PDA

View Full Version : So I listened to the podcast about 4e...



Titanium Dragon
2008-03-05, 03:49 AM
So, I listened to the D&D podcast, and haven't seen a psot about it, so I thought I'd sum it up for people.

Spell preparation: We already knew this, but the wizard has a very short list of daily abilities they can choose between. The system of spell preparation is almost completely gone though (yay!) so it won't be as much of a hassle/time waster, and apparently the wizard is the only class with it (currently).

Critical hits: All your normal dice (INCLUDING sneak attack dice) are maximized on critical hits; the only dice which aren't are the dice which you specifically roll for certain weapons and such if you roll critical hits.

Skills: Thievery apparently contains a lot of the rogue skills, and a lot of things are designed so more than one skill can solve them.

Multiclassing: Multiclassing will be very different. What you get for multiclassing is precisely spelled out; you get certain things by taking certain numbers of levels in certain classes. They say this helps balance gishes and similar caster multiclasses so your spells aren't all useless; they do mention, however, that deep multiclassing (ala wizard 5/cleric 5) is not well supported by the new system. I'm unsurprised, given how poorly it worked in the last one (which they admitted, I might add, as one of the reasons they're not supporting it as much - lack of functionality in the previous edition, though by the sound of it, it is basically a seperate progression).

Critical threat range: No, all weapons have the same threat range, though some do different things on critical hits.

What does "prof 2" mean?: Apparently it has something to do with either the difficulty of the different weapons or their accuracy; I'm not sure which. The example they gave was that swords are more accurate than axes, but do a bit less damage. Apparently this is used to help differentiate weapons more in different ways.

Additionally, they said that the primary differentiator now between attacks is damage and effects, NOT attack bonus; I'm guessing this means that attack bonus scales a lot less now.

How frequently do characters recieve feats?: More frequently than currently (the 1 in 3 levels progresssion)

How are racial feats distinguished?: You can take them by being a member of the appropriate race, but you're not forced to do so. So you can play a dwarf just for the racial abilities, or you can go whole hog and take a bunch of racial feats, but you don't have to. They all come from the same feat pool.

How is XP calculated: We already knew this; it is uniform. A level 1 monster is worth the same amount of experience regardless of the level of their killer. They also emphasize that you're more capable of throwing a much more varied level range of monsters at characters - you can go more into higher level monsters than you could previously, but they said the big change is that you can go pretty far down the level scale and with enough of them they'll still be a threat for a party, whereas in 3.5, a lot of monsters tend to be pretty useless out of a fairly narrow CR range (which I agree with, incidentally - this is a good change). This also explains the level 4 dragon being hard but not utterly unbeatable - that's the way the system is supposed to work, you're supposed to be able to go up and down a good bit and still stand something of a chance.

Cleric domains: Cleric domains are gone, and there aren't deity-specific powers in the core books to let people make their own pantheons (which they expect people to), but they said there are powers that can help you present a cleric of a range of gods, but they aren't linked specifically to them. Sounds logical to me.

Are familiars still around?: Not in the core rules. Wizards lack familiars, but they will be instituted pretty soon, but in a rather different way - they say they aren't a "stat block walking around with you", but do do things for you, so you want to keep track of them (they actually specifically mention Vaarsuvius's familiar popping in and out of existance and trying to avoid that issue by making them more advantageous to keep track of). Also, apparently it is more of a character, and they talk about how problematic familiars and animal companions are due to various issues with combat and elsewhere, and the popping in and out issue. It is going to show up eventually, though, as are animal companions (which again implies they aren't in core, and they also mention druids being in a currently-worked on splatbook, so they're coming soon). They're trying to streamline it.

Can solo monsters have minions and henchmen in the same battle?: Yeah, this works fine.

The tipping point upwards and downwards are also different; they're more graded, so you don't go from one level to another being beatable to utterly crushing you.

How are subraces handled?: Depends on the subrace; some may be handled by feats, others are definitely being handled by being seperate races (as per elves and eladrin).

Is soloing possible?: Its much less difficult to calculate appropriate encounters for them. Also, apparently, the ratio of xp:level is 50:1 (at least that's what I derived); a level 7 monster is 350 xp, so 4 level 7 monsters is a total of 1400 xp. So for a party of 4 level 7 characters, you'd expect to fight 1400 xp of monsters in a given fight. If you were just a single level 7 character, you'd just be fighting 350 xp. So maybe you'd fight a level 7 guy, or maybe several lower level guys which added up to it, the same as groups.

(I'm a bit skeptical of this answer, personally, but that's what they said.)

They DO say different classes have different soloability, though; they said some classes are more dependent on other roles than others (such as wizards needing someone to save them from being squished), but you can change the nature of encounters (more ranged-type stuff rather than stuff which squishes you). Parties of two work pretty well together, apparently, and leaders and tanks both sound like they can do an okay job, and a rogue even can work, but they seem to imply wizards will have lots of trouble with melee mobs.

