# WotC Blogs II



## Glyfair (Aug 27, 2007)

The last thread was getting a bit long in the tooth, so I decided to start afresh this week.  These will just be 4E hints and tidbits from WotC's blogs.  There are lots of other good things in there, so I recommend you go there to read the whole blogs.

Matthew Sernett had a lot to say about monsters:


			
				Matthew Sernett's blog said:
			
		

> We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).
> 
> Third edition gives the illusion of fairness by giving you formulas to rely on, but you can use all the formulas perfectly and easily end up with an unfair or unfun monster. Advancing monsters by hit dice is a great example. Depending on its type and ability scores, the CR raise you give it according to the formulas might work out okay, but just as often the monster ends up too tough for its CR or too weak.
> 
> ...




David Noonan has a bunch of stuff dealing with his playest:


			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> For this playtest adventure, there's no radically new state of the art in adventure design--at least, not that I've thought of yet. But it's just a lot easier to do the stuff that we usually identify as the hallmarks of artful adventure design: a wide variety of encounters, a dynamic environment, interesting bad guys. Oh, and cool loot. Can't forget that.
> 
> And you can bet that I'm going to throw some noncombat challenges in there. I'm still fired up about last week's social challenges--and the framework for noncombat encounters that makes 'em possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 27, 2007)

For those who are feeling lazy, here's the actual thread to help Dave (rather than wading through the entire forum).
-blarg


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 27, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> For those who are feeling lazy, here's the actual thread to help Dave (rather than wading through the entire forum).
> -blarg




Sorry, just plugged in Dave's link without following it.

BTW, here is something Mike Mearls posted about PC races vs. monsters in the "Monster blog."



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Daedaluswing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

I'm having a hard time following Mike here...is he talking about 3.5 Ogres and Trogs, or 4E Ogres and Trogs?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 27, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time following Mike here...is he talking about 3.5 Ogres and Trogs, or 4E Ogres and Trogs?




I think he's talking about why races and monsters have different entires, using 3.5 as an example (since we don't have 4E stats for monsters),


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Sorry, just plugged in Dave's link without following it.



No need to apologize!  I surf in parallel with huge numbers of tabs, and Dave's link to the forum befuddled me when I got around to it.
-blarg


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think he's talking about why races and monsters have different entires, using 3.5 as an example (since we don't have 4E stats for monsters),




I hope so...that seemed much more old-way than new-way.

 It's been a while since I looked at Trogs...Currently, a Trog Ftr 1 would be the equiv of a Ftr 6 and have AC 30? Yikes!


----------



## Grog (Aug 27, 2007)

_In the future, we'd rather *design* this stuff to do what it does, so that when you play a trog you have a fun, interesting, reasonably balanced character._

This sounds to me like a hint that monsters as characters might be included in the PH2 (or MM2 or DMG2).


----------



## Jer (Aug 27, 2007)

Matthew Sernett's blog said:
			
		

> Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.




This is confirmation of what I've been hoping the new monster design paradigm would look like.  In the more recent podcasts, Mike Mearls has been "complaining" about monster progressions by "type" - like how the "vermin" type has a horrible BAB, so to get a Giant Scorpion of sufficient "scariness" to attack the party, you end up giving it huge saving throws as well.  Or how he's used the "monstrous humanoid" progression to build new Drow villains for his game.

This tells me that they're not getting rid of all of the formulaic aspects of monster design, but instead changing it from "advance by type" to "advance by role" - you might have a "brute" role, an "artillery" role, a "mastermind" role, etc. each with a progression for BAB, saves, and feats that are pertinent for their particular combat role.  I like this idea - it's similar to the "creature career" idea that is used in Warhammer FRPG, and it focuses stat creation around something "real" instead of the mostly artificial constraint of "monster type".


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 28, 2007)

I also think that what they're saying is that PC race versions of a monster won't necessarily have the exact same abilities as the monster version. Thus, you can have githzerai and troglodyte PCs, without sticking them with nigh-crippling LAs, and without giving them ginormous amounts of Dex or natural armor.

(With the idea of races granting additional abilities as characters level, you can also have troglodytes grow into their ginormous natural armor bonuses over the course of 20 30 levels.)


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 28, 2007)

James Wyatt has put up a couple of posts touching on dragons and, briefly, market research.



			
				James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> Anyway, dragons. Ready-to-play dragons, right in the Monster Manual! What a concept! I just pulled the 1977 Monster Manual and the 1993 Monstrous Manual off my shelf and realized that this is, in fact, the first Monster Manual in the history of the D&D game to give you complete, ready-to-play dragons right there in the book! (To be fair, you didn't have to do much for the dragons in the 1977 book, but you did have to contend with a range of possible Hit Dice, hit points per die that depended on the dragon's age, and a fair bit of text at the start of the dragon entry you had to refer back to in play. Plus, there was a random chance that a dragon might use magic, and its spells were determined randomly.
> 
> In the 1993 book, you had to consult two different tables, checking the dragon's age against the various columns, to determine its Hit Dice (let's see, page 79 tells me the silver dragon has 15 base Hit Dice, but it's adult, so page 64 tells me to add 2), AC, damage (1-8/1-8/5-30 on page 79, +6 from page 64), and so on. What fun!
> 
> ...





> Remember my very first post here, where I was talking about ethnographic research? Check it out: When I got back from GenCon I found this email from one of our market research managers—
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 28, 2007)

Er, note to James: you can find a stat block for each dragon all set to go in the Draconomicon.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 28, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Er, note to James: you can find a stat block for each dragon all set to go in the Draconomicon.



His quote didn't say these were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in D&D.  He said they were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in a _Monster Manual_.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> _In the future, we'd rather *design* this stuff to do what it does, so that when you play a trog you have a fun, interesting, reasonably balanced character._
> 
> This sounds to me like a hint that monsters as characters might be included in the PH2 (or MM2 or DMG2).




It's been said that monsters-as-characters will be included in the MM, just not all of them. 

Cheers!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 28, 2007)

Hey all! 

Interesting news from James Wyatt. If the ten core dragons are dealt with in 14 pages (1.4 pages each), I would assume 1 page write up for each with maybe the other 4 pages used for the illustrations.

That suggests this must be one hell of a small stat block if each dragon is detailed individually!  

I mean at the very least I would expect maybe 4-5 dragon ages (Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gargantuan?). The mind boggles at how all the information necessary will be squeezed in!?


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 28, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> His quote didn't say these were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in D&D.  He said they were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in a _Monster Manual_.




There are several in the 3.5 MM:

Young Adult Black Dragon
Mature Adult Blue Dragon
Adult Green Dragon
Etc...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 28, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> His quote didn't say these were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in D&D.  He said they were the first "ready-to-play" dragons in a _Monster Manual_.



With only 14 pages, I wonder if we'll get the full range of power (read: age) levels for each dragon type.  I also wonder if, to fit them all in, the dragons have been more or less standardized--e.g. every Great Wyrm is now Gargantuan, does XdY damage with each claw, does AdB damage with its breath weapon, etc.  If it's red, it breathes fire, if blue, electricity.

I kind of like the different personalities that dragons have in combat, so I hope thay havent been too standardized.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 28, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> James Wyatt has put up a couple of posts touching on dragons and, briefly, market research... Market Research has been conducting an ethnographic study of young gamers over the past couple of months, the results of which will be presented in September.




What about old gamers?   :\


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 28, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> What about old gamers?   :\



They buy D&D and have been heard from more loudly than anyone else throughout the history of the game. Unless older gamers can stop dying and stop getting distracted by career/family, WotC needs to go after folks to replace them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 28, 2007)

Oh, I had to look it up, and someone else might have to:



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> per·i·stal·tic      /ˌpɛrəˈstɔltɪk, -ˈstæl-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-uh-stawl-tik, -stal-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –adjective Physiology.
> of, pertaining to, or resembling peristalsis.
> [Origin: 1645–55; < Gk peristaltikós compressing, equiv. to peri- peri- + stal- (see peristalsis) + -tikos -tic]
> ...




So, he's talking about living tunnels that force the characters toward an endpoint. Ew!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Aug 28, 2007)

I really hope that the Tiny to Medium-sized dragons go the way of the dodo in 4e. Fighting a dragon of that size is really lame and quite unnecessary -- that's what the lower-CR drakes are for.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 28, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I really hope that the Tiny to Medium-sized dragons go the way of the dodo in 4e. Fighting a dragon of that size is really lame and quite unnecessary -- that's what the lower-CR drakes are for.



Oh, they are great for making PCs feel incompetent. Little else says "You Suck!" as much as a baby dragon stomping the party at low level.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 28, 2007)

Market research on young gamers, eh?  I guess they don't give a crap about the gamers who have been loyal DnD customers for over 20 years.  Another reason to skip 4e.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 28, 2007)

I wonder if dragons will have a To Hit entry like this:

To Hit: +Level


----------



## Anti-Sean (Aug 28, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Market research on young gamers, eh?  I guess they don't give a crap about the gamers who have been loyal DnD customers for over 20 years.  *Another reason to skip 4e.*



If you have so many reasons to skip 4e, why are you even reading this subforum, let alone posting in it?

"The weather forecast said it would be sunny today, but it's raining. That does it, I'm going to skip 4e!"

"Aw man, my favorite band just broke up. Forget buying 4e!"

"Ow! I stubbed my toe on the coffee table! No way am I going to buy 4e now!"

"Sweet, I found a $50 bill on the street! WotC must have put it here, trying to trick me into buying 4e. I'm insulted by chicanery and skullduggery of this nature, and won't be buying their product as a result!"


----------



## (contact) (Aug 28, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Market research on young gamers, eh?  I guess they don't give a crap about the gamers who have been loyal DnD customers for over 20 years.  Another reason to skip 4e.




That was a fantastic logic chain.  Well done.  (golf clap)


----------



## (contact) (Aug 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I kind of like the different personalities that dragons have in combat, so I hope thay havent been too standardized.




Dragons are kind of the 'flagship' monster in D&D, so they usually do get the lion's share of attention and peer review; I wouldn't worry about them being unique and cool.

My guess is that there are fewer statblock entries, and they would look something  like this:

HP: htch 42, juv 75, yng 145, adl 245, old 365, wyrm 550


----------



## Gundark (Aug 28, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> There are several in the 3.5 MM:
> 
> Young Adult Black Dragon
> Mature Adult Blue Dragon
> ...




I think your trying to be difficult . I think what they mean that this is the first MM that every dragon printed is ready to go right out of book.


----------



## Visceris (Aug 28, 2007)

(contact) said:
			
		

> That was a fantastic logic chain.  Well done.  (golf clap)




Hey, here it comes!  Dungeons and Dragons _POKEMON EDITION_!

So simple and dumbed down that a 2 year old can DM!


----------



## rkwoodard (Aug 28, 2007)

*sweet*



			
				Visceris said:
			
		

> Hey, here it comes!  Dungeons and Dragons _POKEMON EDITION_!
> 
> So simple and dumbed down that a 2 year old can DM!




Man that would be sweet.  My son turns 2 in October and I would love to be able to play in a game rather than DM.  Sign me up for 4ed.

RK


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Another reason to skip 4e.




You know, if you dislike 4e that much that you'll skip it, you should consider skipping the 4e forum as well.  All this area is going to do is bring you grief, dude, so you might as well save yourself the aggravation.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 28, 2007)

There are a few blog updates today, but nothing really new about 4E.  Lots of interesting bits, such as Didier Monin discussing the staff changes in order to launch the D&D Insider.  There have been lots of comments about the _Penny Arcade Expo_ that a number of WotC designers went to this past weekend in the last couple of days.  

The closest to a 4E "scoop" was here:



			
				Stephen Schubert's blog said:
			
		

> This week, though, it's back to work. I'm diving back into classes and monsters, to help get them in to a presentable form for upcoming playtests. I've made some adjustments to our system math, addressing issues like how accurate PCs and monsters should be against each other with their attacks, and how attacks vs AC might be different than other attacks/powers. I'm looking forward to the playtests, to help validate (or correct) some assumptions that we made about how PCs will be built. Things like what armor will PCs pick up and use? will players spread stats around or try to specialize their build? stuff like that.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 28, 2007)

While on the subject of Didier Monin, I recommend doing a search and looking at some of his most recent posts on the D&D Insider.  There isn't a lot of new information there (at least as I write it), but there might be some bits that will give a slightly new light on things.

He has had to answer that D&D Insider won't be necessary to play D&D, and that the game table will not adjudicate rules over and over, though.  I'm sure he must get getting tired of those questions.


----------



## Jer (Aug 28, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Oh, they are great for making PCs feel incompetent. Little else says "You Suck!" as much as a baby dragon stomping the party at low level.




I don't think I ever had a group of players feel as silly as the group I had who tried (emphasis on TRIED) to fight the baby white dragon in The Sunless Citadel - that sucker cleaned their clock.  They were glad to fight off a horde of goblins just to wipe the embarrasment of getting beat by a "cute widdle dwagon" off their minds...


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 28, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I think your trying to be difficult . I think what they mean that this is the first MM that every dragon printed is ready to go right out of book.




Not trying to be difficult - just trying to correct inaccuracies that seem to me might  be "spin".

I'm sticking with 3.5, but there are a number of things about 4e I find interesting.  The things that are interesting I will use in my 3.5 game.   

If a designer points out what they believe to be a "flaw" of the current edition, I think they should be sure that they have the facts correct.  In this case, James seems (to me) to be a bit off.  YMMV and all that, but James says there aren't any "ready-to-play" dragons in the MM.  I count 10 ready-to-play dragons in there....


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 28, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> He has had to answer that D&D Insider won't be necessary to play D&D, and that the game table will not adjudicate rules over and over, though.  I'm sure he must get getting tired of those questions.




I'd hope that the game table wouldn't adjudicate rules.  I really like Rule 0 too much to be tied to automagically adjudicated rules.   

All I really want is basically a communication device--visual (common and private) and audio chat channels, virtual map that's easy to use and manipulate, and a way to share rule snippets so that if there's some question with how a rule works (especially early on), we can all look at the text and come to consensus.  Give me that and I'll be a happy camper.  Scratch that.  Give me that and I'll be an ecstatic camper.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 28, 2007)

James Wyatt follows up on Mike Mearls' article on encounter design.  We even get a bit of a peek at how certain projects grew out of the 4E design process.



