e armors. Ugh). But... how much you wanna bet they screw it up and still end up making some specific weapon style "best"? :smallfrown:

Would at least be slightly funny (albeit in a sad way) if it was the Greatsword.

MCerberus
2007-11-08, 10:30 PM
I've been saying they should do something like that for... ever. Armor needs to be differentiated, too. But... how much you wanna bet they screw it up and still end up making some specific weapon "best"? :smallfrown:

Well you can't avoid if you try and break a system, there's going to be some kind of Half-Orge with Spiked Chain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html) out there. The Generic PhB setting is also going to be a lot more medieval with civilization being on a downslope and the like so that might also be fun,

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 10:33 PM
Well you can't avoid if you try and break a system, there's going to be some kind of Half-Orge with Spiked Chain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html) out there. What? You have to "try and break a system" to realize that most weapons and particularly armors are useless? Are you kidding me? It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that everyone's going to want full plate over half plate, and that the difference in cost is negligible (since you're going to want to have the best mundane armor you can get before you start spending real money to enhance it).

MCerberus
2007-11-08, 10:38 PM
What? You have to "try and break a system" to realize that most weapons and particularly armors are useless? Are you kidding me? It's not exactly rocket science here.

This isn't a reference to the 3.x melee bork-edness but about game systems in general. There's going to be some cheese combo with the new weapons for fighters system just like bat-wizards, CoDzillas, and the like. Instead of me saying "spiked chain" you could easily say "Spampsting" from WoW, Iron Curtained suicide bombers from Red Alert 2, or any other messed up combo from games. I am pretty partial to the invulnerable suicide bombers though... fun stuff.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-08, 10:56 PM
This isn't a reference to the 3.x melee bork-edness but about game systems in general. There's going to be some cheese combo with the new weapons for fighters system just like bat-wizards, CoDzillas, and the like. Instead of me saying "spiked chain" you could easily say "Spampsting" from WoW, Iron Curtained suicide bombers from Red Alert 2, or any other messed up combo from games. I am pretty partial to the invulnerable suicide bombers though... fun stuff.

I am more upset that many armors are useless than the point that spiked chains exist. Spiked chains are an easily removable singularity (if, in fact, they were so cheesy you felt a need to remove them). I actually find the issue surrounding the greatsword to be more problematic to the system as a whole. It's an issue of the system as a whole not working, rather than a single element being cheesy.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 10:59 PM
Yeah. Now, I didn't mean that in a ZOMG TEH OLDZ sort of way, just an observation.

No worries, I didn't take it that way.

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 11:16 PM
I am more upset that many armors are useless than the point that spiked chains exist.

I very much agree. Though it might slow combat down a bit, I think it would be interesting to see certain damage types be more effective against certain armors. They mentioned something of the Spear being able to ignore some AC, in one of those articles, which is nice - but I wonder if that will be an ability useable with any other weapons, at all.

I'd also like to see strength factored into determining movement - I think it's a bit silly that a Fighter with epic strength can only get as far as 20ft with a move action in heavy armor, no different from back when he began his career.

I'd also like shields to be useful beyond first level.

horseboy
2007-11-08, 11:24 PM
I'd also like to see strength factored into determining movement - I think it's a bit silly that a Fighter with epic strength can only get as far as 20ft with a move action in heavy armor, no different from back when he began his career.


Holy crap, you mean there's not a feat to do that somewhere?

Deepblue706
2007-11-08, 11:31 PM
Holy crap, you mean there's not a feat to do that somewhere?

I know the Knight got something, but honestly I never heard of a feat that did that...

So, would you mind telling me what it is?

horseboy
2007-11-08, 11:49 PM
I know the Knight got something, but honestly I never heard of a feat that did that...

So, would you mind telling me what it is?

Uh, Right on, brother!(?) :smallconfused:

Deepblue706
2007-11-09, 12:16 AM
Uh, Right on, brother!(?) :smallconfused:

Uh...er...

I took your comment as sarcasm - and was asking that you provided the name of the feat that could do that...

Whoops.