They say it is a lot less about attrition and a lot more about tactics.

How well can you increase/manipulate critical hits?: It is much harder, there aren't crit-range weapons anymore; it is possible to hit 19-20, but not 18-20. Special effects which trigger on crits are more common now though; some classes are more loaded than others. You want to attack more often (which sounds possible, somehow).

How hard would it be to manipulate high magic versus low magic?: Well, apparently the iterations are about +1/5 levels (so much for not being straight up); they said the best way to handle low magic is to give them plusses at certain levels (because there are only three things the system assumes you'll increase via magical effects: attacks, AC, and defenses). The game is okay as long as you're a step off; if you're more than that, you'll have problems.

Those other magic items are less important, apparently, and won't break down things quite as much - lots of them are more options-oriented than belt of giant strength.

Incidentally, levels are 2-3 sessions each according to THEM; I trust them not much though, but the doled-out adventures have 30-40 encounters each to bring you up three levels.

Why do rogues get sneak attacks arbitrary, rather than fighters?: Fighters are good at slapping around people and defending themselves, whereas a rogue is more concerned with just shanking someone in the gut rather than defending themselves. So the fighter stabs people well pretty much regardless, and it is dangerous to turn your back on him, but a rogue is deadlier in a one on one fight where there's only the one person you need to concentrate on and kill. Yeah.

How do parties function without one of the roles?: It requires the party to play differently/smarter, but there's a level of baseline autonomous function. Every class can do some stuff from the others; fighters can heal themselves somewhat, for instance, and while they can't heal other people like leaders can at least they can heal themselves a little. Rangers have bow abilities which hit 4-5 targets, so they can overlap with burst type powers. If you lack a role, you want to try and cover for it; maybe lacking a fighter, the rogue needs to take shield proficiency and the controller will need to hold people up more, ect. Its quite possible to go without, but it will be harder. "Player skill is more reflected by your ability to play at the table, not showing up with a good build."

EDIT: The podcast can be found at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20080229e20

Starsinger
2008-03-05, 04:54 AM
"Player skill is more reflected by your ability to play at the table, not showing up with a good build."

I like that. I like that alot.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-05, 04:58 AM
I like that. I like that alot.

"BIG MONEY! BIG PRIZES! IIIIIIII LOVE IT!"

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-05, 05:03 AM
So, I listened to the D&D podcast, and haven't seen a psot about it, so I thought I'd sum it up for people.

Thank you, I appreciate that. :smallsmile:

Kizara
2008-03-05, 05:47 AM
Good to know.

Don't like alot of what I hear, but appreciate being informed.

Thanks.

ImperiousLeader
2008-03-05, 08:00 AM
What does "prof 2" mean?: Apparently it has something to do with either the difficulty of the different weapons or their accuracy; I'm not sure which. The example they gave was that swords are more accurate than axes, but do a bit less damage. Apparently this is used to help differentiate weapons more in different ways.

Prof 2 means you get a +2 bonus to attacks using that weapon if you are proficient with it. A Prof 3 weapon would give a +3 to attacks if you are proficient with it.

A dagger, for example, is probably a Prof 3 weapon, if you look at the sample wizard, his dagger attack has a +3 bonus, despite no STR bonus.

Charity
2008-03-05, 08:13 AM
Hmm... balancing hit chance with weapon damage could work out ok I think.

If this is the case (I am not doubting your word O ImperiousLeader)
Where you have a melee striker with high bonus damage he is more likely to use low damage accurate weapon, which seems quite intuative and likely to promote variable party armament, overall a good thing in these old eyes.
*wanders off for a ponder*

Kurald Galain
2008-03-05, 08:29 AM
Prof 2 means you get a +2 bonus to attacks using that weapon if you are proficient with it. A Prof 3 weapon would give a +3 to attacks if you are proficient with it.

This fits in the paradigm that "subtraction is too difficult for contemporary American teenagers", does it not?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-05, 08:35 AM
This fits in the paradigm that "subtraction is too difficult for contemporary American teenagers", does it not?

Only if you assume there's no nonproficiency penalty.

Indon
2008-03-05, 09:26 AM
A lot of this was already outlined in other articles. The multiclassing stuff is new - considering every class uses what is essentially a spell progression now, I'm unsurprised deep multiclassing remains unviable. But those dips people know and love are still in the game.

Attack bonus probably scales 1/2 levels, just like all the stat checks. I say this because some powers require stat checks, and we know they all recieve +1/2 levels bonus.

I do believe our best knowledge about feats was that they were every level.

Personally, I'm very confident in the consistency of the new encounter calculation system.

Considering the game itself is much lower magic than 3.x, I don't think we can expect as much flexibility, so I'm not too surprised.


"Player skill is more reflected by your ability to play at the table, not showing up with a good build."

I doubt 4.0 has any tactical elements that 3.x doesn't - they've just reduced the significance of player character build options, which just shifts the emphasis. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, all told.