			
				James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> One of the things I said a lot at GenCon (usually in response to a question about whether Star Wars Saga Edition was a glimpse of things to come) was that we've been working on 4e for two and a half years, and just about everything we've produced in that time has been influenced by that work in its various stages. Tome of Battle reflects the state of 4e design as of last summer, when we didn't have the balance between daily and renewable resources figured out yet. PH2 reflects some of our philosophy on class design. SWSE uses a number of mechanics from a much more recent stage of 4e design and melds them with the prior edition of Star Wars and makes unique twists suited to the Star Wars universe. Secrets of Xen'drik was influenced by an early discussion about traps in 4e.
> 
> A less obvious influence than even some of those is some of our thinking about encounter design (as well as adventure presentation) that appears in recent adventures, and Mike's discussion about combining multiple rooms into a single encounter area is part of that. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is a good example, because Bruce and I had to do exactly what Mike was doing—build a new adventure into a pre-defined map. Take a look at the Rooms of Weeping on pages 142-143. In the original adventure, those were like five different encounters. Now they're one.
> 
> There's a wonderful nod to verisimilitude that comes along with this philosophy: now it doesn't ruin the encounter when the monsters in the next room actually hear the sounds of fighting and come to help out!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 28, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I'd hope that the game table wouldn't adjudicate rules.  I really like Rule 0 too much to be tied to automagically adjudicated rules.
> 
> All I really want is basically a communication device--visual (common and private) and audio chat channels, virtual map that's easy to use and manipulate, and a way to share rule snippets so that if there's some question with how a rule works (especially early on), we can all look at the text and come to consensus.  Give me that and I'll be a happy camper.  Scratch that.  Give me that and I'll be an ecstatic camper.



Actually, it kills me that there hasn't been anything of this sort already.  All the virtual tabletops I've seen lack such important features as a map editor.  I can do without figures if there are at least tokens to use, but map-making software like Dundjinni is usually a pain in the butt to use for simple schematic dungeon and outdoor maps.  Also, once you start adding on a program for map-making, a token pdf, a chat module, etc. it starts to become expensive.

Is it so hard to make a simple virtual tabletop?  I really hope WotC gets it right this time.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Is it so hard to make a simple virtual tabletop?  I really hope WotC gets it right this time.




That one thing would sell me on 4E and DDI.  And I'm not just the only one.  My friends from Chicago leaped at this same thing.  Given that I was playing in 2 groups and both of them had at least one laptop at the table, it's definitely our big hope.  

Then any group that I end up finding in the new locale (first year of teaching last year curtailed way too much of the social work, and it's work to find a new group) can only be an added benefit.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 29, 2007)

These blogs are great.  I'm feeling much better about the monster design, now.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2007)

I know I've been sticking with the 4E material here, bit I thought this bit from Mike about things that were mentioned but not used in 4E (read the FULL entry for the WHOLE story  ).



			
				Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> One of the fun things about working at WotC is that you get to work with a bunch of cool people who like what you like. As should come as no surprise, you quickly become friends with your co-workers. This leads to a more informal environment in the workplace than you might normally encounter.
> 
> Thus, we spend at least part of every meeting making joke suggestions and joke development passes on those suggestions, such as:
> 
> ...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 29, 2007)

Ooh, auto-hit and auto-kill rules!  I'm all about that!  Heck, I can streamline the game every further: everyone starts out dead.  No dice rolling necessary!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Heck, I can streamline the game every further: everyone starts out dead.  No dice rolling necessary!




That's the "Goth Talk" campaign setting.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 29, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Ooh, auto-hit and auto-kill rules!  I'm all about that!  Heck, I can streamline the game every further: everyone starts out dead.  No dice rolling necessary!




If you want to start dead there is already a ruleset for that. You can always play old Traveler.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> If you want to start dead there is already a ruleset for that. You can always play old Traveler.




...Or Ghostwalk.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 29, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> ...Or Ghostwalk.




Appropriately, the first DOA setting ever!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Appropriately, the first DOA setting ever!




Well that's what the tag around its toe says.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2007)

Time for some random statistics.

Mike Mearls is the most prolific blogger with 13 entries, closely followed by James Wyatt with 10 entries.  After that there is a clump with David Noonan, Stephen Schuber & Logan Bonner all close together.

We get a different picture if we look at the views, though.  Mike Mearls and James Wyatt still lead the pack.  However, in a surprise we have Rich Baker in third, even though he only has 2 entries.  David Noonan and Rodney Thompson get follow up.

In the "blogs that haven't been used yet" category we have Chris Thomasson & Bart Carroll. (Edit:  And we are down to just Chris not having blogged yet)


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 29, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Well that's what the tag around its toe says.




And it'd be wrong. I refer you to Wraith: the Oblivion, the most wonderfully written unplayable RPG of all time.


----------



## Henry (Aug 29, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> That's the "Goth Talk" campaign setting.




Actually, there was an event listed in a Gencon from the 1980's (back when they used to put the event catalog in Dragon Magazine!) that sticks in my mind to this day:

_Last year we started out with half the characters dead. Everyone had so much fun that this year we're starting out with ALL the characters dead! D&D Game, Pre-gens provided._

I can't remember the name of the event, though.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 29, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, there was an event listed in a Gencon from the 1980's (back when they used to put the event catalog in Dragon Magazine!) that sticks in my mind to this day:
> 
> _Last year we started out with half the characters dead. Everyone had so much fun that this year we're starting out with ALL the characters dead! D&D Game, Pre-gens provided._
> 
> I can't remember the name of the event, though.




I used to be curious – now I'm just scared…


----------



## Mercule (Aug 29, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> And it'd be wrong. I refer you to Wraith: the Oblivion, the most wonderfully written unplayable RPG of all time.




Indeed.  I really want to get a group together to play that sometime.  If nothing else, that will get the urge out of my system.  </threadjack>


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 29, 2007)

*Big Perkins Post*

Chris perkins spills a good number of beans here. 



> *So, what can you tell me about the new game?*
> 
> A few things ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2007)

*Chris Perkins update*

Chris Perkins has updated his blog.  This update covers PAX and the questions he answered there.  It covers a lot of ground.  Below is his Q&A.



			
				Chris Perkins' blog said:
			
		

> *So, what can you tell me about the new game?*
> 
> A few things ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 29, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> And it'd be wrong. I refer you to Wraith: the Oblivion, the most wonderfully written unplayable RPG of all time.



Ah, one of my favorite systems! 

I'm not sure if it's actually unplayable, but I know for sure I don't know the right people to play it with. A pity, really.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 29, 2007)

So nice, we had to post it twice...


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 29, 2007)

I read it, and to be honest, I'm not sure he really said anything we haven't heard time and time again.  :\


----------



## Sammael (Aug 29, 2007)

For one, he confirmed that AoOs are still in the game. YAY!


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> For one, he confirmed that AoOs are still in the game. YAY!




We already knew that.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I read it, and to be honest, I'm not sure he really said anything we haven't heard time and time again.  :\




I think it's mostly consolidation, but there are a few small bits.  First, I think that's the first time that they have mentioned anything about licensed games.  

Second, that's the first time I remember that someone mentioned combat will go faster. Yes, someone (Logan or Dave) has mentioned combat for PCs runs about the same speed.  Remember, though, they are playtesting.  In my experience, everything slows down in a playtest.  You are almost always dealing with new things, and you often stop and discuss little details you wouldn't worry about when playing.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 29, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> We already knew that.



Really? I've been following 4E news fairly closely and I didn't know it. The last I heard, there was speculation that "trigger" immediate actions are going to replace AoOs.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Really? I've been following 4E news fairly closely and I didn't know it. The last I heard, there was speculation that "trigger" immediate actions are going to replace AoOs.




It was mentioned somewhere, but I can't recall the source. It's also in Der Kluge's little preview download.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2007)

Mike Lescault has posted a bit on the launch of 4E with lots of focus on the website.

A bit that's nice to hear:


			
				 Mike Lescault's blog said:
			
		

> On the forum side, we fared a bit better. One of my main fears was that people would flood all the existing D&D 3.5 forum with questions, debate, and complaints about 4E. Now, I am a huge fan of 4E and I think it's super exciting to have a miniscule role in it's roll out, but I definitely empathize with the folks currently playing D&D whose opinions are, "Yeah, fine whatever. Tell me when it's out. In the mean time, let me continue to enjoy my existing forums." It wouldn't be fair to all of those folks, many of whom have been Wizard's forum regulars for years and years, to have to deal with lots of madness they may or may not have any interest in.
> 
> The solution I wanted to try for this was to have the 4E forums be reply-only; meaning that customers couldn't post new threads but could only reply on existing topics. This had several advantages.
> 
> ...



Peter Schaefer started his blog, but right now it's just an "I'm the new guy and I have to catch up" post.  Completely understandable, but boring   I'm sure though he'll have some interesting insights as someone coming in and looking at 4E with fresh eyes, as things progress.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 30, 2007)

David Noonan did an update that concluded with this:



> Mood: When Tordek grapples Lidda, no one wins. Certainly not the witnesses.




I will now apologies to the Mods in advance.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

Rich Baker on devils:



			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> ]- Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
> - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.
> - We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
> - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.




David Noonan  pretty much confirms a class many thought would be gone (no details about where it will appear, though):



			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> Daily Work: Well, catching up on email after two days away from the office. Then a morning meeting on a class that rhymes with "zighter," and an afternoon meeting on a class that rhymes with "zaladin." Oh, and I'll assiduously ignore the sunlight streaming through the windows. No time for play! No outside recess! Must work!


----------



## Mercule (Aug 30, 2007)

Interesting.  I've been poking at the theology/cosmology behind demons and devils IMC, lately.  I like their non-alignment-based division, even if it doesn't match what I came up with.

FWIW, my distinction was that all fiends were cast out, to be destroyed utterly at the end of days.  Demons have embraced oblivion and now seek only to take as much of the creator's/creators' work as possible with them.  Basically, they're a bit nuts and want to burn the good guys on their way out.  The devils, on the other hand, seek to tie enough of creation (specifically mortal souls) to them that one of two things will happen.  Either the creator(s) will recant and spare the devils in order to spare creation, or the devils will control enough real estate to make their own rules (which includes not going bye-bye).  The alignment split happens somewhat organically as a result of their goals.

Hopefully, WotC don't use too big of a hammer with the new cosmology so that I can either take it or leave it.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

*Logan Bonner on classes and gnomes*

Logan Bonner has posted some small tidbits about classes:



			
				Logan Bonner's blog said:
			
		

> We're in a crunch trying to get classes spiffed up and entered into a database. We need to get our playtest packets together, and we're developing the classes rapidly. I've been in the rogue, ranger, and cleric meetings this week, and I think they're all on pretty solid ground.
> 
> One thing a player in Dave Noonan's game mentioned was that he wanted more non-violent options for his cleric. We'd gone pretty military for the cleric, but in the dev meeting, I made sure we put in some options for the other guy. "What would Steve Wolbrecht do" led us to some pretty cool powers that everybody—not just pacifists—will want.
> 
> ...


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 30, 2007)

Meetings this week: cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue. 

As for the gnome...now they are just messing with us.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

Chris Thomasson started posting to his blog.  There are a few bits there.



> I figured I'd better get on here before someone else does.
> 
> I've been so busy reading submissions the last few days, that when Mike "Gamer_Zero" Lescault told me I had a blog, I think it took a couple days to sink in. In the weeks leading up to Gen Con, something had to drop by the wayside, and the submissions inbox wasn't the only casualty. I'm back in it now, though. D&D gamers clearly need less free time. I think I'm averaging twenty or so proposals a day. Sheesh!
> 
> ...




I like the idea of using the Game Table to give "celebrity" run games.  It also seems we are getting more clues with the classes in the PHB with both paladins and rangers getting mentions in the last couple of blogs.


----------



## Nine Hands (Aug 30, 2007)

rkwoodard said:
			
		

> Man that would be sweet.  My son turns 2 in October and I would love to be able to play in a game rather than DM.  Sign me up for 4ed.
> 
> RK




I thought the same thing


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> As for the gnome...now they are just messing with us.




He is talking about the Monster Manual, and we already knew they were in there.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 30, 2007)

Chris Thomasson posted again in an effort to catch Mike Mearls (good luck there, Chris):



			
				Chris Thomasson's blog said:
			
		

> just saw the cover final for Dragon #360. Two words: Bad Ass. Marc Sasso is freaking awesome. A clipped version of the sketch is up on our Dragon page, but the full-color version will lead off our Ecology that month. I'm actually really excited about the Ecology. It's all 4th Edition flavor, so it's forward compatible content for the new edition. You'll get a first look at how the death knight is changing in the new edition.
> 
> One more thing: When you see the cover, there are a few little Easter eggs that point to a few new elements of 4th Edition. I'm going to be interested to see everyone's guesses, and I'll also have to see if I can get permission to confirm the correct ones.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

And Mike Mearls counters Chris' attempt to catch up.  Not much there, but a few tidbits that indicate that kobolds will have some sort if trap mechanics.



			
				Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> As we glide into out deadlines tomorrow, I've started to think about my playtest campaign. There have been a few times when I've had a sudden urge to write an adventure, such as when James came over and talked about making the mechanics for kobolds really speak to our trap rules. I now have a huge desire to write up a classic, kobold warren.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 31, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> He is talking about the Monster Manual, and we already knew they were in there.




But are they--gnomes--_playable_ out of the MM?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> But are they--gnomes--_playable_ out of the MM?



From discussion in the Eberron 4E thread on WotC we know some races will be.  As I understand it, they won't have as many options as a PHB race, but they will be playable.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

Rich Baker comments on the reaction to the devils and demons comments.



			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm sort of surprised -- more people were reading than I thought. It looks like I stirred up a real hornet's nest with my comments on the work I'd recently done on devils.
> 
> For those of you worried about mashing succubus and erinyes together... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies (ironic, given the name of the monster). Even in 3.5--about the most fury-like depiction of the monster in a long time--erinyes have charm monster at will. It's their iconic shtick, really. That's the sort of thing we would like to improve on.
> 
> One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 31, 2007)

Mearls' latest comments on Keep on the Shadowfell development:



> I'm creating the maps for H1, plotting out a couple dungeon levels, encounter maps, and a few other things. It's been fun. While H1 is far from a mega-dungeon, I've tried to incorporate at least some sense that the PCs can wander around the dungeon, exploring different sub-sectors and having a really different experience based on what they do.
> 
> The really nice thing is that there isn't much of a sense of an XP grind in 4e. You can pretty much tackle the encounters in almost any order, though if you hit tougher ones first you'd better consider heading back to the surface to rest rather than press on. I intentionally set one really tough fight near the entrance, giving the PCs a chance to find themselves in far more trouble than they wanted.
> 
> The question for you now is, if you ever play this adventure, which of the passages from the first room leads to the deadly encounter?




Sounds like H1 will be a lot of fun -- I miss that style of dungeon (B2, B3 for example).  Lady, or tiger? in the first room. 