Kompera
2007-11-09, 12:21 AM
I personally would love to see a sensible aggro system put in place. After seeing monsters run past my Barb/Fighter to engage the other, less physically imposing and save for the Priest lighter armored members of my adventuring party, I bought myself a spiked chain and Combat Reflexes and started using my 25' diameter reach to issue my challenges for me. And I do think it's a bit cheesy and I think I'd prefer to hit things with a big stick or sword than the spiked chain. But there is scarce other option if I want to be able to fulfill my role within the group.


If an ability requires DM fiat to make sense, it's bad ability. And if DM needs to swap on circumstance modifiers for an ability to make it look sensible, then I just prefer to roleplay in-combat challenges.

Wait, I thought it was the other way around. Doesn't the role play earn you the circumstance modifier?

PS: The 'feat' which allows for faster movement once you have epic strength is called magical armor. Once you have epic strength you should probably have a set of magic armor.

Deepblue706
2007-11-09, 12:37 AM
PS: The 'feat' which allows for faster movement once you have epic strength is called magical armor. Once you have epic strength you should probably have a set of magic armor.

What magical armor? You mean, simply something that can cast haste on the wearer? I've never heard of better movement with merely wearing "magical" armor.

Regardless, the strength itself plays no part, so that still wouldn't make me feel any better.

Kompera
2007-11-09, 12:47 AM
What magical armor? You mean, simply something that can cast haste on the wearer? I've never heard of better movement with merely wearing "magical" armor.

Regardless, the strength itself plays no part, so that still wouldn't make me feel any better.
Sorry, I was not very specific. There are several magical armors which either count as lighter than their type, just allow faster movement, or actually haste their wearers. And probably a few effects I didn't list. Check here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm) for some examples.
And sure, that still means that your super strong guy wearing non-magical plate mail still moves 20. But that's fairly realistic. The super strong (size M) guy wearing no armor moves 30, right? Not 40 or 50 just because he's strong. And encumberence isn't all about the weight.

Deepblue706
2007-11-09, 12:52 AM
Oh, I know it's more than just the weight - but yes, I think there should be a variety of speeds for characters, based on their abilities (strength included in the formula). At 18 strength, I think it's still reasonable to say speed would be more-or-less the same as most other characters'. Beyond that, however, I find it plausible that one might begin to overcome some amount of hinderance.

turkishproverb
2007-11-09, 01:36 AM
Not really. Dwarves were totally wizard-y way back in Tolkien. Just Gimli wasn't a wizard.



You argue they're going for simplicity at the cost of design quality. Before I go into all the other reasons that's just silly, look at the example dragon encounter and explain to me how they're emphasizing simplicity. *Rolleyes*

If they're trying to emphasize simplicity to the point of taking steps as extreme as eliminating defensive tactics from defenders, it really looks like they *don't know what they're doing.*


Actually, dwarves weren't very wizardy, they wree more Artificery (magical euqiptment makers)

As to the argumetn of simiplicity vs accuracy. I think they sould just keep the current system (3.5) evovling as AD&D agian, and use the new simplified version as D&D.

Temp
2007-11-09, 01:42 AM
I personally would love to see a sensible aggro system put in place. After seeing monsters run past my Barb/Fighter to engage the other, less physically imposing and save for the Priest lighter armored members of my adventuring party, I bought myself a spiked chain and Combat Reflexes and started using my 25' diameter reach to issue my challenges for me. And I do think it's a bit cheesy and I think I'd prefer to hit things with a big stick or sword than the spiked chain. But there is scarce other option if I want to be able to fulfill my role within the group.
Seems there are better and less cheesy methods than aggro.

A mechanic where a character only counts as "paying attention" to the victim of his attack after a charge and where all other combatants attacks deal double damage to him, for instance, would prevent the run-straight-by-the-tank problem.

It might take some tinkering with the charge rules to express the concept into the current system (moving more than half of your base speed=charge, perhaps?).

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-09, 01:56 AM
How do we know that it is necessarily aggro? May be it only tends to draw aggro, because of some effect. Maybe Divine Challenge gives some kind of penalty, which is removed by successfully attacking the issuer of said challenge.

Unlikely, but that is how I would write up a challenge type ability.

I'll take a stab at it:

Divine Challenge:
Gained at some level, probably pretty early.

Swift Action to use

The target of this ability (which must be able to see and hear the paladin) takes a -2 morale penalty to attacks, skills, weapon damage, and saving throws until it makes a successful attack against the issuer of the challenge. Once this ability has been used on a target, it is immune for the next 24 hours. This is a mind-affecting, sonic, language-dependent, extraordinary ability.