Puggins
2008-03-05, 09:43 AM
This fits in the paradigm that "subtraction is too difficult for contemporary American teenagers", does it not?

Well, the way it came across is more of a variety mechanic amongst weapons. Now an axe in the hands of a fighter does more damage, but is less accurate:

battle axe prof+0, 2d6 damage
longsword prof+2, 1d10 damage

Or something like that- I don't know the actual stats. So now the fighter would presumably have more valid choice amongst weapons, weighing the importance of accuracy versus damage.

Where is the evidence the penalties are being discouraged anyway? Cover is still in. Ability score penalties are still in.

Puggins
2008-03-05, 09:48 AM
I doubt 4.0 has any tactical elements that 3.x doesn't - they've just reduced the significance of player character build options, which just shifts the emphasis. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, all told.

Movement on the battlefield seems to be far more common so far, though. The fighter can push creatures around with successful attacks. The rogue and trip them up. The warlock can pick 'em up and shake 'em around the field. This alone implies that tactics will be more apparent, but that's just an initial impression.

Charity
2008-03-05, 09:55 AM
Puggins - They have removed racial penalties and have stated that they are using bonuses or lack therof rather than penalties in character gen... it makes little difference apart from player perceptionwise so it makes no odds to me either way.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-05, 09:58 AM
... it makes little difference apart from player perceptionwise so it makes no odds to me either way.

It seems Charity knows how to subtract. :smallwink:

Indon
2008-03-05, 10:05 AM
Movement on the battlefield seems to be far more common so far, though. The fighter can push creatures around with successful attacks. The rogue and trip them up. The warlock can pick 'em up and shake 'em around the field. This alone implies that tactics will be more apparent, but that's just an initial impression.

It more implies that movement is more viable. There were many movement-based tactics in 3.x - Spring Attack is one example. But they were generally not very powerful compared to the high end of character effectiveness, so when speaking of optimized play they don't come up.

Most importantly, 4.x has offered less tactical options to take up your move action with (largely by removing the full attack and associated options), so why not move, since chances are you have nothing better to do with that action.

Edit: To summarize, in 3.x, if you stood your ground you generally had many more effective tactical options. Tactical options that involved moving were not generally as powerful. So people didn't move so much.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-05, 02:59 PM
This fits in the paradigm that "subtraction is too difficult for contemporary American teenagers", does it not?

Two things:

1) Emotionally speaking, people don't mind people getting bonuses as much as they dislike being penalized; telling someone that they get a +2 bonus to hit because they're proficient makes them happy, while telling someone they get a -2 penalty because they're not proficient will annoy them, even if their overall to hit chance is exactly the same either way (that is to say, under either system, they still have the same chance to hit). Thus, making as much as you can into bonuses is a good thing because players will like it more.
2) It makes it faster to calculate, as all you have to pay attention to is number, not sign.


I doubt 4.0 has any tactical elements that 3.x doesn't - they've just reduced the significance of player character build options, which just shifts the emphasis. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, all told.

It looks like everyone has more options, and everyone is using the equivalent of a move, attack, and swift action most rounds, so I'd argue that it is more tactically interesting because you're doing more. I know my Warblade was much more interesting than a fighter was to play because he did so many more things per round and had so many more options. As long as the options are relatively equal in a vaccuum, then you're going to see situations where using different abilities is better or worse.

Artanis
2008-03-05, 04:03 PM
Thanks for the heads-up, Titanium Dragon, there's some good info in ther :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2008-03-05, 04:33 PM
Emotionally speaking, people don't mind people getting bonuses as much as they dislike being penalized; telling someone that they get a +2 bonus to hit because they're proficient makes them happy, while telling someone they get a -2 penalty because they're not proficient will annoy them, even if their overall to hit chance is exactly the same either way (that is to say, under either system, they still have the same chance to hit). Thus, making as much as you can into bonuses is a good thing because players will like it more.


Now, stop right there. I understand when someone doesn't want to get penalties for a race they choose, even though I don't share that view. However, I don't really think it applies to weapon proficiencies, as I don't see how anyone can be annoyed by the fact that they're getting penalties to hit because they don't know how to fight with a weapon, unless someone can't stand having some negative number on character sheet. I couldn't care less if there are penalties for nonproficiency or bonuses for proficiency, but if what you're saying is WoTC's intention, they aren't giving us much credit, are they?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-05, 05:42 PM
Considering that you are probably fighting with a weapon in which you are proficient 90+ % of the time, they have actually increased the complexity by adding a bonus most of the time compared to now where you subtract a penalty on the rare occasion you are using a weapon you are not proficient with.

Either way, I do not think you should take it personally. Assuming that the intention is to avoid penalties this is clearly not directed at you, since you have already made it clear that you are largely indifferent, but at The Association of American Sulky Teenagers Against Simple Subtraction.