That's actually more how I prefer to DM -- I've never really felt the XP grind.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2007)

I do hope that the sub-sectors and the areas of the dungeon are _different_. You know, turn left, flooded cave network, turn right, catacombs, go straight, fortress. 

Let's not have fourty identical rooms.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Let's not have fourty identical rooms.




Aw, damn it. There goes my next mega-dungeon.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Sounds like H1 will be a lot of fun -- I miss that style of dungeon (B2, B3 for example).




The "really tough fight near the entrance" sounds a lot like RttToEE.  While the adventure gets a lot of criticism for the long grueling dungeon in the middle, the moathouse and the first encounter there gets a lot of praise.  I've seen a lot of discussion about that one encounter, and I think it counts as a 3E "shared experience" event.

For those checking my posts for the latest blog updates, Olgar has quoted this update in the post above.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Let's not have fourty identical rooms.




I've always thought about basing a dungeon on my old high school.  It was a virtual maze because it was layed out in hexes.  There were "pods" that had a single hexagonal room that was surrounded by other rooms.

That would definitely feel like 40 identical rooms.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 31, 2007)

David Noonan's last post covers Displacer Beasts and "siloing" class abilities.



			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> Daily Work: Monsters! Monster numbers! Specifically, I did some work on displacer beasts, sahuagin, and some others. The displacer beast is +14 awesome now. It was only +12, but we upgunned it two awesome points to better reflect its level and role. And yeah, I'm using the word "awesome" to censor out the specific mechanics.
> 
> "But Dave," you ask, "weren't you doing class-related stuff yesterday?" You bet. We're at a stage now where we're dealing with a number of little issues--integration and implementation stuff. That means bouncing around the rules a lot. I think the pendulum will swing back next week and we'll tackle some thornier mid-level rules issues. For starters, we're going to do some work on making those sahuagin swim around a little better.





> Silos: After two class meetings yesterday, I discover that I'm still smitten with the way we're "siloing" PC capabilities now. For example, it was always unfortunate how phantom steed had to compete with fireball on a wizard's "Spells Prepared" list. Don't get me wrong: Both spells are great, and they both have their place. But when all eyes at the table turn to you, it's a lot better to say, "I didn't prep phantom steed, but I've still got fireball," rather than "I didn't prep fireball, but I've still got phantom steed." Phantom steed suffers by comparison, despite its coolness, and thus it's relegated to scroll use and the occasional splash from a high-level wizard.
> 
> Not so in 4e. We've devised various ways of grouping like capabilities with like capabilities, so you don't have to sacrifice phantom steed's utility for fireball's killin'-the-bad-guys effectiveness. You'll get both. And one of the clever bits in D&D--figuring out combat uses for utility spells and vice versa--remains.
> 
> In some ways, it's like having a major and a minor in college. And 4e characters are looking a lot more well-rounded than their 3e counterparts.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 31, 2007)

Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> For those of you worried about mashing succubus and erinyes together... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies (ironic, given the name of the monster). Even in 3.5--about the most fury-like depiction of the monster in a long time--erinyes have charm monster at will. It's their iconic shtick, really. That's the sort of thing we would like to improve on.



Well, hopefully we'll get a "real" Fury eventually then ...



			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds.



I would hope not, but ...


			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history.



This has been contra-indicated by _The Orc King_, which I won't repost here to avoid novel spoilers; but, without giving anything away, _The Orc King_ suggests changes to the FRCS even more drastic that the Time of Troubles.  It seems closer to "overthrow" than "a bit point-of-lightish."

I'm not saying the changes are bad either - I'm just thinking that Rich Baker isn't exactly being up front on this point. 

But maybe we're just reading too much into a few throw-away lines.  There could be failures of omission that we're misreading as "absence by intent." We shall see...


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 31, 2007)

David Noonan said:
			
		

> Silos: After two class meetings yesterday, I discover that I'm still smitten with the way we're "siloing" PC capabilities now. For example, it was always unfortunate how phantom steed had to compete with fireball on a wizard's "Spells Prepared" list. Don't get me wrong: Both spells are great, and they both have their place. But when all eyes at the table turn to you, it's a lot better to say, "I didn't prep phantom steed, but I've still got fireball," rather than "I didn't prep fireball, but I've still got phantom steed." Phantom steed suffers by comparison, despite its coolness, and thus it's relegated to scroll use and the occasional splash from a high-level wizard.



I'm sure some of the nuances of what "siloing" means escapes us at this time, but the problem he describes is very real, and has bothered me for some time.  I have made many attempts to draft house-rules to address them, but if 4e can do all that heavy lifting for me, that's +14 awesome (where "awesome" is not a stand in for anything).



			
				David Noonan said:
			
		

> Not so in 4e. We've devised various ways of grouping like capabilities with like capabilities, so you don't have to sacrifice phantom steed's utility for fireball's killin'-the-bad-guys effectiveness. You'll get both. And one of the clever bits in D&D--figuring out combat uses for utility spells and vice versa--remains.



I'd put down money right now that most boom spells are being relegated to at-will and per-encounter, so that the Vancian "20%" of a caster's effectiveness is 100% reserved for the quirky, fun, utility spells like _Tenser's Floating Disc_, _Magic Mouth_, and _Phantom Steed_.

-IR

PS - Shout out to Glyfair for being a human RSS feed.  You rock.

PPS - I'm also glad to know that the WotC folks are reading this board and taking in feedback *before* the rulebooks go to print.  They'd be idiots if they tried to accommodate every request, but perhaps this way some major _faux pas_ can be avoided.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 1, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'd put down money right now that most boom spells are being relegated to at-will and per-encounter, so that the Vancian "20%" of a caster's effectiveness is 100% reserved for the quirky, fun, utility spells like _Tenser's Floating Disc_, _Magic Mouth_, and _Phantom Steed_.




That would be most cool



> PS - Shout out to Glyfair for being a human RSS feed.  You rock.
> 
> PPS - I'm also glad to know that the WotC folks are reading this board and taking in feedback *before* the rulebooks go to print.  They'd be idiots if they tried to accommodate every request, but perhaps this way some major _faux pas_ can be avoided.




Good news on both counts.  Thanks Glyfair!


----------



## Henry (Sep 1, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'd put down money right now that most boom spells are being relegated to at-will and per-encounter, so that the Vancian "20%" of a caster's effectiveness is 100% reserved for the quirky, fun, utility spells like _Tenser's Floating Disc_, _Magic Mouth_, and _Phantom Steed_.




That sounds VERY much like the "per encounter" spells option that was in Unearthed Arcana, except redesigned from the ground up instead of tacked into the existing spell system. Things like "teleport" could be cast once per day, but Cone of Cold was castable every few rounds, etc.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> That sounds VERY much like the "per encounter" spells option that was in Unearthed Arcana, except redesigned from the ground up instead of tacked into the existing spell system. Things like "teleport" could be cast once per day, but Cone of Cold was castable every few rounds, etc.



 Recharge Magic.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 1, 2007)

*My guess*

At Will Abilities

* Detect Magic
* Firey Burst

Per Encounter Abilities

* Fireball
* Haste

Per Day Abilities

* Teleport
* Rope Trick


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 1, 2007)

Stephen Schubert touches on monster stuff:



			
				Stephen Schubert's blog said:
			
		

> 'm getting more and more excited to play this game again. I put my two campaigns on hiatus for the last couple of weeks so that we could restart with most of our upcoming rules updates in place. The last few sessions of my Wednesday night game, I found myself reeling at the hp/damage and accuracy-related numbers of PCs and monsters - primarily because I was already working on a revised scale that made a bit more sense, and the two sets of numbers were different enough that I wanted to make the changes immediately, but I needed to wait until we had a thorough vetting of the scales involved.
> 
> After spending part of this week along with most of the designers and developers plugging those new numbers into our various monster files, I'm pretty confident that they are close to what our final version will be. I also got to walk our new developer through that process, and it either made sense to him (which is good), or his brain imploded allowing him only to smile and nod. I'm just saying, that if you're PC gets obliterated by a cave bear, blame Peter.
> 
> The grunt work will continue - we've updated the monster numbers through level 10, which is a sizeable chunk of the Monster Manual. That leaves 20 more levels to get through, which is still more than half the book. I also start leading actual Development of the monster manual next week, which, in addition to reality-checking our numbers work, will let us hammer out how all the special abilities will work, and make the monsters as fun to play for the DM as the PCs are for the players. It'll be fun.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 1, 2007)

David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> The displacer beast is +14 awesome now. It was only +12, but we upgunned it two awesome points to better reflect its level and role. And yeah, I'm using the word "awesome" to censor out the specific mechanics.



SOunds like _+14 Conceal_ to me.

Maybe it gets to roll a D20+14 to negate an attack roll should it roll higher than the attack roll? I am sick of concealment ignoring the attacker's skill, except for blindfight.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 3, 2007)

Even while on vacation James Wyatt has continued to update his blog.  This post he is mostly talking about yesterday's D&D game, but he does talk about converting the characters from 3.5 to 4E.



			
				James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> But I still want to tell you about my D&D game yesterday. Can I tell you about my character?
> 
> I'm playing Travic—a paladin of a race that I don't think has been officially announced yet. He is not your run-of-the-mill goody-goody paladin. He swings a greatsword and lays the smite down on whoever he happens to be fighting against—demons are good, but any creepy monster will do in a pinch.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 3, 2007)

He touched on pretty much why a conversion guide is impossible - there are thousands (millions?) of possible race/class combos in 3.5e, so there's no way a comprehensive 4e conversion guide would even be possible.  (Although I do believe, as a marketing tool, it's a good idea to put something together anyway.)

...And this is also why you're not going to be able to play as wide a range of characters in 4e for quite some time.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 3, 2007)

I think it also touches on something I've mentioned.  There seems to be some "common wisdom" out there that the difference between 3.5 and 4E will be bigger than between 2nd edition and 3E.  The reason given is that they had a conversion guide to 3E and said it wouldn't work for 4E.

He again points out that the reason isn't that 4E is a bigger jump, but because the 3E conversion guide didn't work.  Yes, 4E might be a bigger jump, but the conversion guide issue doesn't point to that.


----------



## Intrope (Sep 3, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> SOunds like _+14 Conceal_ to me.
> 
> Maybe it gets to roll a D20+14 to negate an attack roll should it roll higher than the attack roll? I am sick of concealment ignoring the attacker's skill, except for blindfight.



 That would make it work exactly like the Jedi Block talent (make a skill check in Use the Force to block a melee attack).

Probably, the displacement ability wouldn't have any per-attack penalty (Block gets harder with each block check you make during the round).

I like this idea!


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 4, 2007)

James Wyatt said:
			
		

> Zurio, the illumian spellthief, became a multiclassed half-elf rogue/wizard. His player, too, felt strongly that this multiclass combination was a better expression of what he'd wanted out of the spellthief class than anything in 3e, which actually was a huge relief to me—*I'd been a little concerned about whether our multiclassing system was going to work.*




(Bolding mine)

Was anyone else a little surprised by the portion I bolded? Development is two years in, release is eight months away, and there was/is doubt about whether or not something like multiclassing is going to work?

I've seen a few comments littered through the various blogs and features on the WotC site that give the impression that some core game feature mechanics are not yet nailed down. I'm trying to avoid being alarmist about any of the information we're getting about 4E but I'm still not sure what to make of the implications of these kinds of comments.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 4, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> He touched on pretty much why a conversion guide is impossible - there are thousands (millions?) of possible race/class combos in 3.5e, so there's no way a comprehensive 4e conversion guide would even be possible.  (Although I do believe, as a marketing tool, it's a good idea to put something together anyway.)
> 
> ...And this is also why you're not going to be able to play as wide a range of characters in 4e for quite some time.



 I think the advice they're giving is good: think of your character, then rebuild him from the ground up with the new rules. It's like "I have this D&D character, and I'll stat him up in True20, Star Wars Saga and Grim Tales".


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2007)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> Was anyone else a little surprised by the portion I bolded? Development is two years in, release is eight months away, and there was/is doubt about whether or not something like multiclassing is going to work?




Who said multi-classing was one of the first things they worked on?  Maybe it's a pretty recent change to the system.  Indeed, maybe they did change it before, but rejected those methods and came up with the version they are using now.  

Also, maybe James didn't have to deal with the multi-classing method.  While he's been working on the rules and the game, it's clear that the story is his main focus.  Perhaps he knew the multi-classing rules, but never had a chance to see them in action before this.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 4, 2007)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> (Bolding mine)
> 
> Was anyone else a little surprised by the portion I bolded? Development is two years in, release is eight months away, and there was/is doubt about whether or not something like multiclassing is going to work?
> 
> I've seen a few comments littered through the various blogs and features on the WotC site that give the impression that some core game feature mechanics are not yet nailed down. I'm trying to avoid being alarmist about any of the information we're getting about 4E but I'm still not sure what to make of the implications of these kinds of comments.



That did stand out for me, as well.  Shouldn't multiclassing have been written along with the classes?  And shouldn't they have been in development over the course of the whole project?

Of course, I don't know what the expected timeline is for development of this sort.  How long did it take to write Iron Heroes?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2007)

Before the WotC employees start up this weeks traffic (James, being on vacation, doesn't count  ), I thought I'd throw up more random statistics.

Most entries

1.  Mike Mearls (17)
2.  James Wyatt (13)
3.  David Noonan (10)

Most viewed

1.  Mike Mearls (~13,500)
2. James Wyatt (~11,750)
3. Rich Baker (~8,000)


----------



## hong (Sep 4, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Who said multi-classing was one of the first things they worked on?  Maybe it's a pretty recent change to the system.  Indeed, maybe they did change it before, but rejected those methods and came up with the version they are using now.
> 
> Also, maybe James didn't have to deal with the multi-classing method.  While he's been working on the rules and the game, it's clear that the story is his main focus.  Perhaps he knew the multi-classing rules, but never had a chance to see them in action before this.



 To be honest, I suspect that the designers had different ideas on how multiclassing should work, and James' idea wasn't the one that was adopted in the end.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2007)

Stephen Schubert has updated his blog with an overview of his weekend.  Within it he discusses the issues with determining the D&D Miniatures' All-Stars.



			
				Stephen Schubert's blog said:
			
		

> In the back of my mind, I'm deliberating the best way to get input on the minis for inclusion in the All-Stars set (for those not aware, we're updating quite a few minis from earlier D&D Minis sets so they can be used in our relaunch of the game next year). Having a big list of 692 minis in a poll doesn't seem particularly good -- I think we need to somehow break it up into smaller chunks, otherwise we'd only have about 50 meaningful responses. I'm reading all the various threads on the subject, so feel free to offer your own suggestions.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 4, 2007)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> Was anyone else a little surprised by the portion I bolded? Development is two years in, release is eight months away, and there was/is doubt about whether or not something like multiclassing is going to work?




