PDA

View Full Version : [4e Review] - IGN.com



SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 06:08 PM
http://pc.ign.com/articles/855/855992p1.html

Here's another long review for you of D&D experience.


There's always been a significant relationship between tabletop and desktop roleplaying games. Starting with the explosion of the hobby in the 70s and 80s and continuing through the licensing of pen-and-paper rules and settings, we've always felt that computer RPGs owed a massive debt to the tabletop franchises, and none more so than Dungeons & Dragons. So when Wizards of the Coast recently announced their 4th Edition rules for D&D, we were instantly intrigued, both by the intent of the rules and by its inevitable licensing for computer games.

Wizards of the Coast invited us to attend the 4th Edition event in Washington, DC to find out more about the changes directly from the game's creators and chief evangelists, from designers Rob Heinsoo and Andy Collins, to brand manager Scott Rouse, to online content creators Chris Young and Didier Monin to world builder Ed Greenwood. Each had a piece of the puzzle that helped us see not just what the team is doing to change the rules, but also how they hope to expand the hobby and position it to capture a new audience.

The fundamental change here is that players now have more choices available throughout the game, both in terms of what their characters are doing round to round, as well as how they're advancing and improving at each level. There used to a tremendous gulf in power between different character classes at different levels and the new system is an attempt to make sure that each general archetype feels useful in an exciting way at each and every character level.

The best place to begin discussing the new changes is by taking a close look at the character classes. Wizards of the Coast has decided to divide the classes into four main archetypes that feed off of each other during combat. The Clerics and Warlords are the leaders of the party, designed primarily to increase the effectiveness of other players. But even though they find themselves dealing out bonuses and healing surges to other players, they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle. Wizards didn't want to design any class whose primary mission was simply to help other players. They wanted each and every class to have an effective and dramatic mission of their very own.

The fighters and paladins are the group's defenders, who can use a variety of powers and skills to attract the attention of monsters away from other players. In the case of the paladin, he or she can call out enemy monsters for individual duels. The fighter is a bit more of an equal opportunity player, forcing nearby monsters to suffer a disadvantage when attacking other players.

The strikers are represented by the rogues, rangers and warlocks. These characters are designed as pure offensive fighters, striking at targets for maximum damage and avoiding direct combat through a variety of movement powers. They're not as tough as the other classes though, so they'll need to be protected by the defenders and leaders.

Last is the wizard, lone representative of the controlling archetype. This character is designed to deal with groups, either through the use of massive area attacks like fireballs, or interesting crowd spells like sleep, or terrain changing spells that impede movement. One of the cooler concepts behind the wizard (and all the spellcasters and power-users) is that each new level of spells and abilities provides lots of worthwhile options, so players won't find lower level spells crowding out the new ones in terms of effectiveness. In other words, by the time you're five levels past throwing fireballs at people, you'll have loads of compelling new spells to use in combat.

Though we liked the new concept of giving each class a meaningful role in combat, one of our main concerns was whether or not those roles would wind up creating characters that felt too similar to each other. Happily, that situation has already been addressed in the new rules. Fighters, for instance, play very differently depending on their weapon of choice. A fighter armed with a sword and a shield, for instance, might be able to use the shield to help protect an adjacent ally. A fighter armed with a greatsword won't have that ability. Instead, he or she will be able to use the larger weapon to actually batter an opponent around the map, forcing them to back off from more vulnerable members of the party.

In case you think that the new system is all about combat, there are some significant changes to the overall definition of character roles in terms of the social and dungeoneering aspects of the game. To begin with, the designers knew right away that they didn't want to balance character abilities in terms of their effectiveness in different spheres of the game. In other words, the rogue wasn't going to be made to suck at combat simply because he also happened to be good at spotting traps. For the designers that simply meant that you were punishing one class of character during one phase of the game only because you were punishing all the other players in an entirely different phase.

Now the gulf between trained and untrained uses of a skill isn't going to be quite so vast. Instead, trained characters will get a meaningful bonus but untrained characters won't feel totally left out of certain checks. The team has also decided to create single skills that represent common skill groupings. Now instead of having different ranks for Climb or Jump, you'll just have one Atheletics skill that governs it all. It's the same with the Spot, Listen and Search checks, or the Move Silently and Hide skills. Since they all share a similar goal, it makes sense to have them rendered as one single skill.

Though they're trying to create a unified system, Andy was quick to point out that they're not trying to design a character system that works for players and monsters alike. Previous editions required lots of effort on the part of the designers to create monsters that used the same feats and spells that the player had access to. But ultimately that meant that monsters began to feel a bit generic. The new system doesn't try to balance monsters as players, so it's allowed the designers the chance to help differentiate the monsters so that a dragon feels substantially different than, say, an orge.

One of the more encouraging things about 4th Edition is that it doesn't try to be as simulation-heavy as the 3.0 or 3.5 rules. Things like low-light vision and diagonal movement have been greatly simplified to keep the focus on action rather than rules. Naturally, the game supports "house rules" so DMs can maintain whatever level of simulation they want, and the DMG will include all sorts of advice on how to adapt the rules to fit the way you and your players want to play. The DMG will also give players a look at some of the tools that are under the hood, which they can then use to generate their own content on the fly.