Catering to their whims, imagined or not, will not hurt you in any way just like the removal of THAC0 did not harm anyone.

Morty
2008-03-05, 05:59 PM
Catering to their whims, imagined or not, will not hurt you in any way just like the removal of THAC0 did not harm anyone.

Well, as I said, I don't actually give a damn if there are non-proficiency penalties or not. It's all the same in the end. It's just the "Don't give penalties!" premise presented by Titanium Dragon doesn't make much sense here.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-05, 06:27 PM
It's just the "Don't give penalties!" premise presented by Titanium Dragon doesn't make much sense here.

That part of the argument makes sense if TAASTASS actually exists or if WotC think that they do.

kamikasei
2008-03-05, 06:38 PM
Catering to their whims, imagined or not, will not hurt you in any way just like the removal of THAC0 did not harm anyone.

My mother died of THAC0 withdrawal. It was given to her by an elven witch.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-05, 06:42 PM
My mother died of THAC0 withdrawal. It was given to her by an elven witch.

Ok, so I might have been generalizing a bit too much. :smallamused:

Yakk
2008-03-05, 07:00 PM
They made weapons differ by accuracy. This is a good thing.

But once you have the modifier, do you want it to vary between positive and negative or not? Why not just make it positive?

So they decided to roll "non-proficiency" into the modifier as well. :)

...

Minor actions are the move actions of 3.5e. Except now most classes have minor actions that do something, instead of just having to move. And few classes have actions that take up both the minor and standard action slots (like full attack).

Note that in 3.5e, up to level 5 there was little reason NOT to move on each turn. In 4e, even low level characters will have minor actions to burn.

Yakk
2008-03-05, 07:08 PM
They made weapons differ by accuracy. This is a good thing.

But once you have the modifier, do you want it to vary between positive and negative or not? Why not just make it positive?

So they decided to roll "non-proficiency" into the modifier as well. :)

...

Minor actions are the move actions of 3.5e. Except now most classes have minor actions that do something, instead of just having to move. And few classes have actions that take up both the minor and standard action slots (like full attack).

Note that in 3.5e, up to level 5 there was little reason NOT to move on each turn. In 4e, even low level characters will have minor actions to burn.

This is more options.

By making the 3 types of action mostly orthgonal, this ups the options. Really!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 07:28 PM
'Cept not, unless I got it wrong. We still have Move actions. They still are grossly useless and will get the "We didn't know where to stuff it" actions. Minor actions are more like the free, swift, and immediate actions.

strayth
2008-03-05, 08:09 PM
Thanks, I was just complaining to someone about not having a bulleted list of changes for convenience. And I suspect their bit about 'skill at the table, not just a good build' was no more than a motto but one can always hope.

Enguhl
2008-03-05, 08:29 PM
My mother died of THAC0 withdrawal. It was given to her by an elven witch.

The very same witches that rule the elves in an evil council where they participate in villainous orgies and spit the blood of dwarven babies on each other?

SmartAlec
2008-03-05, 08:40 PM
Well, as I said, I don't actually give a damn if there are non-proficiency penalties or not. It's all the same in the end. It's just the "Don't give penalties!" premise presented by Titanium Dragon doesn't make much sense here.

Maybe simply being an adventurer implies a basic level of familiarity with weapons.

Makes a little more sense than suddenly becoming competent with all Martial weapons from longsword to longbow in the space between level 5 and 6, by taking Martial Weapons proficiency.

If you remove the penalty, you remove the awkward spontaneous-development-of-fighting-ability feel.

Deepblue706
2008-03-05, 08:47 PM
Multiclassing: Multiclassing will be very different. What you get for multiclassing is precisely spelled out; you get certain things by taking certain numbers of levels in certain classes. They say this helps balance gishes and similar caster multiclasses so your spells aren't all useless; they do mention, however, that deep multiclassing (ala wizard 5/cleric 5) is not well supported by the new system. I'm unsurprised, given how poorly it worked in the last one (which they admitted, I might add, as one of the reasons they're not supporting it as much - lack of functionality in the previous edition, though by the sound of it, it is basically a seperate progression).

Well, I'm all for new multiclass rules. Here's hoping for something that works better than 3.x...



How frequently do characters recieve feats?: More frequently than currently (the 1 in 3 levels progresssion)

I'm certainly liking this. I feel more mechanical representations of what makes my character stand out makes the game more entertaining.

No real feelings on the rest of the info.

Matthew
2008-03-05, 08:48 PM
Makes a little more sense than suddenly becoming competent with all Martial weapons from longsword to longbow in the space between level 5 and 6, by taking Martial Weapons proficiency.

Huh? You mean by Multi Classing into a Class that has proficiency in all Martial Weapons, I presume? Otherwise, it's one Feat per Martial Weapon as far as I am aware.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-05, 08:53 PM
'Cept not, unless I got it wrong. We still have Move actions. They still are grossly useless and will get the "We didn't know where to stuff it" actions. Minor actions are more like the free, swift, and immediate actions.