Hrmm, interesting question... When I read that I didn't really take it to mean the entire multiclassing system... I took it to mean he was worried that a multiclass remake of the character, as opposed to recreating the class for 4e, wasn't going to work out well, but was then relieved to find that i was more in line with what the player originally envisioned...


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Sep 4, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> ...And this is also why you're not going to be able to play as wide a range of characters in 4e for quite some time.




That's to be expected though, considering 3.x has 7 years worth of material.

That said, with PC race/monster design diverging, I think (hope) I will feel less constrained when I sit down to put together a orc, minotaur, or something really bizarre.

PC races in Star Wars Saga are great examples of streamlined race design.  They typically include a few of the following:

Ability score adjustments
Conditional Bonus Feats
Opportunities to reroll skills
Adjustments to Defense

Plus you might throw in something like Breathe Underwater for a species from a particular environment.  Those are very basic and simple examples, but I've found it really easy to create different species for Saga whenever I feel inclined.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Hrmm, interesting question... When I read that I didn't really take it to mean the entire multiclassing system... I took it to mean he was worried that a multiclass remake of the character, as opposed to recreating the class for 4e, wasn't going to work out well, but was then relieved to find that i was more in line with what the player originally envisioned...




That's exactly how I read it.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 4, 2007)

Rich Baker has updated his blog.  In it he touches on how they developed the story for the monsters.



			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> On the D&D front, I'm still working on knocking out writing passes on our monsters. We have mechanical skeletons and very brief "story statements" in place for pretty much everything that will eventually be in the Monster Manual, but many of the monsters are just now getting those rough story notes expanded out into full monster entries.
> 
> You might wonder where those "story statements" came from. Basically, the process started better than two years ago when Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, and James Wyatt produced the first draft of the new edition and started reconcepting the role and purpose of some critters we felt needed help. In the spring of '06, we divided the design effort into a mechanical team ("Flywheel") and a story team ("Scramjet"). Over the course of about four months, the Scramjet team (myself, James Wyatt, Michele Carter, Ed Stark, Matt Sernett, Chris Perkins, and Stacy Longstreet) produced a "world document" touching on a variety of topics, including a brief look at each monster's story. Not all of the ideas we generated at that time will survive to see the next edition, and many of those ideas have evolved several times since as new designers have come along and pushed, pulled, or tugged at the Scramjet statements.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 5, 2007)

David Noonan's latest post discusses "siloing" a bit more.


			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> Rereading what I said last week on silos (scroll up a little to see it), I should have mentioned that there's a old D&D heritage at work there, too. Remember the 1st edition magic-user? His spellbook started with one offensive spell, one defensive spell, and one miscellaneous spell. That's siloing! Now the silo walls weren't maintained once the game actually started, and randomly generating your starting spells could be an unbelievable screw job...and it's not like 1st-level magic-users had it easy in AD&D. But the concept is actually an old one, and I bet Gygax's motivation was pretty basic: make sure those beginning magic-users were well-rounded. Seems like a solid design principle to me.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Sep 5, 2007)

Visceris said:
			
		

> Market research on young gamers, eh?  I guess they don't give a crap about the gamers who have been loyal DnD customers for over 20 years.  Another reason to skip 4e.




How is doing market research to expand the hobby an insult to current gamers? Doing market research on young gamers and building the brand, hobby, and industry is a good thing for everyone. And, you know, the job of a company that sells stuff.

Marketing only to long-time gamers is not even a zero-sum game. It's a negative-sum game -- gamers will decrease in numbers due to age, attrition, or even the sense that they're good with what they've bought already. It's true that ignoring them is bad business, but so is catering only to them.

And for long-term gamers to be disgruntled that a company sees that seems... very, very short-sighted.


----------



## Jer (Sep 5, 2007)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> (Bolding mine)
> 
> Was anyone else a little surprised by the portion I bolded? Development is two years in, release is eight months away, and there was/is doubt about whether or not something like multiclassing is going to work?




Nope, doesn't surprise me at all.  Because, frankly, multiclassing spellcasters with anything has been a bear in 3e and anything that they're doing to fix it for 4e is going to necessarily be a radical change with lots of things to tweak.  It's quite likely that these particular multiclass rules a fairly new change (they keep insisting that things are changing all the time still), and also quite likely that Wyatt has either never seen it in action for himself (remember, he's on the story team not the mechanics team) or has only seen it in the controlled environment of the Wizard's playtests (where they're looking for specific interacations and problems).  Any of us who have even tweaked a system know that rules that seem perfectly reasonable in your head can collapse spectacularly when you're actually playing at the table.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 5, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Nope, doesn't surprise me at all.  Because, frankly, multiclassing spellcasters with anything has been a bear in 3e and anything that they're doing to fix it for 4e is going to necessarily be a radical change with lots of things to tweak.




Multiclassing spellcasters has always been a bit of a bear, even in 1E/2E.  At least, in terms of keeping them roughly balanced with their companions.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 6, 2007)

Peter Schaefer has posted a bit on feats:


			
				Peter Schaefer's blog said:
			
		

> We are busy beating feats into shape. Too many feats just don't fit. A feat should personalize your character, not simply procure a mini-power or minor rule exception. A feat may utilize the latter to do the former, but the latter alone? No. Boring. Annoying to remember and to execute.
> 
> It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone. But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.
> 
> This is one of the dangers of working in a system, whether it's five years old or born from scratch: You get so used to how things work, or how you think they work, that you stop thinking about how they would work better. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 6, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Peter Schaefer has posted a bit on feats:




Well, that's...

Huh.   I have absolutely no idea what that means.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, that's...
> 
> Huh.   I have absolutely no idea what that means.




Heh...heh...heh...I was hoping I wasn't the only one.  I am totally confused by the last two pargraphs.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, that's...
> 
> Huh.   I have absolutely no idea what that means.




Now you know why he got the job.  He was better at making them think he knew what he was talking about 

Seriously, I think it's a critique of the way 3.X feats create new rules sets.  I'm not 100% sure whether he was talking about the feats that add new rules systems, or whether he is talking about the feats with special rules sets (Divine feats, the weapon style feats, luck feats, etc.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 6, 2007)

Yep - I'm with the Mouse on this one.  

EDIT: Though I do think the "adjacent system" he refers to is the Talent system.  So, he's possibly talking about the interaction between talents and feats.


----------



## Grog (Sep 6, 2007)

I know people have busted the designers for not saying much in the past, but this post really takes the cake. Three paragraphs of nothing.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 6, 2007)

This just doesn't sound good.

I agree that "minor adjustments" aren't all that exciting. But from my experience, even the most dedicated of players have trouble tracking more than 5-6 of their characters' abilities at the time. If each feat now results in a "special effect" type of thing, I very much doubt feats will see much play, aside from maybe one or two which will become the character's "signature moves."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I know people have busted the designers for not saying much in the past, but this post really takes the cake. Three paragraphs of nothing.



But that's fantastic! Gives us total freedom to speculate.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 6, 2007)

My working theory is they're trying to frustrate everybody enough that we all get bored and wander off and leave them in peace until May.  



--fje


----------



## Aloïsius (Sep 6, 2007)

> It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone.



Muguhfrilaputluk !


> But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.



Oshtlaki sebuldoklu hueshiputak. Gurguruk fpapfer et djang ?


----------



## EATherrian (Sep 6, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> James Wyatt follows up on Mike Mearls' article on encounter design.  We even get a bit of a peek at how certain projects grew out of the 4E design process.




I actually hate the new encounter design.  As a DM I might as well not even be there, I just get to read the book, set the board and roll the dice.  I can't even see if the monsters would have a more advantageous fight from some other locale, because all I get is a small locale.  In encounter design, I'm enjoying what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder more than what WoTC is doing in its latest adventures.


----------



## EATherrian (Sep 6, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> That one thing would sell me on 4E and DDI.  And I'm not just the only one.  My friends from Chicago leaped at this same thing.  Given that I was playing in 2 groups and both of them had at least one laptop at the table, it's definitely our big hope.
> 
> Then any group that I end up finding in the new locale (first year of teaching last year curtailed way too much of the social work, and it's work to find a new group) can only be an added benefit.




Me too.  I mean, the internet is now quite mature, how come something like this has not been released yet?  This product might very well be my tipping point on DDI.


----------



## Jer (Sep 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I know people have busted the designers for not saying much in the past, but this post really takes the cake. Three paragraphs of nothing.




I don't think it's nothing - it read an awful lot like something from the Necronomicon.

Maybe if we play it backwards we'll get a secret message.

(Seriously - it reads like something that someone with "internal" knowledge might understand but I'm at a loss - "adjacent system"?  "overlapping feats"?  If I knew what those two terms meant I'd probably be able to decipher the paragraph.  I think I might know what other people feel like when I start talking about networking protocols...)


----------



## breschau (Sep 6, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I don't think it's nothing - it read an awful lot like something from the Necronomicon.
> 
> Maybe if we play it backwards we'll get a secret message.
> 
> (Seriously - it reads like something that someone with "internal" knowledge might understand but I'm at a loss - "adjacent system"?  "overlapping feats"?  If I knew what those two terms meant I'd probably be able to decipher the paragraph.  I think I might know what other people feel like when I start talking about networking protocols...)




Adjacent system = talent trees.

Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 6, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Adjacent system = talent trees.
> 
> Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.



 Or, a feat which overlaps with a talent.

[In Star Wars Saga, this might be the Soldier Indomitable Talent and the feat Extra Second Wind.  Both do the same thing - +1 Second Wind per day - but the Talent can be taken multiple times.]


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, that's...
> 
> Huh.   I have absolutely no idea what that means.





Need more drugs to understand.....


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2007)

I'll give my own interpretation, similar to what has been speculated.



			
				Peter Schaefer said:
			
		

> We are busy beating feats into shape. Too many feats just don't fit. A feat should personalize your character, not simply procure a mini-power or minor rule exception. A feat may utilize the latter to do the former, but the latter alone? No. Boring. Annoying to remember and to execute.




Feats shouldn't be a collection of abilities, they should have flavor to them. A feat that gives 5 fire resistance is boring, but a feat that draws on your demon heritage to give you 5 fire resistance is interesting.



			
				Peter Schaefer said:
			
		

> It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone. But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.




It was assumed that feats and talents that gave bonuses to each other would work just fine, but some problems arose as each one developed over time, and they don't mesh well in this aspect. He didn't like them at all until they found a way to make it work.



			
				Peter Schaefer said:
			
		

> This is one of the dangers of working in a system, whether it's five years old or born from scratch: You get so used to how things work, or how you think they work, that you stop thinking about how they would work better. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.




Monkey Cage Experiment FTW!


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 6, 2007)

If you type that into Google twice as fast as you possibly can, you either get a cool 4e piece of artwork, or a magic missile to the head. Its a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Anyway, I took it to mean there are too many feats that stack unwittingly with they're new talent tree system. So feats got turned into cool abilities, new strengths, and otherwise focuses that make your character unique, not "must have" feats that everyone and their brother has (Natural Spell, Weapon Finesse). However, that is an awful way of phrasing that...


----------



## Jer (Sep 6, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Adjacent system = talent trees.




Maybe - that's certainly the best explanation I can think of.  But why use the word "adjacent" when it seems to more fit with the word "alternate"?



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.




But that's not really overlapping - that's "redundant".  And what purpose would a system of redundant feats have such that you'd be debating whether its a good idea to implement it that way or not?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In Star Wars Saga, this might be the Soldier Indomitable Talent and the feat Extra Second Wind. Both do the same thing - +1 Second Wind per day - but the Talent can be taken multiple times.




But isn't that just "stacking"?

EDIT: 


			
				 ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It was assumed that feats and talents that gave bonuses to each other would work just fine, but some problems arose as each one developed over time, and they don't mesh well in this aspect. He didn't like them at all until they found a way to make it work.




Ah - now that sounds closer to something I'd think of as "overlapping" - I might call it "synergy" instead of "overlap" but whatever - that interpretation makes sense to me.  I wonder if you're right...


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no idea what that means.




This is a wild shot in the dark, but this is what I think he means. I think we'll see more stuff like the Spelltouched Feats in Unearthed Arcana i.e. Feats that define something about your character making him unique as opposed to just giving a bonus.

I think Feats that allow you to take something that's just a perk ability like Martial Weapon Proficiency giving you aptitude with a longsword won't be available anymore. Seems like they have some new system of handling rules changes like that. Probably done through Talent trees.

Who knows? It could be anything, but I'm sticking with this as I think it sounds cool.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 6, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> But isn't that just "stacking"?




No, it's more like "The purpose of this talent overlaps with the purpose of this feat.  They have the same end result, in gameplay terms, but are arrived at via different rules subsections.  Is this necessarily something we want?"


----------



## Andor (Sep 6, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> Maybe - that's certainly the best explanation I can think of.  But why use the word "adjacent" when it seems to more fit with the word "alternate"?




Because alternate implies that it's one or the other but characters will use both. Probably something like a feat at each even level and a talent at each odd one. So they are adjacent systems, although I would have said 'parallel'.



			
				Jer said:
			
		

> But that's not really overlapping - that's "redundant".  And what purpose would a system of redundant feats have such that you'd be debating whether its a good idea to implement it that way or not?




Possibly it's overlaping in terms of design goals. It's been implied for example that classes will have race specific talent trees, so elven archers may get access to unique abilities in the fighter talent trees for example to showcase thier pointy-eared coolness. 

However if you also have a set of Elven Archer feats, then you have two systems that are trying to reach the same goal, and are stepping on each others toes.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 6, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> This is a wild shot in the dark, but this is what I think he means. I think we'll see more stuff like the Spelltouched Feats in Unearthed Arcana i.e. Feats that define something about your character making him unique as opposed to just giving a bonus.
> 
> I think Feats that allow you to take something that's just a perk ability like Martial Weapon Proficiency giving you aptitude with a longsword won't be available anymore. Seems like they have some new system of handling rules changes like that. Probably done through Talent trees.
> 
> Who knows? It could be anything, but I'm sticking with this as I think it sounds cool.




I've often played with the idea of giving people things like Power Attack for free. After all, it's not something that's going to 'break' the game if the mage can use Power Attack as a maneuver or the Rogue can occassionally get a few extra points of damage in. Never got around to it though...