We also had the opportunity to talk with Ed Greenwood, the creator of the Forgotten Realms, about some of the changes that Wizards is bringing to this popular campaign setting. Though Wizards owns the setting, they realize that no one knows it quite as well as Ed, and that for many players, his involvement brings a real sense of legitimacy to the radical changes they've instituted to the Realms.

And the changes are definitely radical. Taking place roughly a hundred years after the current campaign setting, the new Forgotten Realms is reeling from the effects of a Spell Plague caused when the Goddess of Magic died. Her death meant that magic became much more chaotic and unpredictable. The kingdoms of the Realms fragmented as well, so the world will take on a "points of light" character, where small islands of civilization are separated by a vast, dangerous wilderness. Of course, some of your favorite inhabitants of the Realms will still have a role to play. Elminster will still be a powerful figure, but he's afraid to use his magic now, not only because of the effects of the Spell Plague, but also because he's absorbed the memories of a number of powerful beings who tend to take over his mind when he attempts to use magic.

As with Ed's previous efforts, the idea isn't to tie DMs down to someone else's idea of what the world should be about. Rather, it's to create a meaningful backdrop that comes with a number of adventure seeds and compelling circumstances that individual DMs can use to express their own creativity. The point of these Lore books, according to Ed, is to do the hard and often unglamorous work of setting up trade routes, weather patterns and political systems, and then let DMs run wild with their own imaginative ideas.

Wizards senior brand manager Scott Rouse revealed that 4th Edition will continue the Open Game License approach used by the current edition, but this time around they're changing the name simply to Game System License. One of the key differences that justify this new name is that the license will be much more specifically tied to the D&D experience with stronger community standards. They're currently planning a two-tiered release of the GSL and hope to have it available before the release of the 4th Edition core books later this year. If things go according to plan, that would allow third party users to have content published by the time GenCon rolls around.

Things are a bit less clear when it comes to licensing the game system for PC and console games. Obviously, Turbine is very interested in the ramifications that the new edition may have on D&D Online. Adapting the 4th Edition rules would require a substantial overhaul of the existing MMO rules, so we're not hopeful that Turbine will find a way to incorporate the new powers, healing system, spells and under-the-hood math revamps into D&D Online. We suspect that we're more likely to see a semi-sequel that essentially reboots the system with a potential translation of existing characters to the new format.

We're more intrigued by Atari's possible plans for the new rules for games developed by Obsidian and other studios. Though nothing is absolutely official yet, Atari and some of their developers have had access to the new rule system already, so we can assume that there are titles currently in development that will make use of 4th Edition.

One thing that is clear is that Wizards is taking a more active role in how their brand is managed by licensees. Each project benefits from the attention of Wizards staffers who ensure that the mechanics, content and overall presentation of the game compliments the D&D property. Naturally, Scott and the other brand managers are aware that adhering to each and every element of the tabletop game design might not be suitable for games developed in other formats, but the idea here is to make sure that any D&D experience feels like D&D regardless of the platform its delivered on.

One of the more intriguing avenues of play is the D&D Insider service. This online version of D&D attempts to recreate the tabletop experience with a full set of DM tools and player environments. It's not designed to compete with the visual presentation of the Neverwinter Nights client, but is instead intended to represent a full on tabletop version of the game with voice-over-IP and battlemat play.

The first tool in the Insider suite is the character visualizer, a fully 3D character creator that includes all the math and database support required to create authentic characters. It also includes robust tools for the visual customization of your character, from skin and armor color to weapon choice and pose selection. Once you get a look you're happy with, you can export that as a full 3D miniature that will appear in the Game Table section of the game.

While you're doing that, the DM has their very own Dungeon Mapper tool that they can use to lay down tiles and create a variety of environments. You can use the provided tiles to create your own areas, or even use line drawings and stamps to create custom areas on the fly. Using a simple drag and drop system, you can set light sources and monster placement in this tool, as well as add notes to yourself that you can access during play. Even better, you can modify all this stuff in the live Game Table environment once players are in the world running through your adventure.

We were a little worried that the software contains no actual adjudication tools for the DM or players but there is enough transparency (at least on the DM side) to keep your players honest. The decision to leave things like hit point tracking and trap appearance completely within the DM's control was to give them a chance to balance the game on the fly. While it might be less work if your electrified pools automatically deal ten points of damage to anyone who walks through them, having to do it manually gives DMs a chance to intensify, lessen, or even completely ignore the effect in order to keep the adventure going.

The team isn't sure when the tools are going to be available for subscribers, but they're committed to releasing a final version that's more than just a very smooth beta. Right now they're predicting a 2GHz, 1GB RAM, Shader 1.0 compatible video card spec for the game but that may change a bit depending on how things are optimized.

So there's a lot going on at the event this year and plenty more stuff to explore once the core rules are released this summer. We'll definitely be checking in with Wizards (and Atari) to find out just how this new edition weathers the transition from the tabletop to desktop settings. Based on what we've seen so far, we're in for a real treat.