Except 4e move actions have one very important and distinct advantage over 3.5, you can trade them for second minor action. So, you can get 2 "swift" actions instead of 1 and a move.

SmartAlec
2008-03-05, 08:56 PM
Huh? You mean by Multi Classing into a Class that has proficiency in all Martial Weapons, I presume? Otherwise, it's one Feat per Martial Weapon as far as I am aware.

I was referring to 3rd Edition's method of handling weapon proficiency.

"I'll just take Martial Proficiency at levelup and - shazam!"

Matthew
2008-03-05, 09:11 PM
I was referring to 3rd Edition's method of handling weapon proficiency.

"I'll just take Martial Proficiency at levelup and - shazam!"

In D20 you have to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (Whatever), you cannot just take Martial Weapon Proficiency and gain proficiency in all Martial Weapons, which is what you seemed to be saying.

Like all additional things you acquire on 'Level Up', how they are rationalised is largely up to the DM. There are certainly 'training rules' that can be applied and if he does not consider it reasonable for a character to acquire any given skill or feat, the DMG suggests that he can prevent it [not that this happens much in practice, from what I understand].

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 09:24 PM
Except 4e move actions have one very important and distinct advantage over 3.5, you can trade them for second minor action. So, you can get 2 "swift" actions instead of 1 and a move.

Says lots 'bout their use, doesnit?

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 10:22 PM
Considering the game itself is much lower magic than 3.x, I don't think we can expect as much flexibility, so I'm not too surprised
what are you talking about, i haven't noticed any trend towards low magic.
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 10:26 PM
M'friend, trend towards low magic = Hey, I don't need to find a means to fly before level 7! I'm not screwed without flight! Whippie!

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 10:31 PM
M'friend, trend towards low magic = Hey, I don't need to find a means to fly before level 7! I'm not screwed without flight! Whippie!
but that isn't low magic, its, no my brain
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 10:38 PM
what are you talking about, i haven't noticed any trend towards low magic.
from
EE

Well, let's see--four out of eight of the classes are Martial, making a viable magicless party. The number of spells is greatly reduced. There's a signiicant reduction in magic items.
Seems lower-magic than 3.5 to me.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 10:39 PM
See? It IS Low magic, for D&D at least! Imagine this: A world where a monster can be a big land based tank and BE fearsome! A World where wizards don't die on everyone else, in the Shakespearian connotation! A world where a fighter can both be useful and have options! It's a paradise!

(Mindrapes self. The World must not know of such an utopia!).

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 10:45 PM
Well, let's see--four out of eight of the classes are Martial, making a viable magicless party. The number of spells is greatly reduced. There's a signiicant reduction in magic items.
Seems lower-magic than 3.5 to me.

All of these martial classes can use spell like effects, the casters are still powerful in their own way, and the fact that they say so in the preview books?
from
EE

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 10:51 PM
Special ability =/= Spell like effect. Just because they get fancy abilities does not mean that they have any sort of access to magic. sure, a fighter might have abilities that make it so enemies take penalties if they don't attack them, but that doesn't mean it's magic. You turn you back on an opponent in melee and see if they don't start wailing on your back. Then tell me how easy it is to concentrate on what you're doing.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 10:53 PM
All of these martial classes can use spell like effects, the casters are still powerful in their own way, and the fact that they say so in the preview books?
from
EE

Why do you insist on making things up? Show me some spell-like effects Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, or Warlords have. They have per-day abilities; that does not make them magical.

Casters are still powerful, but no more powerful than any other class. They do not dominate like in 3.5, because they have the same mechanical basis.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 10:53 PM
...You honestly didn't even take a look at lussmanj's thread or downloaded the char sheets, right?

And yeah, casters are powerful. Sleep seems mighty. But they're not powerful in the "Die on everybody" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HaveAGayOldTime) sense. If you wanna know the meaning, CTRL + F King Lear.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 10:53 PM
Special ability =/= Spell like effect. Just because they get fancy abilities does not mean that they have any sort of access to magic. sure, a fighter might have abilities that make it so enemies take penalties if they don't attack them, but that doesn't mean it's magic. You turn you back on an opponent in melee and see if they don't start wailing on your back. Then tell me how easy it is to concentrate on what you're doing.

depends how far we get into ToB related powers

Also why is everyone working under the assumption that 4E will have only 8 classes? Splat books will come out


Why do you insist on making things up? Show me some spell-like effects Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, or Warlords have. They have per-day abilities; that does not make them magical.

Casters are still powerful, but no more powerful than any other class. They do not dominate like in 3.5, because they have the same mechanical basis.

1. Healing surge
2. parts of the the preview books say the world is high magic (not magic tech however, for which i am happy)
3. in theory 3E's casters weren't any more powerful than any other class. We shall see


from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 10:57 PM
Core will have only 8.