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 6, 2007)

I think he is arguing for more feats like the various Eberron racial feats (warforged Mithril Body, for example, or the shifter feats) which help make your character seem more like an individual, over feats which provide incremental mechanical benefit, but little else (like Skill Focus). Also, he seems to be condemning feats which work to create additional loopholes and exceptions in the rules. Namely, he is condemning the feats that say "normally, you can't do this, but now you can". In this case, the adjacent system would be the other core rules and class abilities.

Of course, it is more than a little confusing... I suppose he is not used to blogging just yet.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I've often played with the idea of giving people things like Power Attack for free. After all, it's not something that's going to 'break' the game if the mage can use Power Attack as a maneuver or the Rogue can occassionally get a few extra points of damage in. Never got around to it though...




You know, I had a similar thought a while back. Take things that anybody with even a _little_ training should be able to, and make 'em universal--but then have feats that make you _better_ at it. For instance, anyone can Power Attack, but the feat makes you better (maybe has a higher cap, and gives you the 1.5 damage on a two-handed weapon). Anyone can use their Dex with a light weapon, but Weapon Finesse lets you apply it to weapons that _aren't_ normally applicable. That sort of thing.

Like you, though, I never got around to actually doing it.


----------



## Beckett (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, I had a similar thought a while back. Take things that anybody with even a _little_ training should be able to, and make 'em universal--but then have feats that make you _better_ at it. For instance, anyone can Power Attack, but the feat makes you better (maybe has a higher cap, and gives you the 1.5 damage on a two-handed weapon). Anyone can use their Dex with a light weapon, but Weapon Finesse lets you apply it to weapons that _aren't_ normally applicable. That sort of thing.
> 
> Like you, though, I never got around to actually doing it.




Mearls did this to some degree in Iron Heroes with Combat Challenges. Take a set penalty to hit or defense, gain some benefit.  So, take a -2, -4, or -6 to hit and gain +1, +3, or +6 to damage. Power Attack had the advantage that you could choose how big a penalty you had, and was more efficient for damage, but with the challenges anyone could make a less accurate but more damaging strike. Another challenge was the poor man's version of Combat Expertise.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 6, 2007)

Well I can think of things like Defensive Fighting vs. Combat Expertise.  

I also don't think we'll have too much +2/+2 to skill feats unless they offer something else.

It's possible that disarming, sundering and tripping won't provoke AoA's so improved disarm, improved sunder and improved trip are going to be different.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 6, 2007)

We get a few hints in Mike Mearls' new entry which focuses on "bad rules" and why certain rules are bad.  It's a good read, so I quoted it all.  I've highlighted the more specific hints.



			
				Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> The days are really starting to blur by, as each week brings a new micro-deadline. We're doing a development pass on the Player's Handbook for the next month or so, cleaning up bits that didn't work in the last playtest and making sure everything fits together. It's a little daunting.
> 
> The best comment I think we can get over a change is something like, "But that's how I've always been doing it." That's a good sign that we're on the right track. I think people have a natural tendency to use games in the most fun and interesting way possible. Games that push back, that drive the player away from fun or interesting possibilties, either get a dose of house rules or end up gathering dust in the back of the ole game closet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2007)

Glyfair, you are the man. But I fear for your social life.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 6, 2007)

I thought that an "adjacent system" was something like grappling, tripping or sundering.  Maybe AoOs or Turning Undead. I think he's talking about feats that invoked those systems somehow.  Like sundering with an attack of opportunity or something.  Or getting a bonus to your AC if someone takes an AoO on you.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2007)

Re: feats as background.

Not sure I exactly agree with this sentiment.  While I understand the philosophy...it also makes me wonder isn't the player suppose to come up with the background for a feat.  Let me explain what I mean...

If I have a wizard who has martial weapon proficiency that does tell me something about my character(if I want it to) and is open enough that different players can come up with different character reasons for possesing this particular feat.  Perhaps my father was a warrior who favored this particular weapon and trained me from a young age, or at some point in my life I was forced to use the weapon to survive and realized I had a natural aptitude with it.  

Now I have nothing against the type of feats like fiendish heritage for sorcerers or the Dragonmarks from Eberron...but they are much more limiting as far as PC background is concerned.  It ties you to a specific world concept and while it's not a bad idea, I'm not sure I would want all feats to be that way.

I guess I feel like this is a step further in the direction of stricter definition of character but I feel like if WotC isn't careful with this philosophy it could go the route of being more hampering to a player creating a specific concept. Guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Everything else in the blog, if it means what I think it means, seems like really good ideas.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 6, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Muguhfrilaputluk !
> 
> Oshtlaki sebuldoklu hueshiputak. Gurguruk fpapfer et djang ?



QFT


----------



## hong (Sep 6, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> If I have a wizard who has martial weapon proficiency that does tell me something about my character(if I want it to) and is open enough that different players can come up with different character reasons for possesing this particular feat.  Perhaps my father was a warrior who favored this particular weapon and trained me from a young age, or at some point in my life I was forced to use the weapon to survive and realized I had a natural aptitude with it.
> 
> Now I have nothing against the type of feats like fiendish heritage for sorcerers or the Dragonmarks from Eberron...but they are much more limiting as far as PC background is concerned.  It ties you to a specific world concept and while it's not a bad idea, I'm not sure I would want all feats to be that way.




What he said. I didn't like the regional feats in FRCS for exactly this reason. Sometimes you want to play against type.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Huh.   I have absolutely no idea what that means.




I thought it was just my sleep deprivation impairing me.

Based on my own wild guesses and the conjecture of others, I'm assuming this means that the feat system in 4E is going to be more "flavorful".  That could be good, or it could be bad, IMO.

It would be good if it means getting rid of the insane amount of "+x to xx" feats that exist today.  I'd also be happy if it reduced/eliminated the number of feats that opened up freakishly niche abilities.  The latter are the worst because each one sounds cool enough that I don't want to ban it, but is so corner case that it just tends to clutter any lists.

It would be bad if the UA spelltouched feats were the template for the new system.  Those have too much flavor, and it isn't a flavor I generally appreciated.

IIRC, PHB2 had a good balance of not bizarre but still interesting feats.


----------



## wgreen (Sep 6, 2007)

Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> It sounds fine that a PC who tries to stand up provokes, but it falls apart when you add in Improved Trip and spiked chains.



I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...

-Will


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...




Not "the character falls" but "the rule doesn't mesh."


----------



## wgreen (Sep 6, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Not "the character falls" but "the rule doesn't mesh."



I understand, but I thought the rule didn't work that way, and therefore _does_ mesh.

-Will


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 6, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> I understand, but I thought the rule didn't work that way, and therefore _does_ mesh.




Ah, I think in this case it means "makes those options [Improved Trip, Spiked Chain] better than originally intended." It's the case of one area of the rules changing another area in a way that they didn't anticipate.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 6, 2007)

wgreen said:
			
		

> I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...
> 
> -Will




Wasn't that one of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5?  I know it doesn't work that way NOW but I think it was allowed then.

I seem to recall having been sidelined by a wolf that kept tripping me some years ago.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 6, 2007)

Dodge has always disappointed me as a feat because it showed so much promise.  The idea that a character could pay specific attention to one particular enemy and gain defensive bonuses from it is pretty cool.  Its just that a +1 dodge bonus is lame in the extreme for the amount of effort it requires to use.

If dodge had been the first step down a chain of feats that eventually led to a handy +3 ac, +3 reflex saves, +3 opposed rolls versus that foe, or something, then it would have been pretty sweet.  You'd see fighters taking it to improve their disarm attacks, etc.

The Swashbuckler tried to fix this problem, but failed due to general lameness.

My brainstormed dodge feats:

Feat: AC Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent.  Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen.  You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Reflex Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent.  Gain +1 reflex to Reflex Saves versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen.  You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Opposed Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent.  Gain +1 to all opposed checks made versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen.  You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Shield Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent.  Gain DR 1 versus all attacks from that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen.  You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.  You must be wielding a shield to get the benefit of this feat.

I know feats that grow exponentially have the potential to spin out of control if you write too many of them, but this is just brainstorming.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 6, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I've often played with the idea of giving people things like Power Attack for free. After all, it's not something that's going to 'break' the game if the mage can use Power Attack as a maneuver or the Rogue can occassionally get a few extra points of damage in. Never got around to it though...




We started putting a lot of stuff like that into the OGL version of d20 we were going to develop for Violet Dawn. There were quite a few Feats that were slated to become combat options for the same reason you mentioned.

We even had difference stances you could take while in combat like the normal Full Attack, but there were also other ones like Active Defense, Active Offense, etc. It was a cool idea that gave characters more options when they were in combat.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 6, 2007)

OK, people seem to be having trouble understanding Peter Schaefer's blog.  Fortunately, thanks to my years of experience in the corporate world,  I am fluent in Obfuscate.  I will do my best to translate.   



> Originally Posted by Peter Schaefer's blog
> We are busy beating feats into shape. Too many feats just don't fit. A feat should personalize your character, not simply procure a mini-power or minor rule exception. A feat may utilize the latter to do the former, but the latter alone? No. Boring. Annoying to remember and to execute.



 Translation: We are spending a good portion of each day making fun of the people who wrote some of the old crap for 3e.  We also spend some time decrying the min/maxers who only take feats for the bonus they provide.  



> It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone. But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.



 Translation: We knew what was broken in the system.  I wanted to trash the entire thing, but kept getting shouted down.  Eventually I gave in and we created something that is pretty much the same but with a new, better-looking wrapper.  



> This is one of the dangers of working in a system, whether it's five years old or born from scratch: You get so used to how things work, or how you think they work, that you stop thinking about how they would work better. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.



 Translation: We were all having too much fun shooting the breeze and weren't getting much done, so a bunch of us were kicked off the project and they brought in some new stiffs to try and keep us on task.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 6, 2007)

David Noonan has posted an entry that covers a lot of ground, without giving any details.  Of course, the second part explains why.



			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> *Daily Work:* We've got some nifty new rules for hazards/traps/obstacles/whatever-you-wanna-call-'em. As an adventure designer, I love them--but we'll see (and actually some of you will tell me) how they work at the table. After a few hours playing with the new tools, I'll tell you this: the hardest part of creating a cool hazard/trap/obstacle is the creative gruntwork. Conceiving it is harder than implementing it. That's probably how it should be.
> 
> The other thing I like about it is that it rewards teamwork--just as combat does and just as the social stuff I talked about last week does. There's a lot of teamwork in this game. Anybody else think it's incongruous that an intensely social, teamwork-driven game is supposedly played by a bunch of introverts? We may have gotten a bad rap at some point.






> *Why It's Hard to Leak Stuff:* Warning--this is going to be unbelievably abstract. When I take a broad, 10,000-foot view of 4e, I'm struck by how tightly integrated the system is. More game elements "talk" to each other than ever before. That's why for the longest time, we spent so much time cranking on the core rule elements and gave short shrift to more ancillary rules like, say, item saving throws (and yes, that's a fictitious example, but you'll see why in a moment).
> 
> On balance, this tight integration is good for D&D--although it's not a necessary precondition for a great game. Some terrific hobby games have rules that are sprawling, chaotic messes, including the one I fell in love with back in the early 80s. But that tight integration is why I can turn a 3e gamer into a 4e gamer in less than an hour, and why the action zips around the table at a pretty good clip.
> 
> ...




Logan Bonner has posted a bunch on the miniature game update:



			
				Logan Bonner's blog said:
			
		

> I like the new rules for the minis game. The previous version had a lot of things that were unlike the RPG in an annoying way (morale, always attacking the nearest) and a faction system that left us with too many minis of creatures PCs wouldn't fight (which is a problem for people who buy minis for RPG play, but also leaves minis players with a bunch of birds and crap).
> 
> The new rules are different from the RPG in the ways they need to be, but not in ways that just seem "un-D&D." Many of the monsters are converted from the MM1, and they aren't super different from the MM versions. (They usually need to be simplified a bit.) The RPG monsters look more like minis monsters. There are several reasons for this, the most important being that monsters don't use PC rules anymore. They're more focused on carrying out their specific shticks. This dovetails with encounter design: We have more monsters, so each one needs to be more focused.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted by David Noonan's blog
> 
> There's a lot of teamwork in this game. Anybody else think it's incongruous that an intensely social, teamwork-driven game is supposedly played by a bunch of introverts? We may have gotten a bad rap at some point.



 I think the bad rap is that all introverts are extreme introverts who would rather isolate themselves from others.  I like this summary of introverts: 



> Introverts, in contrast, are reserved, thoughtful, and self-reliant. They are not necessarily asocial, but they tend to have smaller circles of friends, and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts.



 I think that sums up a large portion of the gamers I know, including myself.  

Reserved does not mean they won't talk to people, but rather they won't just walk up to someone and start a conversation.  They will need a reason to talk to someone first.  Gaming provides that common interest that people less extroverted may have trouble discovering.  

Self-reliance does not mean a person cannot be part of a good team, but a team of introverts will often be different in that there may not be a clear division between leader and follower.  It will likely be more collaborative, with each member more open to allowing others to contribute based upon strengths and skills.  The downside is that it often takes more time to reach a decision because each member is more likely they feel they have something to contribute.  

D&D is ideal for this type of introvert and that is why there seems to be a large proportion of more introverted people playing.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 8, 2007)

Mike Mearls updates cover a lot of ground, but not much 4E info.  The following quote my give some clues, but if so you are a better mind reader than me 



			
				Mike Mearls blog said:
			
		

> Here's a tidbit: we're working on multiclassing right now. One of my directives to the dev team was that I'd like to play a CENSORED ranger/cleric/wizard in a playtest. We'll see if we make that work.




As reported elsewhere, Peter Schaefer's latest entry covers classes and races.



			
				Peter Schaefer's blog said:
			
		

> Today's success: Finishing the set of characters for the playtest and giving them back to Dave. The exercise gave me a chance to see what all the races and classes are doing in the game, and two things stuck:
> 
> Races' special traits complement their suggested classes without being exclusively useful to those classes. Being really lucky, for example, works with the halfing rogue really well, and being durable is perfect for the dwarven fighter. But they're still useful for other race/class combinations - who doesn't want a little extra luck or endurance? There are places where I wish there were a little more combined functionality, and we'll look into that as the development cycle progresses.
> 
> Classes can perform the same role without looking like clones. This is imperative, given the assertion that there are four roles worth naming and more than four classes. Two classes sharing a role should look and feel different in play. That was a goal during the recent development, but it's possible that more differentiation is necessary. So a recent in-house playtest suggests, and it's a definite priority.


----------



## Andor (Sep 8, 2007)

Is it just me, or given the amount of work they obviously have still to go, does the May release date seem ambitious?