Artanis
2008-03-01, 06:25 PM
Very cool. I appreciate the heads-up :smallbiggrin:

Kioran
2008-03-01, 06:25 PM
Very little personal opinion here - well, that´s better than gushing. But there´s also nothing new. Same picture:

- like longer fights
- hate oversimplification and the entire concept behind powers.

Meh. I´ll wait for the 4th Ed "PHB"........

Kurald Galain
2008-03-01, 06:28 PM
A better review than the last one, but he could have written all of this from the text over at Enworld, rather than from any hitherto unseen sources at WOTC.

KIDS
2008-03-01, 07:14 PM
More of a news report than review... but still likeable. My opinion remains unchanged...

streakster
2008-03-01, 07:15 PM
Very little personal opinion here - well, that´s better than gushing. But there´s also nothing new. Same picture:

- like longer fights
- hate oversimplification and the entire concept behind powers.

Meh. I´ll wait for the 4th Ed "PHB"........

You do realize that oversimplification will fix itself after the first couple of splatbooks, right?

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 07:18 PM
If the review has emotion and personal opinion in it, you guys think it's too biased to take seriously.

If a review is emotionless and straight fact, you guys think it's too much like a news report.

It really -is- impossible to make everyone happy. :smallamused:

LoopyZebra
2008-03-01, 07:34 PM
I think Ain't It Cool News' review was better, if only for the fact that it presented new material and the reviewer had played 4th Ed. IGN's review isn't really a review, but rather a status report for video gamers, and doesn't give any info not already presented (and easily accessible) on either the Wizards website or the Wizards Presents books.

I do find it funny they stuffed the article under PC gaming, though.

KIDS
2008-03-01, 07:43 PM
No SamTheCleric, it's not really like that - I mean, generally it is, but while I do think that this one is a news report, made to keep its customers and public informed that they're tracking the situation, the other one (Ain't it Cool News) I really like and didn't think it was gushing or biased.
In fact, I was rather irritated to find it thrown out in opinions just because it had some emotions and actual experiences.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-01, 07:50 PM
I know, I was just trying to be funny. I failed. :smalltongue:

SurlySeraph
2008-03-01, 07:51 PM
Hmm... interesting.

Clerics and Warlords are supposed to be good at making the rest of the party stronger, but "they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle." CoWzilla, anyone? :smallsigh:

Wizards are now designed to be Batman types. Good, that means now Batman probably won't overshine everyone else. I appreciate that WoTC has learned.

They've reduced the importance of skills, which suggests that it's going to be heavily combat-oriented. But I'm fine with that. I'm a bit worried that that'll make rogues a lot weaker (since they've always been all about skills), but we'll see.

I'm fine with the various things that they're simplifying. It doesn't seem like they're dumbing things down to me, anymore than making rolling high always a good thing in 3E (unlike in 2E) was dumbing things down.

On a purely storyline front... the changes to Forgotten Realms mostly annoy me, but I'm very pleased to hear that Elminster can't use his magic without getting demonically possessed. Serves the smarmy old Gary Stu right. :smallamused: As long as the loss of his magic doesn't make Elminster start out-emoing Drizzt, I'm happy.

Project_Mayhem
2008-03-01, 07:56 PM
On a purely storyline front... the changes to Forgotten Realms mostly annoy me, but I'm very pleased to hear that Elminster can't use his magic without getting demonically possessed. Serves the smarmy old Gary Stu right. As long as the loss of his magic doesn't make Elminster start out-emoing Drizzt, I'm happy

Yeah, you know he'll just wangst about it for half the time, then go sod it, do his Marty Stu thing, and then kill all the demon things inside him anyway.

Artanis
2008-03-01, 07:57 PM
Hmm... interesting.

Clerics and Warlords are supposed to be good at making the rest of the party stronger, but "they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle." CoWzilla, anyone? :smallsigh:

Wizards are now designed to be Batman types. Good, that means now Batman probably won't overshine everyone else. I appreciate that WoTC has learned.

They've reduced the importance of skills, which suggests that it's going to be heavily combat-oriented. But I'm fine with that. I'm a bit worried that that'll make rogues a lot weaker (since they've always been all about skills), but we'll see.

I'm fine with the various things that they're simplifying. It doesn't seem like they're dumbing things down to me, anymore than making rolling high always a good thing in 3E (unlike in 2E) was dumbing things down.

On a purely storyline front... the changes to Forgotten Realms mostly annoy me, but I'm very pleased to hear that Elminster can't use his magic without getting demonically possessed. Serves the smarmy old Gary Stu right. :smallamused: As long as the loss of his magic doesn't make Elminster start out-emoing Drizzt, I'm happy.
From the descriptions of Clerics and Warlords, I get the impression that they buff the party in a way that's similar to how the Fighter defends it: by beating the crap out of the enemy, only with side effects :smallwink:

Bleen
2008-03-01, 08:25 PM
If the review has emotion and personal opinion in it, you guys think it's too biased to take seriously.

If a review is emotionless and straight fact, you guys think it's too much like a news report.

It really -is- impossible to make everyone happy. :smallamused:
Having nothing but positive remarks to say makes a review lack credibility. The Ain't It Cool News review seems bought-out and this review isn't a review. In a review, I expect opinion, but I expect that opinion to be able to address flaws and concerns as well as praise positives.