The penalty would likely scale with level, up to about a -8 by 20th level.
At some point, the paladin would be able to affect all enemies within X radius, instead of one specific enemy.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-09, 02:04 AM
Dear lord. It looks like they actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. If it's true, I officially hate WotC. :smallfurious:

I'm with that guy. If 4th Edition has MMO-style aggro mechanics there's essentially no chance that I'll be playing it.

OTOH, I don't see a slam dunk that this is, in fact, what the paladin's Divine Challenge is. There are a lot of abilities that would qualify as "making me look like the more attractive target".

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Rockphed
2007-11-09, 02:28 AM
Absolutely. Mind control is one thing. A TAUNT that somehow makes the beholders go after you exclusively for no good reason isn't. I can BUY mind control forcing you to do something.

Yes, of course, we don't know anything for sure yet, so I'm very much hoping that it's not just a rehashed Knight Challenge ability.

If it's what it LOOKS like it is, that just opens the gate for all kinds of weird and senseless things like the PHB II Knight's "cover"-like ability that was fluffed as you jumping in front of an ally to take their blow... only to absorb half of their damage Shield Other style (while they still took the other half). Except now it's core, and thus the rest of the game is going to be based off of it, and thus far more problematic than just some random class lodged in the PHB II.

Exactly. The thing is, it's NOT just like WoW. It's FAR WORSE than WoW, because in the context of WoW, aggro actually makes some sense to implement (though, of course, you can't use it in PvP, for obvious reasons. No such restrictions existed for Knight Challenge, though. It is NOT fun when you get forced roleplay like "No, your character can't resist their taunt. No, it doesn't matter that you can't understand the language he's speaking. Your calm and collected character just can't resist to make a tactically suicidal position and attack the guy who flipped you the bird while the world is destroyed in a round by the eldritch machine having time to go off. HURRAY." God I hate Knights so much). In the context of pen and paper, it's just utterly horrible. Not to mention that it turns every knight into "Sir Talks Trash A Lot." That is the LAST thing I want to see paladins turn into.

I just replied across 4 pages and a part of my soul cried out in pain, but I want to reply to this before I forget.

What if it is a charisma based thing? Where I need to make a charisma check to get your attention. And even then, you just take a penalty when attacking any one else who is withing 30 feet of me? How about if I am furthermore easier to hit.

Alternatively, if spell based, then what if I give all allies within 30 feet extra AC while lowering mine?

I agree that if it is just a rehash of the Knight ability, then it will be horrible. But this is a paladin, a divine caster. If anybody can say, "Hey, look at me," it is him. If it takes Charisma to convince your enemies that you are the target, not the wizard, then all the better.

Edit: Wow, this wasn't entirely obsolete by the time I got here.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-09, 05:45 AM
I just replied across 4 pages and a part of my soul cried out in pain, but I want to reply to this before I forget.

What if it is a charisma based thing? Where I need to make a charisma check to get your attention. And even then, you just take a penalty when attacking any one else who is withing 30 feet of me? How about if I am furthermore easier to hit.

Alternatively, if spell based, then what if I give all allies within 30 feet extra AC while lowering mine?

I agree that if it is just a rehash of the Knight ability, then it will be horrible. But this is a paladin, a divine caster. If anybody can say, "Hey, look at me," it is him. If it takes Charisma to convince your enemies that you are the target, not the wizard, then all the better.

Edit: Wow, this wasn't entirely obsolete by the time I got here.

Indeed, it is quite obsolete. I have already answered your questions and concerns. I already said that if it was something along the lines of Iron Guard Glare (which provides a penalty to adjacent enemies who choose to attack your allies instead of you) then I wouldn't have a conniption over it.


How do we know that it is necessarily aggro? May be it only tends to draw aggro, because of some effect. This comment, too, has been responded to before in this thread. Actually, this one has been responded to multiple times, and is thus more annoying. *Sigh*

By the nature of a 4e thread, almost all discussions will in fact be based on matters of speculation. Pointing that out is about as useful as pointing out that the sky's blue (EVERYONE knows it), especially when the people you're responding to have already expressly stated that their comments are predicated on the assumed possibility that it could be similar to Knight's Challenge. And that the rest of their statements are about why that's so horribly, horribly bad from a design perspective.