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 8, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or given the amount of work they obviously have still to go, does the May release date seem ambitious?




We've got no idea as to how much work they've actually finished so far. Stuff like making a ranger/cleric/wizard work could just be testing the limits of a system that's already in place, or it could be trying out something entirely new. The news so far has been vague enough that we really have no idea how far along they are.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 9, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or given the amount of work they obviously have still to go, does the May release date seem ambitious?



Yeah, this does worry me a bit.  Personally, I would like to see a timeline where the entire mechanics (and therefore the PHB) was "finished" with at least a year's time left for tweaking and at least a 4 month long massive playtest with another 2-3 months left before printing to incorporate feedback before printing.

From the sounds of their blogs and such, they are having meetings for the last couple of weeks on how to modify feats, traps, assigning abilities to classes, and the like.  It sounds like they plan on having the PHB "finished" by the end of next week.  This leaves about 6 months from now until print date.  Assuming play tests last around 4 months, they could still be on schedule though.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 10, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or given the amount of work they obviously have still to go, does the May release date seem ambitious?



Since they'll be able to continously 'patch' the pdf versions of their print releases, maybe they aren't as concerned about release dates than they were in the past...


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 10, 2007)

Blogs have been focusing on non-4E stuff for a while, but a few bits are in Chris Perkins' & Logan Bonner's latest entries.



			
				Logan Bonner's blog said:
			
		

> I'm getting better at making minis, I think. I'm writing 8.25 minis a day on average, which is still probably slow, but that was in a week when I was learning how to make them. I'll need to do additional passes on them, and they'll need close scrutiny from Rob H. and Steve S. I got some info from Rob about what his ideas were for some of these minis (mostly ones that weren't in the MM1—or in D&D at all). Steve hooked me up with concept art. I've made some notes for things that don't look so great, but most of the art is good. There's a spider that uses transparent plastic. Sure hope the sculpt works out! (One of the things about minis is that there are far more stages where things can go wrong and totally ruin a mini. The art can be bad, the rules can be bad, the sculpt can be bad, the paint can be bad... there's less control than on the RPG side.)






			
				Chris Perkins' blog said:
			
		

> This week I need to meet with the art directors and start putting together cover art orders for products appearing in Sep–Dec 2008. If we start the process now, we can have cover art to show in the product catalog, which comes out in about 4 months. Adventure covers are always a bit tricky because they depict scenes from adventures that haven't been written yet. In each case, we work from a one-paragraph summary of the adventure describing the overall adventure goal and the major villains involved. For example, we know that one of our 4E adventures revolves around the schemes of a fomorian king, so he'll probably end up being the subject for that particular cover illustration.





> On the subject of playtest packages, David Noonan is leading the effort to get a playtest package ready to send to outsiders. We're also close to figuring out how many playtest groups will receive this package, as well as what information we want to get back from playtesters (and the format in which we want to receive that information). When we've settled all that, we'll be posting something on D&D Insider with the particulars.




While not directly 4E related, Chris' has an observation about adventure names:



> I spent two whole days last week writing copy for the Summer 2008 and Fall 2008 product catalogs. Normally we try to spread the work around, but everyone else was wrapped up in 4E products. Everyone except James Wyatt, who was on vacation (lucky guy). The most fun part about writing the catalog copy was coming up with adventure names to replace such endearing placeholder titles as "Paragon Adventure #2." Have you ever noticed that most of the "classic" TSR adventure modules are named after locations? The Lost Caverns of Tsojacanth. White Plume Mountain. Tomb of Horrors. The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. The Temple of Elemental Evil. Keep on the Borderlands. Ravenloft. Wherever possible, I'd like to adopt this approach for 4E adventures and focus on location, location, location.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Sep 10, 2007)

Chris Perkins said:
			
		

> On the subject of playtest packages, David Noonan is leading the effort to get a playtest package ready to send to *outsiders.*



Oh, great. Extraplanar beings get to playtest before anyone else


----------



## Intrope (Sep 10, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Oh, great. Extraplanar beings get to playtest before anyone else



 It's all part of the Pact with Asmodeus to insure 4e's success! 

(why else would he be getting a promotion?  )


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 10, 2007)

Rich Baker's latest post has a bit more on playtesting (as an aside from another point).



			
				Rich Baker's blog said:
			
		

> Howdy, folks!
> 
> It's Monday morning here in sunny Seattle, and this week I'll be shifting from work on monsters over to work on the Player's Handbook. Basically, it's time to start making it look more like a polished, finished book, so James Wyatt and I will be knocking out a writing pass over the next several weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Oh, great. Extraplanar beings get to playtest before anyone else



Not necessarily - they might refer to native outsiders. Apparently, there are some D&D groups in Area 51 and Roswell...


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 11, 2007)

Greg Bilsland has posted a lot on being the "new guy."  The one tidbit is "CR, what is that?"  However, he also addresses the affects the community has on 4e and attacks on the WotC designers.

I'm quoting it all, because taking something out of context dilutes the message.



			
				Greg Bilsland's blog said:
			
		

> When I arrived at Wizards of the Coast a few weeks ago for my first day of work, I knew nothing of 4th edition’s imminent release. I was summarily informed that design of the new edition was not only underway, but that development and playtesting had commenced. After taking one taciturn moment to consider how my knowledge of the game (which I fully intended to apply to my new job) was now obsolete, I fell fully into the grip of excitement. Fourth edition had finally arrived, and I couldn’t wait to hear more.
> 
> Until recently, I had resisted the urge to visit upon my psyche the cruelty and malice of the Doomsday (and related) threads. I decided that in the interest of maintaining the excitement and enthusiasm for my new job, I should ignore the effrontery and hullabaloo that resounded on many of the online forums. Constructive criticism—even positive feedback—ran aplenty, like rivers of milk and honey flowing into the land called 4th edition. And yet ignorant of my forthcoming masochistic purpose, I could no longer turn a blind eye to the swelling posts on the Doomsday thread, and the many thousands of views that had instilled this fiendish thread with unholy power.
> 
> ...




Andy Collins points out there is a new opening on the D&D minis team.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 11, 2007)

As I posted the last, James Wyatt has posted a good lengthy blog entry on "button mashing" and "power level."



			
				James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> One is something I alluded to on my personal blog the other day, which was about my experience playing a warlock in World of Warcraft. I like the class, but when I play that character too long, I get tired of pressing the same buttons in the same order every single fight. The only things I vary are (a) which curse to use, which only changes if I'm fighting a spellcaster, (b) whether to default to Shadow Bolt or my wand after I do my three DoTs (which depends on my mana), and (c) whether to put some Drain Manas in there (depending on whether the mob has mana and how my stores are doing). Frankly, it gets boring.
> 
> There have been iterations of Fourth Edition where we've had the same problem. Fundamentally, it's a problem you encounter whenever your resources are perfectly renewable. Some characters in Tome of Battle have that problem, although with combat in D&D being more dynamic than PvE combat in WoW, there are always things that encourage you to mix up your pattern. But you tend to default to using your best power, then your next-best, and so on down the line.
> 
> ...





> It's funny. I actually had to go and ask Chris Perkins and Andy Collins this morning what people mean when they're asking whether Fourth Edition characters will be "more powerful" than Third Edition characters of the same level. I assumed the question was relative, and it made no sense to me. 4E characters will be just as challenged by encounters of their level as 3E characters would be if 3E encounter design actually worked. The power level, from that mindset, is the same.
> 
> That just shows how immersed I am in 4E, I guess. Andy explained that what he thinks people want to know is whether characters will have more hit points and do more damage. Purely a question of raw numbers, rather than of what those numbers mean in the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garnfellow (Sep 11, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Greg Bilsland has posted a lot on being the "new guy."  The one tidbit is "CR, what is that?"  However, he also addresses the affects the community has on 4e and attacks on the WotC designers.




I understand it's a blog, but that is one terribly written entry -- I don't mean the sentiment, I mean the mechanics of the writing. Someone get the new guy a copy of Strunk and White.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 11, 2007)

"Button mashing"....

That's exactly what my fear of the per encounter model has been.  Not the entirety of my concerns, but a huge chunk.  I just hadn't thought of putting it that way.  Usually, I equate the phrase with randomly hitting buttons in a fighting game and hoping for a killer combo, but either meaning works for my concerns.

If that's something they are specifically guarding against, my hopes for 4E just jumped another couple notches.

The other reassuring note is that higher levels aren't just adding zeros onto all the numbers.  I've played computer games that do that.  It shows and they're boring, so I don't play them.  I would object very strongly to a tabletop RPG that did that.  Good to know WotC is trying to avoid that, too.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 11, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> That's exactly what my fear of the per encounter model has been.  Not the entirety of my concerns, but a huge chunk.  I just hadn't thought of putting it that way.  Usually, I equate the phrase with randomly hitting buttons in a fighting game and hoping for a killer combo, but either meaning works for my concerns.




Also, that sort of addresses some people concerns about "they never show us that they are fixing things in playtesting" indirectly.  He didn't tell us what the methods were, but points out things in earlier iterations that they fixed in more recent versions.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 11, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I understand it's a blog, but that is one terribly written entry -- I don't mean the sentiment, I mean the mechanics of the writing. Someone get the new guy a copy of Strunk and White.




Really?  It's my favourite blog entry so far.  I found it very readable, and I love his use of language.


----------



## Aloïsius (Sep 11, 2007)

> Given that 3E is inherently unbalanced—low-level characters are too weak and high-level characters are too powerful—I guess the right answer is that low-level characters will be more powerful and high-level characters will be less so. Everyone will be balanced, because we've erased the accident of math.



great ! 

And I like what he is saying about button mashing.


----------



## hong (Sep 12, 2007)

JW missed one point about the barbarian rage: you can't activate a whole range of magic items while raging. At high levels, that can be a significant factor in the decision on when to rage.

Also, I'm not sure that he addressed the issue of "when do you activate this power" in a way that I found entirely satisfactory. It's true that there should be more to it than just opening with your biggest gun, then your next-biggest, etc, but I'd have liked a stronger statement than that: you should be positively _encouraged_ to save your biggest guns for late in the fight. That would address my beef with dramatic pacing (or the lack thereof) in D&D combat. But other than these points, what he's saying is very encouraging and shows they've been thinking hard about these problems.


----------



## Andor (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm a little disturbed that he didn't understand what is meant by power inflation. Or perhaps I just think of it differently than everybody else.

I view it from a simulationist perspective. How do the heros compare to A) regular people in their world and B) the physics of their world.

For example in OD&D or 1st edition a low level adventurer felt appropriately stronger than Joe Peasant. OTOH Joe Peasant would have gotten his ass kicked by a gerbil so it felt kind of off. The average human is not a helpless target before the wrath of a housecat, but you wouldn't know it from D&D. 

OTOH if they made the commoner an even match for a housecat, and then pumped up the adventurer from there you might wind up in a situation where a low level fighter can fell mighty oaks with a single swipe of his dagger. Appropriate perhaps for Exalted, but out of place in D&D. 

It's a balancing act, and I would see it as power inflation if a 4ed 2nd level fighter has the damage output to chew hiw way through a rockwall with his bare fists.


----------



## Aloïsius (Sep 12, 2007)

WotC_PeterS said:
			
		

> Thanks to everyone who participated in discussion on hypothetical courses of action. I appreciate the input.
> 
> Races were fun to develop, fast and easy. Each race works best with two or three classes, thanks to a stat bonus or other feature, and none suck at any class; a couple tweaks here and there let us reinforce those connections without weakening the races' flexibilities. *Only one race gave us any trouble and got a bit of a change in return. It's the sort of thing that would raise some eyebrows in the playing public - and also in the office, I'm told, so we'll see if it makes it to your eyes. I hope it does, because it makes everything about the race simpler and just as effective.*




I wonder wich race it is.... Dwarf ? They had some trouble with it, and the size problem of dwarves make them a first suspect for this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I wonder wich race it is.... Dwarf ? They had some trouble with it, and the size problem of dwarves make them a first suspect for this.



I though they had more problems with the Warforged?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

Mike Mearls latest post starts with a very cryptic comment about a change they just made in the game, and follows with a bit on immersion in the game.



			
				Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> Today, the dev team made a change to the game that falls into the "Design something to do what it's supposed to do," rule of thumb. It's a bit of a jarring change, and I'm curious to see if it holds up as we move forward, but it's fundamentally the kind of change I love to make.
> 
> With one fell swoop, we cut out an entire layer of complexity from the game. Admittedly, we turned it into a localized layer of complexity for the players who specifically interact with the rules we modified, but if you don't touch this rule, you never even realize that it (and its complexity) is there.
> 
> PH development is interesting at this point, because we've officially reversed how we've been doing things. Until this point, between every round of playtest we worked like heck on the classes and then finished everything else. Now, we're working on everything but classes. Once all that stuff has been developed, we'll then circle around and make sure our classes work fine.





> Anyway, that sense of immersion is the hardest thing to get right in a game, especially a tabletop one. In some ways, immersion asks for slightly inefficient mechanics. Absolute speed in mechanics is easy to attain (roll a die; if it's a six, you win. Otherwise, you lose. Voila, one of the fastest games ever designed), but mechanics that are just the right speed, that do just the right job of evoking whatever it is that the designer is after, those are incredibly difficult.
> 
> A good, slow mechanic is a short stop to admire the view. An ugly slow mechanic makes you wish you had moved along to greener pastures.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 12, 2007)

Mike said:
			
		

> With one fell swoop, we cut out an entire layer of complexity from the game. Admittedly, we turned it into a localized layer of complexity for the players who specifically interact with the rules we modified, but if you don't touch this rule, you never even realize that it (and its complexity) is there.




I'm not sure how I feel about this - is he sorta talking about introducing special case mechanics for special cases... a direction that leads to madness (and the 3e undead turning rules. Or perhaps the grapple rules) 

We've got no idea what he's actually talking about of course, but maybe the scale of change in the general case makes it worthwhile maintaining it in one special case. 

Cheers


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how I feel about this - is he sorta talking about introducing special case mechanics for special cases... a direction that leads to madness (and the 3e undead turning rules. Or perhaps the grapple rules)




It seems to be something that in 3.5 has a layer of complexity that only exists to support the "special cases."  Having a specific rule for those special cases isn't too bad, if it is unified.

As it stands, I can't think of anything that obviously fits the bill.  Maybe something in spell casting?


----------



## Sammael (Sep 12, 2007)

Sunder rules and object hit points? (EDIT: along with hardness and such)


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 12, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I wonder wich race it is.... Dwarf ? They had some trouble with it, and the size problem of dwarves make them a first suspect for this.




There are changes to elves that we've heard about so this could allude to those.