All I see from either of these reviews are positives, save for one line in the other review that was quickly dismissed.

Raider
2008-03-01, 09:12 PM
I cant wait to start pulling things out on my DM to test the new rules:smallamused:

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 09:16 PM
You do realize that oversimplification will fix itself after the first couple of splatbooks, right?

I think you place to much faith in WOTC
from
EE

Kioran
2008-03-02, 03:46 AM
You do realize that oversimplification will fix itself after the first couple of splatbooks, right?

Yes, they will make it more complex - but not in any sensible way. You´ll still walk diagonally with single steps (effectively travelling 1.41 steps, elementary school math is your friend, unless you´re a 4th Ed designer), you´ll still have 10 skills overall, you´ll still be a kickahss Wolock (yes, I´m bringing this up a lot. I´ll never forget what they did to Tieflings.......Well, make that Tifelings, like they´ve already been pronounced by many)...

With Green Thunder Stance and the Ambra Rhinoceros boost to spells or whatever, increasing the effect of all power you use on a thursday by 2, for -1 on the other weekdays. In other words, they´ll pput in new and complicated options, but won´t fix the damage done due to oversimplification. They´ll put in the wrong kind of complicated again.

Mando Knight
2008-03-02, 12:34 PM
Clerics and Warlords are supposed to be good at making the rest of the party stronger, but "they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle." CoWzilla, anyone? :smallsigh:

All I can say to that is... "Moo."

Welcome, CoWzilla, to the world of cheesy (un)goodness!

Morty
2008-03-02, 01:13 PM
Now, that's a good review. There's nothing really new here, but while it's positive towards new edition, it's not awe-dripping praise towards it that ignores the possibility of a different viewpoint.

Maulrus
2008-03-02, 02:40 PM
I honestly don't feel that 3.5 needs any simplification. Everything is understandable (except for EL's, which confuse the hell out of me).

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-02, 03:27 PM
- hate oversimplification and the entire concept behind powers.

Meh. I´ll wait for the 4th Ed "PHB"........
What's been oversimplified?

Also, wh--what? The "entire concept behind powers" is "things characters can do".

If everything's understandable, explain the grappling rules.

Artanis
2008-03-02, 03:38 PM
Yes, they will make it more complex - but not in any sensible way. You´ll still walk diagonally with single steps (effectively travelling 1.41 steps, elementary school math is your friend, unless you´re a 4th Ed designer), you´ll still have 10 skills overall, you´ll still be a kickahss Wolock (yes, I´m bringing this up a lot. I´ll never forget what they did to Tieflings.......Well, make that Tifelings, like they´ve already been pronounced by many)...
So you propose that moving one diagonal square cost 1.41 squares' worth of movement, then?

Face it, square grids suck for diagonal movement. You can keep it simple and easy but inaccurate by keeping one diagonal square be worth one move, or you can keep it somewhat less inaccurate but less easy and simple by making it worth 1.5. When I'm worried about more important things like "how do I keep the dragon from clawing my nads off", I would rather have it be as simple as possible.


Also...you DO realize that the Tiefling video was supposed to be FUNNY, right? They may have failed miserably at being funny, but it was supposed to be humorous, not serious. That means you can't draw any actual conclusions from it.

Indon
2008-03-02, 03:46 PM
Clerics and Warlords are supposed to be good at making the rest of the party stronger, but "they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle." CoWzilla, anyone? :smallsigh:
Chances are, everyone's a whateverzilla now. Almost all powers are likely to deal damage, and they'll just happen to do other things at the same time.


Wizards are now designed to be Batman types. Good, that means now Batman probably won't overshine everyone else. I appreciate that WoTC has learned.
It's not the Wizard design that matters. It's the revamping of the combat system in general to remove the significance of practically any status effect, meaning that all combat will likely be resolved through damage. Such a system would render the 3.5 Wizard 'balanced', as well, no doubt.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-02, 03:47 PM
Face it, square grids suck for diagonal movement.

Yep. Perhaps there'll be optional rules for hex grids in the DMG?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 03:52 PM
Also, wh--what? The "entire concept behind powers" is "things characters can do".


To be fair, the actual concept behind powers is more "the trademark abilities and class features of the classes should be mechanically equivalent". Instead of Fighters getting Feats, Rogues getting Sneak Attack and Wizards getting spells, all of which function very differently, everybody gets a set of At Will, Per Encounter or Per Day powers.

I personally think it's a very sensible idea, but I can see why some people would think otherwise.

Kioran
2008-03-02, 03:55 PM
What's been oversimplified?

Movement. Pantheons. Just for starters. But skills as well - I basically agree people got to few ranks. I also think lumping them together to make 36 skills (not even counting single knowledges) into what seems to little more than ten oversimplifies somewhat.
Granted, they´re making preparation less complicated for players - the times when you spent more time preparing your characters than actually playing them will be less common than in 3rd. Still - I think they managed to bork it somewhere else just fine.


Also, wh--what? The "entire concept behind powers" is "things characters can do".

If everything's understandable, explain the grappling rules.