Matthew
2007-11-09, 08:00 AM
Wait, I thought it was the other way around. Doesn't the role play earn you the circumstance modifier?

It can do, but Circumstance Modifiers can also be used to rectify any instance where the system inexplicably contradicts logical expectations.

Person_Man
2007-11-09, 10:13 AM
OK, so I started an Aggro thread on the WotC 4th ed rules forum (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14288096#post14288096).

If you have strong feelings about it, I suggest you take them there. WotC might actually look at it. Conceivably. Maybe. OK, they won't. But it might make you feel better.



Aren't they also removing the AoO? Without AoOs, defense becomes much harder, and an aggro-like effect like this would mean being able to provide some.

As far as I know, they're keeping AoO and Tumble. But they're severely curtailing the number of things that provoke AoO, in order to make the rule far less complicated. I'm guess that only movement will provoke AoO, and nothing else. But that's just a rumor based on a few developer blogs. So maybe I'm wrong.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-09, 10:15 AM
How do we know that it is necessarily aggro? May be it only tends to draw aggro, because of some effect. Maybe Divine Challenge gives some kind of penalty, which is removed by successfully attacking the issuer of said challenge.

Unlikely, but that is how I would write up a challenge type ability.

I'll take a stab at it:

Divine Challenge:
Gained at some level, probably pretty early.

Swift Action to use

The target of this ability (which must be able to see and hear the paladin) takes a -2 morale penalty to attacks, skills, weapon damage, and saving throws until it makes a successful attack against the issuer of the challenge. Once this ability has been used on a target, it is immune for the next 24 hours. This is a mind-affecting, sonic, language-dependent, extraordinary ability.

The penalty would likely scale with level, up to about a -8 by 20th level.
At some point, the paladin would be able to affect all enemies within X radius, instead of one specific enemy.

This here sounds like an elegant solution (reminiscent of the Crusader aura that gives enemies -4 when not attacking him). It's more like 'subtle' aggro control.

Matthew
2007-11-09, 10:36 AM
As far as I know, they're keeping AoO and Tumble. But they're severely curtailing the number of things that provoke AoO, in order to make the rule far less complicated. I'm guess that only movement will provoke AoO, and nothing else. But that's just a rumor based on a few developer blogs. So maybe I'm wrong.

Heh, so basically back to the Free Att[H]ack? Well, I always preferred that anyway.

Person_Man
2007-11-09, 01:08 PM
WotC Mearls has posted this on my Aggro thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14288096#post14288096) over on their rules forum.


Aggro in D&D is a big issue. In early drafts, there were much more explicit rules for it, where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe. All that stuff is gone.

First, it isn't fun playing the guy whose job it is to get beaten up. In early playtests, the fighter soaked up all the attacks and then.... soaked up some more attacks. It was the cleric problem, but even worse. At least the cleric doesn't take damage for spending all his spells healing other people. So, those mechanics went right out the window.

Second, it restricts DMs needlessly. We don't want to tell DMs, "You have to do this." It's pretty lame to force DMs to walk through a monster script. It might be interesting for a specific monster (the clockwork knight programmed with three specific routines) or encounter (the zombies in the temple of Orcus attack good clerics above all other targets), but not as a core rule.

Third, we want playing a fighter or similar class to be fun, and we think we have mechanics that make it fun to sit in front of the party and hold back the monsters while beating on their asses.

The paladin does resemble the knight, but (we hope) that the paladin's use of the knight's toys solves the problem some people had with the knight. Namely, that the knight's compulsion felt like a magical effect, but didn't use magic. In the paladin's case, he's doing something similar with his mastery of divine magic. However, his ability does not say that the monster must attack him. It makes it a better option, but doesn't eliminate other options.

The fighter is just nasty. In design, we figured that people who play fighters do so because they want to kick the crap out of monsters. If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy. We hope that this sort of mechanic leads to good teamwork (the fighter holds down the hill giant) while also speaking to why people play the class (the fighter player gets to have fun beating down the hill giant).

There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D). We want DMs to make NPC fighters and paladins, and it would be really dumb if the DM had to impose a threat or aggro mechanic that dictated who the PCs had to attack.