And hwat ToB powers? The mechanics are similar, but past that, ye are hallucinating, m'friend.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 10:59 PM
Core will have only 8.

And hwat ToB powers? The mechanics are similar, but past that, ye are hallucinating, m'friend.

1. Healing surge. We shall see
2. Eight in core, nothing stops them from making more


Anyways, the point remains, this doesn't make 4E less magical, just less caster pwning everybody else.
from
EE

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 11:01 PM
1. Healing surge


3. in theory 3E's casters weren't any more powerful than any other class. We shall see


On number 1, hit points are not any form of exact, representational object. They are abstracts, used to define many different aspects, from concentration to raw life force to morale. On number two, what the hell? There is no theory to it, they are by and far more powerful at later levels. Their progression is parabolic, in stead of linear to try and balance this, but it doesn't work. I'm a religion major and I could see this the first time I grabbed a PHB.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:04 PM
On number 1, hit points are not any form of exact, representational object. They are abstracts, used to define many different aspects, from concentration to raw life force to morale. On number two, what the hell? There is no theory to it, they are by and far more powerful at later levels. Their progression is parabolic, in stead of linear to try and balance this, but it doesn't work. I'm a religion major and I could see this the first time I grabbed a PHB.

1. I don't think any official statement has been made on teh nature of hit points actually. It is all subjective.
2. When WOTC designed them, they intended the classes to be balenced against each other. As we all know, this failed, horrible.
3. Religion major? What?
4. And on subject, none of this makes 4E low magic, we have had no real indication of this, we still have magical creatures and people ect. Hell, the PCs are expected to become gods
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 11:05 PM
For the first one, I'll just remind you of your "archnemesis", Rutee's, take on healing surges. Just a sentence here: "Hola, mi nombre es Iņigo Montoya. Tu mataste a mi padre. Preparate a morir."

Or, in the less epic englishe: "Hello, my name is Iņigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:07 PM
For the first one, I'll just remind you of your "archnemesis", Rutee's, take on healing surges. Just a sentence here: "Hola, mi nombre es Iņigo Montoya. Tu mataste a mi padre. Preparate a morir."

Or, in the less epic englishe: "Hello, my name is Iņigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

I'd normally counter that, but the spanish was damn cool
from
EE

Edit
Submitted toRutee, pain won't leave, it burns inside
from
EE

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 11:08 PM
I used my major as anecdotal evidence of a non-emphasis on mathematic in my mindset. As for the nature of HP, since there is no mechanical difference between a character at 1 hp and on at 100 hp, it is ultimately a meaningless abstract, there to limit characters.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 11:08 PM
I knew that. It's called investing in the critical post skill. "Just when your stance's situation seems most dire, you pull off a simple but beautiful post. Has a 2% chance of working".

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 11:12 PM
Oh, COME ON. HP are totally abstract, and Healing Surge isn't spell-like in any way, shape, or form.

You're really, REALLY stretching. You need to stop.

Rutee
2008-03-05, 11:14 PM
Says lots 'bout their use, doesnit?

I'm confused. Are you saying movement is irrelevant, or taht minor/swift actions are awesome?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 11:18 PM
"I'll open door number one, Monty!".

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-05, 11:21 PM
4. And on subject, none of this makes 4E low magic, we have had no real indication of this, we still have magical creatures and people ect. Hell, the PCs are expected to become gods
from
EE

First of all, you don't get what everyone means by saying "low magic", they mean "a lower dependence on magic than in 3.5e". In other words, you can survive and thrive without a cleric, wizard, or magic items unlike in 3.5e.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:25 PM
Oh, COME ON. HP are totally abstract, and Healing Surge isn't spell-like in any way, shape, or form.

You're really, REALLY stretching. You need to stop.

Depends on yoru interpretation. Please, if WOTC has made an official statement on hit points, please let me know
Also caps, best way to prove a point

First of all, you don't get what everyone means by saying "low magic", they mean "a lower dependence on magic than in 3.5e". In other words, you can survive and thrive without a cleric, wizard, or magic items unlike in 3.5e.
not what i quoted

from what i've seen, nothing makes 4E any less magical than 3E. Which personally i don't really mind
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 11:28 PM
Depends on yoru interpretation. Please, if WOTC has made an official statement on hit points, please let me know
Also caps, best way to prove a point
...
EE.
Why, exactly, are you interpreting hit points as directly related to wounds, when hit points have never worked that way? How can you even pretend you're not intentionally misreading everything you see about 4E to be as bad as you can possibly twist it to be?


from what i've seen, nothing makes 4E any less magical than 3E. Which personally i don't really mind
from
EE

Sure it does. The viability of a party without magic items and without an arcane or divine spellcaster.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-05, 11:30 PM
Hit Points are not represented by Endurance and Stamina only. They are an abstract combination of luck, resilence, and morale.

There's the official thingy you wanted. A Healing surge boosts the luck and morale.