No - it´s not "things characters can do" - it´s a unified special attack/special maneuver mechanic, where, apart from flavor and some aspects, all classes work the same mechanically. Which is not the inherent problem.
The inherent problem is that
a: classes are, like Wizards in third, reduced to one defining characteristic - powers selected will be more important than all other aspects of the character, except maybe the stats, just like the spell selection was. In fact, with the unified skill progressions, WotCs adversity to stat increases and possible unified save and BAB progression, powers will be the one defining difference between classes. Pigeonholing has returned, worse than ever....
b: I dread the eternal tactical discussions spending each round doing special attacks will bring to the table. Not those good discussions, mind you, but the ones that hold up play and suck out all the fun.

Yeah. I hate powers. As if that wasn´t obvious. But I have my reasons.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-02, 04:30 PM
Movement. Pantheons. Just for starters.
Movement is a blessed relief. Calculating movement is one of the most annoying parts of the tabletop D&D game I'm in right now. As for pantheons--depends. The FR one is getting cut down, but the dull Greyhawk one is becoming somewhat expanded and shinier.


But skills as well - I basically agree people got to few ranks. I also think lumping them together to make 36 skills (not even counting single knowledges) into what seems to little more than ten oversimplifies somwhat.
It should be thirteen or so. And why? A whole lot of skills get reduced 2:1, because why should I be spending 2 SP/level on Hide and Move Silently or Spot and Listen instead of 1? A couple, like Athletics (I think) are 3:1. They all work. It simplifies for the best; it doesn't oversimplify.


No - it´s not "things characters can do" - it´s a unified special attack/special maneuver mechanic, where, apart from flavor and some aspects, all classes work the same mechanically. Which is not the inherent problem.
Apart from both flavor and the mechanical effects of what their powers *do*. So, pretty much everything.


The inherent problem is that
a: classes are, like Wizards in third, reduced to one defining characteristic - powers selected will be more important than all other aspects of the character, except maybe the stats, just like the spell selection was. In fact, with the unified skill progressions, WotCs adversity to stat increases and possible unified save and BAB progression, powers will be the one defining difference between classes. Pigeonholing has returned, worse than ever....
Er... what? Okay. And in 3.5 characters were defined by their feats (if melee) and spells (if casters). Characters still have feats. They still have the choice of two fundamental character archetypes (for example, Brutish Scoundrel vs. Charming Scoundrel), which will make a bigger difference, especially since *it* affects which powers you're likely to select.

I find it unlikely that character class won't affect Will/Fort/Ref defenses at all. They might grant bonuses due to the class. Between prime stats and that, that would be a significant difference that isn't the ridiculously crippling difference between, say, a normal Fighter and a caster Cleric's Will save in 3.5.

Furthermore, classes have options of multiple powers at each level. Who's being pigeonholed into what that they weren't before?


b: I dread the eternal tactical discussions spending each round doing special attacks will bring to the table. Not those good discussions, mind you, but the ones that hold up play and suck out all the fun.

Yeah. I hate powers. As if that wasn´t obvious. But I have my reasons.
You mean, the discussions casters and Tome of Battle characters already had? Except I don't actually recall many if any of those. "Special attack" is kind of a misnomer when it's something the character does on a regular basis; I've never had to discuss whether to cast my wizard's Glitterdust or Haste.

Maybe you have to have un-fun discussions about when to use per-day abilities (like, say, a Barbarian's Rage) in your games; that's unfortunate, but I don't think it's the fault of the system, and I really don't see how 4E will make it any worse.

horseboy
2008-03-02, 05:34 PM
Yep. Perhaps there'll be optional rules for hex grids in the DMG?
I still have some of my old mech hexes somewhere I bet.

Yeah, I like this article a lot more than the other one. I also find it particularly interesting that WotC is clamping down on the non WotC suck. Was the non WotC suck really that bad?

Indon
2008-03-03, 12:22 AM
And why? A whole lot of skills get reduced 2:1, because why should I be spending 2 SP/level on Hide and Move Silently or Spot and Listen instead of 1?
Because they represent discrete sets of capabilities - the vast condensation is a significant sacrifice of simulationism over gamism - making skills game-convenient rather than giving them more capability to model situations.


Apart from both flavor and the mechanical effects of what their powers *do*. So, pretty much everything.
Well, everything within the limited subset of what powers can do, which compared to 3.x, is not much. Powers deal damage and often have nifty side effects like healing a few HP for someone or giving a mob a -2 to hit until a condition is satisfied or they make their save, or somesuch.

'Flavor' is easily summarized in a single term - power source. It's either a martial power, an arcane power, or a divine power. The consequences of this description are as of now unknown, but are likely relatively negligable. It would likely be very easy to, say, houserule the Ranger as an Arcane-source striker, just by declaring the Ranger's powers to be Arcane rather than Martial. And it wouldn't likely mean much in the context of the game to do so.



Er... what? Okay. And in 3.5 characters were defined by their feats (if melee) and spells (if casters). Characters still have feats. They still have the choice of two fundamental character archetypes (for example, Brutish Scoundrel vs. Charming Scoundrel), which will make a bigger difference, especially since *it* affects which powers you're likely to select.

Feats have been rendered more numerous and less significant - rather than a significant number of character-defining feats like Vow of Poverty, we're more likely to see a proliferation of feats more akin to Weapon Focus - minor, passive buffs with a controllable and easily predictable impact on the game.