This clears up a lot of concerns I have.

Deepblue706
2007-11-09, 01:24 PM
This clears up a lot of concerns I have.

This does make me feel a little more optimistic, but I refuse to accept WotC is going to make 4.0 "good", until I see it. You see, if I'm resolute to expect something poor, then it'll be all the more rewarding to see something well-done. If it's poor, and it's what I'm expecting, there's less disappointment.

Also, it's simply fun to talk about how WotC is evil and how much I "know" they're only going to produce crap.

Indon
2007-11-09, 01:33 PM
This clears up a lot of concerns I have.

Definitely agreed.

Person_Man
2007-11-09, 01:50 PM
This does make me feel a little more optimistic, but I refuse to accept WotC is going to make 4.0 "good", until I see it. You see, if I'm resolute to expect something poor, then it'll be all the more rewarding to see something well-done. If it's poor, and it's what I'm expecting, there's less disappointment.

Also, it's simply fun to talk about how WotC is evil and how much I "know" they're only going to produce crap.

WotC = Hasbro, and Hasbro is a corporation, and corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. So If WotC thought that a WoW branded as D&D 4th ed would make more money then a good roleplaying game, thats what they would make.

But I have noticed that they have staff that are minding the forums. And when we complain loud and often enough, they often respond, and have occasionally changed. So my advice to everyone who wants 4th Ed to be good is to become more active on the WotC forums, and to be clear and reasonable about what you want and what you don't want. This is pretty much our only opportunity to have a real effect on the core D&D rules. (At least until 5th ed comes out in 2013).

Jimp
2007-11-09, 01:55 PM
At least until 5th ed comes out in 2013
I remember the good old days of 3rd edition! Perfect class balance and none of this overpowering [insert flawed 4th edition mechanic] stuff! No sir-ee! We never worried about [insert 4th edition cheese build]. Just pure, honest roleplaying.

Matthew
2007-11-09, 02:46 PM
WotC = Hasbro, and Hasbro is a corporation, and corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. So If WotC thought that a WoW branded as D&D 4th ed would make more money then a good roleplaying game, thats what they would make.

But I have noticed that they have staff that are minding the forums. And when we complain loud and often enough, they often respond, and have occasionally changed. So my advice to everyone who wants 4th Ed to be good is to become more active on the WotC forums, and to be clear and reasonable about what you want and what you don't want. This is pretty much our only opportunity to have a real effect on the core D&D rules. (At least until 5th ed comes out in 2013).

Yeah, that's pretty interesting. It's almost as though Mearls read some of that long Thread about the Knight, back when the Class first turned up on their Web Site. He certainly seems to be aware of the nature of the complaint (which is more than I can say for some of the posters in that Thread :smallbiggrin:). I imagine similar debates took place over on Wizards, but I almost feel as though my opinion was taken into account...

Anyway, it's good to hear that aggravation 'doesn't work that way'.

Kompera
2007-11-09, 03:04 PM
First, it isn't fun playing the guy whose job it is to get beaten up.Maybe. But it's a huge amount of fun to play the guy whose job it is to get beaten on (not up), but whose armor and high HP (and a little help from the Priest, mebbe) keep him up and fighting, so that his friends aren't being cut down by those same attacks which he is taking on his shield or the edge of his blade, or shrugging off due to being the toughest Barbarian from the North / Knight in service of the King / Steadfast Dwarven Defender / &c there ever was.

The rest of his post sounds pretty good, except for this:

If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy.That's great, and it makes sense from the point of view of someone trying to cut down the Wizard standing next to the Fighter. But that doesn't happen much. This makes me think I'll be using a spiked chain again, because the foes who can run past me just out of reach usually manage to get themselves stuck in against the guys in the back, and I'm kinda busy up here with the foes at the front. I don't see any indication from WotC Mearls post that this will be addressed.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-09, 03:09 PM
The fighter is just nasty. In design, we figured that people who play fighters do so because they want to kick the crap out of monsters. If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy. We hope that this sort of mechanic leads to good teamwork (the fighter holds down the hill giant) while also speaking to why people play the class (the fighter player gets to have fun beating down the hill giant).

