So I listened to the podcast about 4e...

[Titanium Dragon]

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...od/20080229e20

[Starsinger]

"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]

I like that. I like that alot.

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

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

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.

[Kizara]

Good to know.

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

Thanks.

[ImperiousLeader]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... it makes little difference apart from player perceptionwise so it makes no odds to me either way.

It seems Charity knows how to subtract.

[Indon]

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]

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]

Thanks for the heads-up, Titanium Dragon, there's some good info in ther

[Morty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Yakk]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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.