And yeah, with low magic we mean "Lower magic dependency, so that you aren't a wizard's meatshield ONLY".

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:33 PM
...
EE.
Why, exactly, are you interpreting hit points as directly related to wounds, when hit points have never worked that way? How can you even pretend you're not intentionally misreading everything you see about 4E to be as bad as you can possibly twist it to be?

1. Hmmmm, that might be because WOTC has never made a statement on that maybe?
2. Honestly, how could this even be a bad thing? maybe you missed this part

from what i've seen, nothing makes 4E any less magical than 3E. Which personally i don't really mind




Sure it does. The viability of a party without magic items and without an arcane or divine spellcaster.

And the world beyond the party maybe? P. 12-13 of worlds and monsters come to mind. Hence high magic.
from
EE

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 11:34 PM
Just to add to the bloat of designers stating HP as abstract, here's (http://www.enworld.org/printthread.php?t=216749) Chris Sims.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:38 PM
Just to add to the bloat of designers stating HP as abstract, here's (http://www.enworld.org/printthread.php?t=216749) Chris Sims.

ah, that explains a lot
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-05, 11:38 PM
1. Hmmmm, that might be because WOTC has never made a statement on that maybe?
2. Honestly, how could this even be a bad thing? maybe you missed this part
1. Sure they have, and they've been quoted. 3.5 says the same thing. "HP directly translate into wounds" is a completely unfounded assumption, based in nothing but the desire to misinterpret.
2. It's a bad thing, because HP <=> wounds is obviously really stupid.



And the world beyond the party maybe? P. 12-13 of worlds and monsters come to mind. Hence high magic.
from
EE
It's still D&D. It still has magic. But it supports low magic a lot better now.

EvilElitest
2008-03-05, 11:44 PM
1. Sure they have, and they've been quoted. 3.5 says the same thing. "HP directly translate into wounds" is a completely unfounded assumption, based in nothing but the desire to misinterpret.
2. It's a bad thing, because HP <=> wounds is obviously really stupid.

1. As provided yes
2A) i was refering to 4E. I wasn't criticizing it for being high magic.
2B) Oh, health being related to what keeps you alive, how silly of me



It's still D&D. It still has magic. But it supports low magic a lot better now.
might i direct you to worlds and monsters p. 12-15.
from
EE

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 11:46 PM
might i direct you to worlds and monsters p. 12-15.
from
EE

Might I, sir, point you to the podcast, which, as it happens, is the topic of this thread? That directly state that it is much easier and possible to do.

Rutee
2008-03-05, 11:49 PM
You guys know you're just making him happy by giving him attention, right?

Farmer42
2008-03-05, 11:50 PM
Yeah, but it gives me an opportunity to distract myself from thesis research.

Rutee
2008-03-05, 11:52 PM
Oh. Rock on then.

Khanderas
2008-03-06, 04:56 AM
Emotionally speaking, people don't mind people getting bonuses as much as they dislike being penalized; telling someone that they get a +2 bonus to hit because they're proficient makes them happy, while telling someone they get a -2 penalty because they're not proficient will annoy them, even if their overall to hit chance is exactly the same either way (that is to say, under either system, they still have the same chance to hit). Thus, making as much as you can into bonuses is a good thing because players will like it more.Now, stop right there. I understand when someone doesn't want to get penalties for a race they choose, even though I don't share that view. However, I don't really think it applies to weapon proficiencies, as I don't see how anyone can be annoyed by the fact that they're getting penalties to hit because they don't know how to fight with a weapon, unless someone can't stand having some negative number on character sheet. I couldn't care less if there are penalties for nonproficiency or bonuses for proficiency, but if what you're saying is WoTC's intention, they aren't giving us much credit, are they?
Well its how the mind works among the masses (see the all races gets bonuses only in 4E).
When WoW announced their resting system as a way to let casual players keep up, the community was outraged that the more you played the less XP you recieved, until you rested up offline in an inn.
So they switched it, so you rest offline in an inn and get double XP for a certain lenght of the XP bar and then normal xp. They also doubled the XP needed for next level so the time to level was the same. The community was extactic.
Same thing here. It is the way the mind works. Mob rules and the more ppl involved the stupider it gets.

JBento
2008-03-06, 05:15 AM
Indeed. The intelligence of a mob is equal to that of its dumbest member, divided by the number of people who comprise it.

Does anyone remember where that is from? I'm thinking Pratchett, but I'm not sure...

KIDS
2008-03-06, 05:29 AM
Offtopic: Jbento, I recall having read it in The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons, the chapter where John Keats was chased by an angry mob during the Farcaster destruction.
I thought of it before as well, I think it went: "The intelligence of the mob is always less than the intelligence of its least intelligent member." But I'm not sure either!