I find it unlikely that character class won't affect Will/Fort/Ref defenses at all. They might grant bonuses due to the class.
This is known for a fact - the Rogue grants a whopping +2 to Reflex defense. It's not implied that this +2 is per-level, either.


Between prime stats and that, that would be a significant difference that isn't the ridiculously crippling difference between, say, a normal Fighter and a caster Cleric's Will save in 3.5.
Since in the new combat system, no option exists which can neutralize an opponent in one shot, having a defensive weakness would not be very significant - it would just mean that some enemies could deal damage more consistently against you than other enemies, by targeting your weak defense.

But now, not only is the distinction between a strong defense and a weak defense insignificant, but the degree of difference between a strong defense and a weak defense is insignificant as well.


Furthermore, classes have options of multiple powers at each level. Who's being pigeonholed into what that they weren't before?

I agree here - pigeonholing is the wrong term for what is being done to the classes.

I also agree that it's unlikely for there to be significant arguments about tactical options in the game - I don't feel the game will feature the level of mechanical depth required for such arguments to take place in combat, outside of, "so should we use our per-day abilities on this guy?".

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-03, 03:51 AM
Clerics and Warlords are supposed to be good at making the rest of the party stronger, but "they don't do so at the cost of their own effectiveness in battle." CoWzilla, anyone?

Not really; if the buffs are generalized (that is to say, affect multiple people) rather than targeted (themselves), then they will make everyone more powerful but still be able to fight.


Face it, square grids suck for diagonal movement. You can keep it simple and easy but inaccurate by keeping one diagonal square be worth one move, or you can keep it somewhat less inaccurate but less easy and simple by making it worth 1.5. When I'm worried about more important things like "how do I keep the dragon from clawing my nads off", I would rather have it be as simple as possible.

Yeah, that's the advantage of hexes (which have their OWN issues). Its okay, though; to be honest, +1 every other square was fine, but could be a bit confusing at times; keeping it consistant will make everyone's lives easier.

Fundamentally, with diagonal movement you have three choices:

1) Make it impossible to move diagonally, which basically makes it cost 2 per move.
2) Make it be the same as moving horizontally or vertically.
3) Implement a confusing system.

Of course, you could play without using a grid at all and it works quite well (I've done this before) but it gets really confusing when you have 10 things running around.


I personally think it's a very sensible idea, but I can see why some people would think otherwise.

Because they've never had the pure joy of playing a ToB class.


It should be thirteen or so. And why? A whole lot of skills get reduced 2:1, because why should I be spending 2 SP/level on Hide and Move Silently or Spot and Listen instead of 1? A couple, like Athletics (I think) are 3:1. They all work. It simplifies for the best; it doesn't oversimplify.

I agree; the worst of it was that certain skills were massively better than others, but there was no overlap. You could have 10 ranks in tumble and 0 in balance, which was a bit silly at times. Combining them also lets you get rid of the useless/marginal skills (swim, climb, jump) and combine them into single, more commonly used skills. You don't use climb, jump, or swim all that often, but you do use them occaisionally, and if flying is mostly gone at lower levels then it will be a lot more useful, as you'll likely use at least one of those at least once per adventure.

Same with acrobatics as tumble + balance, perception as spot + listen, ect.


Well, everything within the limited subset of what powers can do, which compared to 3.x, is not much. Powers deal damage and often have nifty side effects like healing a few HP for someone or giving a mob a -2 to hit until a condition is satisfied or they make their save, or somesuch.

Bzzzt. THe correct answer is "they are less limited than 3.5 because they do more of a variety of things." What can a fighter do in 3.5? Not NEAR as much as they can in 4.0.

Virually all feats do the same thing anyway, which is to say, affect to hit/damage. Powers are fun because they have varied effects, work differently against varied defenses, ect.

Try playing a Warblade some time, and you'll understand why they're way more fun and why this system is awesome.


Feats have been rendered more numerous and less significant - rather than a significant number of character-defining feats like Vow of Poverty, we're more likely to see a proliferation of feats more akin to Weapon Focus - minor, passive buffs with a controllable and easily predictable impact on the game.

Feats need to be of a consistant power level, and putting them at Weapon Focus's level is a good thing, not a bad one. Powers are the equivalents of feats, and are far, far more interesting.


Since in the new combat system, no option exists which can neutralize an opponent in one shot, having a defensive weakness would not be very significant - it would just mean that some enemies could deal damage more consistently against you than other enemies, by targeting your weak defense.

But now, not only is the distinction between a strong defense and a weak defense insignificant, but the degree of difference between a strong defense and a weak defense is insignificant as well.

There was a range of 8 in defense values on the sample characters, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't looked at a lot of the information out there.

Additionally, inability to kill in one hit is irrelevant. Given NOTHING can do so consistantly (though it will happen occaisionally, I'll wager) iteration makes averages more important, not less. This is something that comes out of an understanding of statistics. If I make 5 attacks with 50% chance of hitting which do Z damage, or 1 attack with 50% chance of hitting which does 5z damage, while I'll get the same amount of damage on average, the standard variation of damage is much, much larger - in the first case I'll deal 2-3 z most of the time, whereas in the latter case it is all or nothing. This makes combat less random and more predictable, and overall better.