So it sounds like there's special actions you can do if you're next an enemy and not being attacked. Two conclusions from this:

1. For front liners, placing yourself between the enemies & the squishies isn't as important as staying near the squishies. Of course, keeping everyone that close makes them vulnerable to AoE effects...

2. Mobs are gonna be much more dangerous if every creature that doesn't get attacked gets special actions.

horseboy
2007-11-09, 04:35 PM
Uh...er...

I took your comment as sarcasm - and was asking that you provided the name of the feat that could do that...

Whoops.Nope, that was genuine surprise that buried somewhere in the "Complete Quest for Money" source book they didn't have a feat that let you move at full speed while in armour.

Kompera
2007-11-09, 05:16 PM
Nope, that was genuine surprise that buried somewhere in the "Complete Quest for Money" source book they didn't have a feat that let you move at full speed while in armour.George Carlin has a joke that goes something like this:

Anyone driving slower than me is an idiot.
Anyone driving faster than me is a maniac!

If WotC did not release a wealth of source material, they'd be slackers (idiots).
If WotC does release a wealth of source material, they are money grubbers (maniacs).

It's a no-win for them either way, there's no way for them to please every gamer. Sometimes, horseboy, the glass is half full.

Indon
2007-11-09, 05:17 PM
It's a no-win for them either way, there's no way for them to please every gamer. Sometimes, horseboy, the glass is half full.

I thought his point was that there are pretty much literally 1,000+ feats. You'd think there's one for any occasion.

Deepblue706
2007-11-09, 05:20 PM
WotC = Hasbro, and Hasbro is a corporation, and corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. So If WotC thought that a WoW branded as D&D 4th ed would make more money then a good roleplaying game, thats what they would make.

Of course. The statements I've made here were all made under the assumption that obtaining money is their primary goal. Which, is perfectly fine - I just may not like what they put out.

Kompera
2007-11-09, 05:20 PM
I'll let horseboy clarify if I've mis-characterized him. But he's posted his dislike for the game on several occasions, which leads me to believe that the operative part of his post was "The Complete Quest for Money" part which paints WotC in a bad light.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-09, 06:38 PM
If WotC did not release a wealth of source material, they'd be slackers (idiots).
If WotC does release a wealth of source material, they are money grubbers (maniacs).

Well, yes, but they can also be both (by releasing crappy and/or untested source material for lots of money) or neither (by releasing material for free).

Fax Celestis
2007-11-09, 06:39 PM
Well, yes, but they can also be both (by releasing crappy and/or untested source material for lots of money) or neither (by releasing material for free).

They wouldn't be the powerhouse they are if they did the former, and they wouldn't be a company if they did the latter.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-09, 06:45 PM
Agro is the most idiotic idea ever invented for any Role Playing Game, and it only makes especially sense in cases such as the Kender who have a semi-magical ability to really piss people off. Because even in the videogame situation it's absolutely 100% stupid.

I cannot believe Hasbro/WotC plans on using Agro in 4th edition.

Dhavaer
2007-11-09, 07:02 PM
I cannot believe Hasbro/WotC plans on using Agro in 4th edition.

That's good, because they aren't.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-09, 07:03 PM
That's good, because they aren't.

oh good :D

Crisis absolved :biggrin:

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-09, 07:19 PM
oh good :D

Crisis absolved :biggrin:

Yes. It isn't "I must attack the fighter!", it's "If I ignore the fighter to kill the mage he's protecting, he does Very Bad Things to me". Rogues aren't the only class it's dangerous to turn your back on anymore.

It means defense will not just be "plant myself between the enemies & the squishies and pray they don't get through", but also "plant myself near the casters & maul anyone that ignores me to attack them".

horseboy
2007-11-09, 08:26 PM
Well, for starters, the glass is 100% full. 50% liquid, 50% gas. :smallwink:

I'll let horseboy clarify if I've mis-characterized him. But he's posted his dislike for the game on several occasions, which leads me to believe that the operative part of his post was "The Complete Quest for Money" part which paints WotC in a bad light.Yes, it is a back hand smack at WotC. But it's also surprise that after 1000's of feats and close to 1000 classes, several of which add to base movement, they either decided that letting a fighter move at full speed was too powerful, or nobody ever played a fighter trying to keep up to notice they needed a feat to help him out in this, simple occasion.