----------



## Fobok (Sep 12, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> There are changes to elves that we've heard about so this could allude to those.




Yeah, but we'd previously heard of those. This seems to have been something brand new.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

Fobok said:
			
		

> Yeah, but we'd previously heard of those. This seems to have been something brand new.



The statement seems to imply that it's tied to the race either working well for 2-3 classes, or not sucking at any class.  Given that, I'd predict the half-orc.  Getting that race so that it doesn't suck with some classes will be difficult.


----------



## Gundark (Sep 12, 2007)

for some reason I thought halflings...not sure why.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 12, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I wonder wich race it is.... Dwarf ? They had some trouble with it, and the size problem of dwarves make them a first suspect for this.



I'm betting the Halfling.  Halfings have been described as "lucky", which is hard to implement in a game that depends on statistical "balance" to be fun.  My guess is that they found a mathematically correct, and simple, way to represent this that "raises eyebrows" at first glance, because of some appearance of unfairness.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Sep 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how I feel about this - is he sorta talking about introducing special case mechanics for special cases... a direction that leads to madness (and the 3e undead turning rules. Or perhaps the grapple rules)



It doesn't have to be a special case mechanic, even if only one class/race/PrC uses it.  For instance, Turning Undead could be incorporated into the core spell rules as a blast effect (20' radius) resisted by a Will Save by the undead in the AoE.  It would still be a one-class-only ability.

No, it sounds to me more like there was something that everyone has on their character sheets (like HP or Ref save) has been moved to just one person's character sheet (like a spell list).  In one sense, it's the opposite journey that Open Locks made when it ceased to be a Thief-only thing and became a Skill anyone could take ranks in.

So the question becomes, what is accounted for on everyone's character sheet, but hardly anyone uses?  It could be anything, even something as small as vision type or BAB v. Trip attacks.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm betting the Halfling.  Halfings have been described as "lucky", which is hard to implement in a game that depends on statistical "balance" to be fun.  My guess is that they found a mathematically correct, and simple, way to represent this that "raises eyebrows" at first glance, because of some appearance of unfairness.




If this is true, I might actually allow halflings in my games.

Currently, both halflings and gnomes seem to have no purpose other than to annoy.  The halfling is the Martial Annoyance role and the gnome fills the Arcane Annoyance spot.  Bland mechanics and uncertain concepts.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 12, 2007)

David Noonan has asked for your suggestions for for common DM tasks and DM issues.



			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> This morning I'm working on some organizational issues for the Dungeon Master's Guide. One of the things I'm playing with--and keep in mind that this might be a dead end--is organizing the book by DM task.
> 
> (And before I see a bunch of "OMG WTF they haven't started the DMG yet" messages, I should be clear. A lot of the DMG rules are written and quietly lurking in our version control software, waiting to get slotted into the actual book. I'm working on organization/presentation issues.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 12, 2007)

David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> This morning I'm working on some organizational issues for the Dungeon Master's Guide. One of the things I'm playing with--and keep in mind that this might be a dead end--is organizing the book by DM task.



Based on the follow-up explanation, I will go on record now as 100% in favor of this approach.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 12, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> It seems to be something that in 3.5 has a layer of complexity that only exists to support the "special cases."  Having a specific rule for those special cases isn't too bad, if it is unified.
> 
> As it stands, I can't think of anything that obviously fits the bill.  Maybe something in spell casting?



AoOs.
-blarg


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 12, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> AoOs.
> -blarg



Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't need to know how this works unless you're a particular sort of melee character?


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Based on the follow-up explanation, I will go on record now as 100% in favor of this approach.



 Ditto.

Very clever organizational structure. Even 3.x DMs might buy the 4e DMG because of it.


----------



## The Lost Muse (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't remember if it was an appendix of the 3e DMG, or in the little booklet that came with the DM screen, but the collection of all the tables together was invaluable, and I missed having it in 3.5


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

In Chris Perkins latest post he answers questions on 4E.  Most of these were covered in the previously reported article.



			
				Chris Perkins' blog said:
			
		

> More official answers to 4th Edition questions! I've answered these questions elsewhere, but it seemed like a good idea to collect them (something I've been meaning to do for a few days now).
> 
> *If I’m the sort of person that tries to minimize the use of miniatures in my game, will 4th edition be right for me?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 13, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I understand it's a blog, but that is one terribly written entry -- I don't mean the sentiment, I mean the mechanics of the writing. Someone get the new guy a copy of Strunk and White.




Strunk and White.

In a blog entry.

Come on.


----------



## hong (Sep 13, 2007)

I was hoping that they'd make 30 the new 20 in all respects: you get resurrect at 20th level, wish at 25th level, etc. Looks like they're not doing that after all. Bah.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I was hoping that they'd make 30 the new 20 in all respects: you get resurrect at 20th level, wish at 25th level, etc. Looks like they're not doing that after all. Bah.



That's good because I wouldn't like it at all if level 30 was the new 20.

Maybe level 30 is the new level 30, or level 30 is the new level 25.  But at least it's not the new level 20...


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't need to know how this works unless you're a particular sort of melee character?



Man that'd be sweet.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Sep 13, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> AoOs.
> -blarg




Well, judging by that development article on the WotC site with the dragon, it looks like AoO have been replaced with an Immediate action.

And maybe only some characters/monsters (dragons being one) will be able to attack as an Immediate action.


----------



## delericho (Sep 13, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't need to know how this works unless you're a particular sort of melee character?




But, how is that even possible?

The mechanics for actually making an AoO are trivially easy - it's an extra attack at your highest attack bonus. It's the rules for _provoking_ an AoO that cause the problems, and since anyone can provoke an AoO, everyone needs to know how they work.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

In Mike Mearls latest post he touches on the internet as a design tool.



			
				Mike Mearls' blog said:
			
		

> One of the huge advantages we have in designing 4e, as opposed to other editions of D&D, is the Internet. Few people had access to it when 1e and 2e came out, and gaming forums outside of Usenet were still in their infancy circa 1999. Today, if we want to take the temperature of the gaming audience, we can use online polls, marketing, and a read through of various and sundry forums to see what people are thinking.
> 
> Obviously, there's an enormous bias in simply reading forums and doing what posters say. We fully realize that people who post to the Internet are a small fraction of our audience, and a fraction of the hardcore audience at that. However, that doesn't automatically make all online feedback worthless. The key lies in sifting through the personal biases and fringe desires to find stuff that speaks to what people want out of D&D and, more importantly, what they're doing with D&D.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christian (Sep 13, 2007)

Peter Schaefer kindly answers (or rather, strongly hints at the answer) to a question that's been asked around here a few times ...

"This is a good rule of thumb: Use what is most natural to the player. Rather than using the d-pad or analog stick to select menu options (which most games still do), they grab onto the option that's easiest for the player to understand and instinctively master. And in case you think this is irrelevant, think about D&D: would you rather have dozens of special subsystems (turn undead!) or a spread of options that play off of numbers and mechanics you already know?

That's hypothetical, by the way. We already know which one we prefer."


----------



## babomb (Sep 14, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Strunk and White.
> 
> In a blog entry.
> 
> Come on.




Yeah, seriously.

He should use Chicago.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

James Wyatt's latest post gives a look at the day of the story team lead.  It's very long (but mostly interesting), so I'll summarize the few hints of 4E...even the ones were sort of knew.

1)  Dwarves are in the PHB (no surprise there) which we find out when he discusses they have a new way of describing races in the PHB.

2)  There will be a group of monsters called "foulspawn" in the Monster Manual that James recommended be part of the family that includes dolgrim and dolgaunts (Eberron monsters).

3)  In a discussion of weapon sizes (ala "how long is a pilum") he mentions there will be medium weapons.  More than likely weapon sizes won't be drastically changed.

4) There will be 3 dragons in an upcoming minis set, mentioned when he needs to discuss the design of the dragon for the miniature set.


----------



## Andor (Sep 14, 2007)

James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> Let's see. Later in the morning I finished up a file I started working on yesterday—a different approach to how we present the races in the Player's Handbook. I made up a mock spread about the dwarves, trying to find ways to present all the things that are cool and exciting about dwarves, the things that appeal to people who play dwarves.




I'm not sure that's a good idea. It sounds cool on the surface, but...

1st. Each race doesn't need to try to sell itself. If we're reading a race description we've probably already bought the book, drop the sales pitch. 

2nd. While reading a race description like that might be cool the first 1/2 dozen times, by the 20th time I'm making a dwarf or checking a rules reference I just want to to be able to find the mechanics block as fast as possible, without having to wade through fluff. If there is a solid block of mechanics at the end ala 3.x then fine, but if the crunch is imbeded in the fluff, then it's a problem.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 14, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's a good idea. It sounds cool on the surface, but...



There's no reason why a racial write-up can't be fun to look at *and* easy to use...


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 14, 2007)

I think that giving each race just one page would help locating the relevant rules and fluff when you need it. Secondly, clever use of layout, or sidebars/background colour, tables, whatever is sensible, for the actual mechanics section would make it easy to locate the rules section for each race.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 14, 2007)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I think that giving each race just one page would help locating the relevant rules and fluff when you need it. Secondly, clever use of layout, or sidebars/background colour, tables, whatever is sensible, for the actual mechanics section would make it easy to locate the rules section for each race.




 I agree, but given WotC propensity not too include indexes(yes I know the core books have them) I would also like to suggest using very specific tabs in the outside borders.


----------



## Christian (Sep 14, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> 1st. Each race doesn't need to try to sell itself. If we're reading a race description we've probably already bought the book, drop the sales pitch.




 :\ Maybe WotC should publish a PHB with 128 blank pages, except for one in the middle that says, "Gotcha, suckers!" It would be a lot easier than writing a lot of interesting, entertaining, and useful content, right?

Seriously, these 'fluffy' racial descriptions need to be somewhere if they're to be part of the game, and it seems to me that the PHB is the place for them to be.


----------



## el-remmen (Sep 14, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I agree, but given WotC propensity not too include indexes(yes I know the core books have them) I would also like to suggest using very specific tabs in the outside borders.




Not to mention that the 3E indexes suh-ucked! So I like that tab idea.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 14, 2007)

deleted


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's a good idea. It sounds cool on the surface, but...
> 
> 1st. Each race doesn't need to try to sell itself. If we're reading a race description we've probably already bought the book, drop the sales pitch.
> 
> 2nd. While reading a race description like that might be cool the first 1/2 dozen times, by the 20th time I'm making a dwarf or checking a rules reference I just want to to be able to find the mechanics block as fast as possible, without having to wade through fluff. If there is a solid block of mechanics at the end ala 3.x then fine, but if the crunch is imbeded in the fluff, then it's a problem.



 That's why you have the SRD. All the crunch, none of the fluff.


----------



## Garnfellow (Sep 14, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Strunk and White.
> 
> In a blog entry.
> 
> Come on.




I'm dead serious. I take it you aren't familiar with the Elements of Style? At 80 pages or so, it should be standard issue for anyone who has to write for a living. And doing a company blog certainly seems like it would qualify.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Greg Bilsland most recent update covers errata (both 3.5 and 4E):



			
				Greg Bilsland's blog said:
			
		

> \’era-‘ta-‘twê n: a seasoned stew made of typos, mistakes, miscalculations, unforeseen problems, and incompatibility.
> 
> I met on Wednesday with Chris Tulach, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, and Sam Simpson, who works in customer service, to discuss my acquisition of the errata responsibilities over the next few weeks. Errata for supplements has admittedly been few and far between, but in our discussion of the upcoming months, we talked about what efforts we might take to be more consistent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

I do hope they don't just update the electronic books without an announcement of some sort.  The implication is that the e-books will be updated regularly, and the downloadable documents quarterly.  That could lead to a lot of "wait, when did that change?" moments.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 14, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I'm dead serious. I take it you aren't familiar with the Elements of Style? At 80 pages or so, it should be standard issue for anyone who has to write for a living. And doing a company blog certainly seems like it would qualify.




While it has been a while, I'm certainly familiar with Strunk and White.  Which is why I'm so perplexed you feel it's a necessary resource for a blog entry.

Blogs are informal pieces of writing.  Even employee blogs on company websites.

Now, I'm not saying that WotC employee bloggers should throw out all concerns regarding grammar, writing style and so on . . . . but to criticize an informal piece of writing for not being up to collegiate and professional writing standards is silly, IMO.

Are you an english teacher?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Now, I'm not saying that WotC employee bloggers should throw out all concerns regarding grammar, writing style and so on . . . .




Wait, I thought WotC was aiming at the young internet user.  Shouldn't the blogs be in Leetspeak, with no capital letters, no paragraphs and no grammar?


----------



## Snapdragyn (Sep 14, 2007)

> Wait, I thought WotC was aiming at the young internet user. Shouldn't the blogs be in Leetspeak, with no capital letters, no paragraphs and no grammar?




u can't evn spell l33+sp34k, n00b!!!1! lolz


----------



## Mercule (Sep 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I do hope they don't just update the electronic books without an announcement of some sort.  The implication is that the e-books will be updated regularly, and the downloadable documents quarterly.  That could lead to a lot of "wait, when did that change?" moments.




That was exactly my first thought.  On the other hand, I don't want my ebooks (which I'm sure I'll be getting) to be constantly filled with highlighter marks to indicate the new changes.

My preferrence might be (but probably isn't) to have the errata briefs updated continuously and have the ebooks update once a quarter.  As long as they have some high-visibility way of telling me "The rogue's sneak attack ability has been updated.  See PHB p 38," I'll be happy.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> That was exactly my first thought.  On the other hand, I don't want my ebooks (which I'm sure I'll be getting) to be constantly filled with highlighter marks to indicate the new changes.




What might work is if they use that approach in a way where the book can be highlighted and the highlights can be hidden with a toggle.  Don't know if Acrobat has that option (I've never seen it used), but then I don't know they'll be using Acrobat.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> What might work is if they use that approach in a way where the book can be highlighted and the highlights can be hidden with a toggle.  Don't know if Acrobat has that option (I've never seen it used), but then I don't know they'll be using Acrobat.




That, sir, is one part of the ideal solution.  I'd still like to know I should look at my books, though.

I would put a pretty good bet that it'll be PDF.  That's what they've used for various book-like things for years and it's the industry standard for ebooks.  The only thing I can see against PDF is the rumored ability to do a cross-book search.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

David Noonan's latest blog covers his most recent playtest session.