Indon
2008-03-03, 10:27 AM
Bzzzt. THe correct answer is "they are less limited than 3.5 because they do more of a variety of things." What can a fighter do in 3.5? Not NEAR as much as they can in 4.0.
Yes, Powers are more versatile than one of the least tactically versatile class in D&D, provided the Fighter doesn't take a host of tactical feats, in which case it's probably about equal.

Now compare Powers with the tactically interesting classes, and you clearly see what has happened: mechanical diversity and intricacy has suffered that balance may thrive. Not an innately good or bad change, but one which you may feel strongly about depending on how you value those things against each other.


Virually all feats do the same thing anyway, which is to say, affect to hit/damage. Powers are fun because they have varied effects, work differently against varied defenses, ect.
The combat options in chapter 8 of the PHB have varied effects, work differently against varied defenses, and so forth. They were not well-implemented, but that doesn't keep powers from being a polishing of something 3'rd edition already had a version of (well, really it's a polishing of an amalgamation of systems that 3'rd edition has and 4'th edition doesn't, or likely won't).


Try playing a Warblade some time, and you'll understand why they're way more fun and why this system is awesome.
I've played it, and they're fun and refreshing after playing a character that works fundamentally differently. But I don't want to play them all the time with new coats of paint splashed on them, I want to play classes that work fundamentally differently.



Feats need to be of a consistant power level, and putting them at Weapon Focus's level is a good thing, not a bad one. Powers are the equivalents of feats, and are far, far more interesting.

Powers aren't the equivalents of feats, either - powers have a consistent power level, too. Powers are the equivalent of no one thing from 3'rd edition, more a mix of Incanations, Maneuvers, and Spells, homogenized into a single mechanic set.



There was a range of 8 in defense values on the sample characters, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't looked at a lot of the information out there.
Compare and contrast with 3'rd edition defensive values, and you'll find that that's about what you would expect from first-level characters. The difference is that in higher levels in 3'rd edition, the differences become more pronounced (unless you multiclass into something which gives you more balanced saves, which was always an option). Were there a lot of higher-level games that I missed in which that was the case?



This makes combat less random and more predictable, and overall better.

What you call less random and more predictable, I may call less interesting and more tedious.

Artanis
2008-03-03, 12:52 PM
Regarding Powers vs. Feats:


It looks to me that the "more diverse feats" from 3e are still there, just turned into powers. Seriously, what Fighter didn't have Power Attack? Now it seems like feats are there to do what they were orginally supposed to do: customize your character a bit more. The so-called "feats" that were an almost-required staple of a class's combat capability have just been given to the classes by default. Mechanically, it doesn't really look all that different from giving Rangers a free TWF or Monks a free Improved Unarmed Strike

Indon
2008-03-03, 01:36 PM
Mechanically, it doesn't really look all that different from giving Rangers a free TWF or Monks a free Improved Unarmed Strike

There's that, but can Fighters get Improved Unarmed Strike, or Monks get Power Attack? Since D&DXP used premade characters, we still don't know the depth of character customizability, but it seems if the feat system was gutted to supply the power system, that these options are much less likely to exist.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-03, 02:22 PM
To get back to the OP:

I didn't really see much in the way of new information here so the article didn't really do much of anything to change my leaning in 4e. The only thing I noticed is that from the article the online stuff doesn't seem to be as ready to implement as I had thought. Which, frankly, I don't really care about.

SmartAlec
2008-03-03, 09:25 PM
There's that, but can Fighters get Improved Unarmed Strike, or Monks get Power Attack?

Even if the answer is 'no', the answer is still 'yes' - because multiclassing is less painful and dipping into other classes is encouraged by the system, at least if it's anything like Star Wars Saga (and they say it is). Because of the pick-and-choose nature of 4e feats and powers, making a good Monk/Fighter or Fighter/Monk should be simple.

Indon
2008-03-03, 09:42 PM
Even if the answer is 'no', the answer is still 'yes' - because multiclassing is less painful and dipping into other classes is encouraged by the system, at least if it's anything like Star Wars Saga (and they say it is). Because of the pick-and-choose nature of 4e feats and powers, making a good Monk/Fighter or Fighter/Monk should be simple.

Oh, you have a good point. We know that players can choose powers from other classes, at least. And since powers are apparently the defining features of classes, that's not bad.

Of course, Improved Unarmed Strike probably won't be a power - Monks (if and when they're put into a future PHB) will probably just have powers that require you to strike unarmed.

Artanis
2008-03-03, 11:13 PM
Oh, you have a good point. We know that players can choose powers from other classes, at least. And since powers are apparently the defining features of classes, that's not bad.

Of course, Improved Unarmed Strike probably won't be a power - Monks (if and when they're put into a future PHB) will probably just have powers that require you to strike unarmed.
Yeah, Improved Unarmed Strike was the first thing that came to mind, and when I tried to edit in a better example, the board chose that moment to start lagging out :smallfrown:

horseboy
2008-03-03, 11:18 PM
Bzzzt. THe correct answer is "they are less limited than 3.5 because they do more of a variety of things." What can a fighter do in 3.5? Not NEAR as much as they can in 4.0.