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-06, 05:46 AM
Now, stop right there. I understand when someone doesn't want to get penalties for a race they choose, even though I don't share that view. However, I don't really think it applies to weapon proficiencies, as I don't see how anyone can be annoyed by the fact that they're getting penalties to hit because they don't know how to fight with a weapon, unless someone can't stand having some negative number on character sheet. I couldn't care less if there are penalties for nonproficiency or bonuses for proficiency, but if what you're saying is WoTC's intention, they aren't giving us much credit, are they?

Given some of the posts I've read complaining about 4e, I'm not sure them not giving the playerbase much credit is entirely unwarranted.

Not to mention, it can really help out. If, for instance, the average fighter has strength 16 and an accuracy +3 weapon, and the average wizard isn't proficient in the longsword, the wizard can still swing around the longsword with a +0 rather than a -2; yeah, he's still awful at it, but there's no real reason to penalize him further. Given it looks like attack bonuses work rather differently in the new edition, this all may well make more sense anyway - if a +5 bonus is about average for a first level fighter, then a +0 bonus to hit for an untrained mage isn't out of line given that against AC 15 he's hitting a quarter of the time, versus half the time for the fighter, and against AC 18 he's hitting 15% versus 40% - those are pretty huge differences anyway, and there's no reason to shaft the wizard who is fighting suboptimally any more than he's already shafting himself, but he'll still be able to (rarely) hit in a desperate situation.

But the real reason is the emotional one, not the mechanical one. People really DO hate getting penalties; this is actually pretty well-known among game designers. How many MMOs with harsh death penalties have been successful as compared to those without?

You may say "Well, why are we catering to the MMO people?" but the reality is... you aren't. Its not just MMO people, it is people in general. This crosses the borders of games. Don't ask me why, it just does. Its entirely illogical, especially if mechanically it works out the same if everyone else gets a +2 bonus and you get none, versus you getting a penalty and everyone else remaining the same, but apparently it is a deep-seated thing for many humans.

Look at Magic: The Gathering. Juzam Djinn was a very powerful card back in the day, but for a long time it was underplayed because it had a drawback. The card was totally worth it, but people avoided it. Same with Necropotence. A modern day example is Dark Confidant, one of the most powerful cards in recent years; despite its power, its price is quite reasonable for a Magic card of its calibur because its drawback seems much more severe than it is and mostly only good players truly appreciate it for what it is worth.

It isn't some mythical group; market research shows this sort of thing. I might also add this is the same reason so many people are opposed to taxes - yeah, the government may be improving your life by taxing you more, and even saving you money ultimately, but that negative to your income is seen as a burden.

My personal experience with people backs this up, and Mark Rosewater and the Magic designers agree with me, so I'm guessing it is true unless we've got bizzarely improbable sample groups.


EE.
Why, exactly, are you interpreting hit points as directly related to wounds, when hit points have never worked that way? How can you even pretend you're not intentionally misreading everything you see about 4E to be as bad as you can possibly twist it to be?

Folks, can we try not to let EE disrail the thread? Put him on your ignore list and hopefully he'll go away, but at least you won't have to say the same thing fourty times in ten different threads to him. I was writing yet another of my trademark extremely long posts to him when I realized that I'd written about half of it before, and the other half was just pointing out that he was outright wrong, and I'm seeing the same thing happen to you. Don't let him waste your time.

I was kind of enjoying the intelligent discussion of the points brought up by the podcast, but it seems like there's an entire page of just back and forth with him; several other threads have turned into that, and I'd prefer not to have this thread turn into the same.


So they switched it, so you rest offline in an inn and get double XP for a certain lenght of the XP bar and then normal xp. They also doubled the XP needed for next level so the time to level was the same. The community was extactic.

Yeah, people are stupid. I remember when that happened and a few people I knew who played WoW complained about how people were embracing the system now when it was not at all different; they were not frustrated with the system so much as the other people who played WoW who fell for such a seemingly obvious ploy.

Indon
2008-03-06, 08:51 AM
All of these martial classes can use spell like effects, the casters are still powerful in their own way, and the fact that they say so in the preview books?
from
EE

Dealing with these points respectively:

Yeah, everyone uses the same pseudo-vancian (/maneuvers/incantations) system. But spellcasting in 3.x was massively more versatile than spellcasting is in 4.0.

A level 1 non-core 3.5 wizard has more spellcasting options availible to him than every level 1 4.0 ability for every class combined, that we've seen so far, anyway. A level 1 core wizard can only outdo 5 or 6 classes worth of options combined.

And many spells are just plain better, mechanically, in 3.5 than in 3.0. Sleep, for instance, used to target more than one enemy - 10-foot radius burst, in fact. Even magic missile does a higher average damage per round, and in a system with less average HP than 4.0 has!

Wizards is saying their world is high-magic so that people don't figure out how much less magic there is in it. They're lying so that you don't stop playing the game in favor of a real high-magic system.

Not that you couldn't, with great effort, houserule the game back into being high-magic. But that's what it'd take to bring it to the default level of 3.5.