Virually all feats do the same thing anyway, which is to say, affect to hit/damage. Powers are fun because they have varied effects, work differently against varied defenses, ect.

What other defenses? The sample fighter's powers all targeted AC. :smallannoyed:

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:20 PM
I wonder who will make the next review?
from
EE

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-03, 11:59 PM
What other defenses? The sample fighter's powers all targeted AC. :smallannoyed:

I'll wager the fighter is primarily anti-AC, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least a few either anti-fort or anti-reflex, though probably not very many.


Yes, Powers are more versatile than one of the least tactically versatile class in D&D, provided the Fighter doesn't take a host of tactical feats, in which case it's probably about equal.

Now compare Powers with the tactically interesting classes, and you clearly see what has happened: mechanical diversity and intricacy has suffered that balance may thrive. Not an innately good or bad change, but one which you may feel strongly about depending on how you value those things against each other.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The ONLY classes which suffered in terms of choices were the insanely overpowered full-casters, whose brokenness emerged at least in part due to that.

ALL of the other classes are gaining options. If you weren't a full caster, you'll have more options now than you used to.

And really, that's a good thing. Its much better for each class to get 25 pages of rules than four to get 100 each and the rest to get 3.

And the tactical feats do not increase a fighter's options at all; to be at all useful, a fighter has to focus everything on one or maybe two options.

This is in sharp comparison to Warblades and the other ToB classes, which have about as many options as a 4e character, and they're a blast to play.


The combat options in chapter 8 of the PHB have varied effects, work differently against varied defenses, and so forth. They were not well-implemented, but that doesn't keep powers from being a polishing of something 3'rd edition already had a version of (well, really it's a polishing of an amalgamation of systems that 3'rd edition has and 4'th edition doesn't, or likely won't).

No they don't. They consist of:

Skill boosters (still around, I'm sure)
Weapon attack boosters (still around, I'm sure)
Weapon damage boosters (maybe still around, not sure)
Number of attack boosters (I doubt these will still be around as they are a strong source of brokeness)
AC boosters (still around, I'm sure)
Save boosters (still around, I'm sure)
Spell boosters (hopefully gone or massively toned down)

That's it. They don't work differently against varied defenses.


I've played it, and they're fun and refreshing after playing a character that works fundamentally differently. But I don't want to play them all the time with new coats of paint splashed on them, I want to play classes that work fundamentally differently.

They do work differently; that they still have at will/per encounter/per day abilities doesn't mean what they can do in particular is not varied at all. That's just silly; there's lots of different things you can do with abilities which still fit in the same, good framework.


Compare and contrast with 3'rd edition defensive values, and you'll find that that's about what you would expect from first-level characters. The difference is that in higher levels in 3'rd edition, the differences become more pronounced (unless you multiclass into something which gives you more balanced saves, which was always an option). Were there a lot of higher-level games that I missed in which that was the case?

Have you seen a higher-level game? Have you seen the rules? The answer is NO.

I'll bet that defense values stay with a range of about 10 or so throughout the game, because that's a 50% difference; they don't want stuff that always hits one person and always missed another, but they do want strong differences, and going from 1/4th to 3/4ths is a pretty big jump (or 1/2 to all).

But they may not and may vary more, who knows? I don't.

Indon
2008-03-04, 12:02 AM
I'll wager the fighter is primarily anti-AC, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least a few either anti-fort or anti-reflex, though probably not very many.

Disarming would probably be defense vs. Reflex.

SmartAlec
2008-03-04, 12:11 AM
Of course, Improved Unarmed Strike probably won't be a power - Monks (if and when they're put into a future PHB) will probably just have powers that require you to strike unarmed.

Maybe there'll even be different kinds of Monk power trees! Like quarterstaff wielding, one for monks that specialise in raw damage Fist-of-the-North-star style, one for Judo monks who specialise in disarming and throwing... etc etc.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-04, 12:12 AM
Disarming would probably be defense vs. Reflex.

Tripping is likely as well; not so sure about bull rushing and the like, as some of the "push around stuff" seems to be vs AC so it may be no different.

Indon
2008-03-04, 08:39 AM
Maybe there'll even be different kinds of Monk power trees! Like quarterstaff wielding, one for monks that specialise in raw damage Fist-of-the-North-star style, one for Judo monks who specialise in disarming and throwing... etc etc.

You could without a doubt make them yourself. Powers don't exactly seem hard to make.

For the quarterstaff style, you could probably rip one of the other blunt-weapon styles that'll be in the game, then add some extra-attack abilities to simulate the weapon's former nature as a double weapon.

For raw damage, just steal striker abilities and reset them to using unarmed attacks.

For disarming and throwing, well, steal Fighter abilities for the throwing (though targeting Reflex more often than AC), and Disarm is Strength or Dexterity vs. Reflex, depending on how you run it.

Edit: And the Fighter already effectively has bull rushing-esque abilities (abilities that involuntarily push around the opponent). They target AC. We're unlikely to see a single option that scales with how strong you are like bull rushing could do in 3.x.