Possible 4E info:

Ritual magic is mentioned, but it might just be flavor.
The Warlord/Wizard cast _fireball_ (no big surprise, we knew it survived)
The rogue evades the minotaurs attacks and counterattacks.  Might be abilities, might be flavor.
The Warlock/Warlord had "magically-aided battlefield mobility" that set up flanking/sneak attack opportunities (sneak attacks are still in)
Cleric has a _seal of righteousness_ with a rules loophole they will be addressing (see they do fix things in playtests)


----------



## Yergi (Sep 14, 2007)

Rich Baker just made a blog detailing more about the Swordmage, here's some of the juicier bits:



			
				Rich Baker said:
			
		

> * Swordmages aren't "gishes" or bladesingers. Someone over on EN World made an uncannily accurate prediction about the class, which I can confirm here: A swordmage is a warrior who uses magic to fight better.
> * Swordmages use spells of armorning and protection instead of wearing heavy armor. At the most basic level, it's something along the lines of an always-on mage armor spell, renewed each morning. Since they're defenders, they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and swordmages get there by using persistent magic effects.I think there are other persistent wards in play too, spells that provide some energy resistance, mental defense, things of that sort.
> * Swordmages have lots of room for fun, combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells. For example, my character Geran makes use of a few short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects. The movement effects will work great for a defender--what better way to get the troll to stop beating on the wizard than to simply trade places with your unarmored friend?
> * Swordmages have room for fun attack powers, too. For example, I have Geran make use of a short-duration, self-only strength spell, as well as another one that wreathes his sword in magical flames. There are a few others I touched on in my novel, but I don't want to give any more away 'cause I don't want to spoil things.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

And in the flood of Friday blog entires, Mike Mearls latest covers "putting things where they belong."

I've cut a small bit that speaks at the pros of using minis in the games (and it's not what you think).



> In developing the combat chapter, this is my battlecry: Put stuff where it belongs!
> 
> A lot of complex games like D&D try to pretend they aren't really as complex as they are by hiding some of their rules. Moving in D&D seems really simple, and it is until you throw in 5 foot steps, squeezing, difficult terrain, and diagonals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 14, 2007)

Yergi said:
			
		

> Rich Baker just made a blog detailing more about the Swordmage, here's some of the juicier bits:




*drooooooool*

That is so full of awesome and win.


----------



## kerbarian (Sep 14, 2007)

Yergi said:
			
		

> Rich Baker just made a blog detailing more about the Swordmage, here's some of the juicier bits:



Also worth noting is that he said it won't be in the PHB1:


> We liked the idea well enough that at one point the swordmage was well on his way to being included in the Player's Handbook. But for various reasons we decided to go with a slightly different mix of character classes, and so the swordmage is going to wait for a while.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 14, 2007)

kerbarian said:
			
		

> Also worth noting is that he said it won't be in the PHB1:




Finally, something about 4e that pisses me off.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Sep 14, 2007)

Sooo.... It's a duskblade. Awesome. I like the duskblade.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Sep 14, 2007)

Yeah, with swordmage as arcane defender, it looks like they had ideas for going with one class for each power source/game role combination. I wish they'd gone ahead & put the full twelve into the 1st PHB (not least because I want my bardly goodness!).


----------



## Fobok (Sep 14, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Finally, something about 4e that pisses me off.




I have to agree here. It sounds like such a cool class, I'd want to see it. Hopefully it's released before too long.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Sep 14, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, with swordmage as arcane defender, it looks like they had ideas for going with one class for each power source/game role combination. I wish they'd gone ahead & put the full twelve into the 1st PHB (not least because I want my bardly goodness!).




Agreed. Why split up the set?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Fobok said:
			
		

> I have to agree here. It sounds like such a cool class, I'd want to see it. Hopefully it's released before too long.



Note that it isn't even designed.  He came up with enough of the design principle for his novel, and that's it (for now).


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 14, 2007)

Yergi said:
			
		

> Rich Baker just made a blog detailing more about the Swordmage, here's some of the juicier bits:



Not that I wouldn't love to have that -now-, I'm willing to wait for it.

Not long, though. Arcane sourcebook, mayhaps?


----------



## Fobok (Sep 14, 2007)

True. I still hope it's not too long before it's released, though.


----------



## Yergi (Sep 14, 2007)

Bruce Cordell just posted a blog about the difficulties of publishing an adventure before the rules:



			
				Bruce Cordell said:
			
		

> Writing an adventure that's slated to be released before the core rules offers many challenges.
> 
> Of course we'll have to include quick start rules that'll provide all the basic information required to play.
> 
> The trick is that we'll have to remember to include things one normally takes for granted when writing an adventure. For instance, if the player characters enter a town with coin burning holes in their pockets, what is available for them to purchase? Last edition, the PHB and DMG provided a method for determining what was available for purchase in average towns of a given size. In Keep on the Shadowfell, we won't have that luxury.




P.S. Sorry if I'm stealing your job Glyfair; I'm bored @ work.


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 14, 2007)

The Swordmage class sounds awesome!

C'mon WotC gives us 12 classes in the PHB!!

Each of the four roles (Striker, Leader, Defender, Controller) for each power source (Arcane, Divine, Martial). 12 classes. And the symmetry is nice, too.


----------



## FreeXenon (Sep 14, 2007)

What Dragonblade said!


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2007)

FreeXenon said:
			
		

> What Dragonblade said!



 Agreed!

Swordmage sounds awesome!


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 14, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Finally, something about 4e that pisses me off.



Come on, they have to save something for the expansion.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 15, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Come on, they have to save something for the expansion.




They can save remixes of the 12 combos, and alternate variants, for the expansion.

Give us all 12 options up front, darn it!


----------



## Andor (Sep 15, 2007)

Christian said:
			
		

> :\ Maybe WotC should publish a PHB with 128 blank pages, except for one in the middle that says, "Gotcha, suckers!" It would be a lot easier than writing a lot of interesting, entertaining, and useful content, right?
> 
> Seriously, these 'fluffy' racial descriptions need to be somewhere if they're to be part of the game, and it seems to me that the PHB is the place for them to be.




I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be fluff. I'm saying the fluff shouldn't be written like a sales pitch. The races are not competing with each other to see who can be my next character.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 18, 2007)

There have been a lot of updates in the last few days, but not much on 4E at all.  Today, Chris Perkins latest blog entry mentions what is happening with d20 Modern and what happened to the "Spectaculars" project.



			
				Chris Perkin's blog said:
			
		

> Months before the first episode of Heroes aired, we were working on a d20 Modern supplement called d20 Spectaculars. And by we, I mean people other than me. Specifically freelancers, working on an outline by Jeff Grubb. When I saw Heroes for the first time this weekend, I was struck by the similarities between the show and our initial concept for the d20 Spectaculars book. Well, you know what they say about great minds. I hope at some point we can go back to that manuscript. We shelved it because we didn't have the resources to develop it . . . what with 4th Edition an' all.
> 
> At some point, I want to talk more about the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game, and what we're planning to do with it after the launch of 4th Edition. We've had conversations. Good ones. One thing I know we're doing is planning d20 Modern content on D&D Insider. A good number of folks have asked for it. Frankly, we could use a few more good article and adventure proposals, too.
> 
> So, Andrew Finch came to me this morning with a great idea for what could be done with the d20 Modern magic and psionics subsystems, based on his experiences playing Force-users in the Star Wars RPG Saga Edition. He'd spent the weekend thinking about it, 'cause that's what people in R&D do when they're not watching Heroes on DVD. I love hypothetical rules discussions. This particular conversation was arguably the best 15 minutes of my day, which, as it happens, is quickly coming to an end.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Sep 18, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> a great idea for what could be done with the d20 Modern magic and psionics subsystems, based on his experiences playing Force-users in the Star Wars RPG Saga Edition..


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 19, 2007)

Stephen Schubert touches on devils:



> But devils were hella fun to develop, and I'm pretty sure when your PCs fight devils like the Ice Devil or Chain Devil that it will be a memorable encounter. And the Pit Fiend truly lives up to his title of baddest devil of them all, at least in this Monster Manual. The fun part of demons and devils was massaging the monsters' various powers to provide themes that run through the groups of monsters. When you fight demons, it'll feel like a different fight than when you fight devils.




Bruce Cordell has a brief bit on monsters with no surprises and a bit on KotS:



> A few MM entries yet linger--James has parceled them out among the writing team. I've got 4, including Treant and Troll. I'm done with all but the troll. Looks like the troll and its variants will garner a 2 page spread in the MM.
> 
> Of course, I am still moving forward on Keep on the Shadowfell, too. Today I put together an encounter involving a wide crater, where someone's excavation now reveals fossilized remains of something nasty. The PCs are on the scene, looking for something they've lost.




Andy Collins drops what appears to be a big alignment hint (that says nothing):



> Don't look back; something might be gaining on you.
> 
> My own particular something, in this case, happens to be Chris Perkins, whose blog views are slowly but surely gaining on my own.
> 
> ...


----------



## MerricB (Sep 19, 2007)

Obviously, if you're *Chaotic* you must gamble whenever possible. 

Cheers!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 19, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Obviously, if you're *Chaotic* you must gamble whenever possible.
> 
> Cheers!



Perhaps chaotic = risk-taking and lawful = careful?

Also, I just want to thank Glyfair for maintaining what is probably the best and most labour-intensive thread on these boards.  I'm too busy to monitor more than just this single board, and it's super nice that someone is bringing me the 4th edition digest.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 19, 2007)

Chris Perkin's latest blog covers "Why much around with the D&D story?"



> There's a thread on our message boards stemming from a really interesting question: Why muck around with the D&D "story"?
> 
> The short answer is that the R&D team would only be doing half its job if we just focused on mechanical innovation. In addition to being a great rules system, D&D is a rich intellectual property. We would be remiss if we didn't put a certain amount of flavor in our core rulebooks. People relate to proper names (Pelor, Vecna, Ioun, Hommlet, the Temple of Elemental Evil, etc.), even if they don't include these names in the lore of their home campaigns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Sep 19, 2007)

I like this push for more story, or "fluff", in the D&D books. When I go to the bathroom, I usually swing by my book case to gather a little light reading for my stint in the fortress of solitude. 90% of the time I grab a White Wolf book. Why? Because they make for interesting reading. D&D books too often read like a geometry book or something (GURPS is equally guilty of this), which is all well and good from a gaming standpoint, but it isn't very inspiring and often times not very entertaining.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 19, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Chris Perkin's latest blog covers "Why much around with the D&D story?"



zOMG!!!  You mean, I'm allowed to ignore or alter the core pantheon, implements, fluff names for things, and other easily-changeable elements of the game?  Woot!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 19, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I like this push for more story, or "fluff", in the D&D books. When I go to the bathroom, I usually swing by my book case to gather a little light reading for my stint in the fortress of solitude. 90% of the time I grab a White Wolf book. Why? Because they make for interesting reading. D&D books too often read like a geometry book or something (GURPS is equally guilty of this), which is all well and good from a gaming standpoint, but it isn't very inspiring and often times not very entertaining.



This is a good point.  I'm much more likely to grab later, more fluff-oriented books like PHB II or Tome of Magic when I'm off to the excremeditation chamber.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 19, 2007)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> D&D books too often read like a geometry book or something (GURPS is equally guilty of this), which is all well and good from a gaming standpoint, but it isn't very inspiring and often times not very entertaining.




See, I'd take it a step further, and say it's not even "well and good from a gaming standpoint." RPG books _must_ be evocative and interesting, at least to an extent, or they're going to turn off a fair number of potential players. Similarly, even the core rules should inspire adventure ideas in DMs, and character ideas in players. As long as the flavor is sufficiently separate that the book can serve as a quick reference during play, the additional flavor is not only not harmful, but I'd argue absolutely necessary.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> the excremeditation chamber.




...

I have never before heard this particular term.

I'm trying to decide if I was better off that way.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Sep 19, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, I'd take it a step further, and say it's not even "well and good from a gaming standpoint." RPG books _must_ be evocative and interesting, at least to an extent, or they're going to turn off a fair number of potential players. Similarly, even the core rules should inspire adventure ideas in DMs, and character ideas in players. As long as the flavor is sufficiently separate that the book can serve as a quick reference during play, the additional flavor is not only not harmful, but I'd argue absolutely necessary.




Agreed 100%

I like to be able to come up with a character or adventure concept and be able to go to the books and figure out how to make it work mechanically.

On the other hand, I really like to be reading through the "rule" book and have ideas spring into my head as I read. The 3.5 PHB does not do this for me, where White Wolf's books often do. Hopefully the 4e PHB can too.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 19, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps chaotic = risk-taking and lawful = careful?



I hope not.  I've always hated the conception of the law/chaos axis as describing _methodolgy_ rather than merely values and outlook.  But, hell, I don't use alignments anyway, so why should I complain?


----------



## Mercule (Sep 19, 2007)

> In the Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters book, we'll present in more detail 4th Edition's alternative to the Elemental Planes of Water, Fire, Earth, and Air.




Hmm... I may actually pick up this preview.  The core cosmology has long bothered me and I'm curious what they're doing with it.

As far as being evocative, that's essential (or, at least, quite valuable) to an RPG book, even the core rules.  1E V:tM was incredibly evocative and filled me with ideas, while 2E V:tM was mechanically more sound, but very dry (very bad, considering the goals of the Storyteller series).  I often found myself returning to my 1E book for inspiration.

That's also the reason so many people still love the 1E DMG.  Gygax spread Proper Nouns all around that book.  I think it's worth pointing out, though, that he rarely (if ever) stopped and said, "Okay, here's the history of Kas and Vecna," or anything similar.  It was all very casual, not forced.  I hope they do this with 4E, and I'm getting the impression that they are.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> That's also the reason so many people still love the 1E DMG.  Gygax spread Proper Nouns all around that book.  I think it's worth pointing out, though, that he rarely (if ever) stopped and said, "Okay, here's the history of Kas and Vecna," or anything similar.  It was all very casual, not forced.  I hope they do this with 4E, and I'm getting the impression that they are.




Yeah, that's why I never got all the Greyhawk grognard complaints about Greyhawk not really being the default setting in 3E.  Default setting has nothing to do with giving out campaign info, it has to do with where it draws its flavor.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

The hell is grognard?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 20, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The hell is grognard?




Grognard


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 20, 2007)

In Stephen Schubert's latest blog entry he mentions that bar-lgura are large creatures and mentions improvising spider stats in his latest game.



> An interesting note, though, that the players didn't even pick up on was that I didn't start the session with stat blocks for the spiders. I knew I wanted the small spiders to use webs to trap the PCs and pull them closer, and I wanted the large spider to be a more significant melee threat. With a couple of notes on those abilities, and using a generic set of level-appropriate attack bonuses and defenses, I was able to generate those monsters nearly entirely on the fly.
> 
> Of course, it helps that I'm currently very familiar with the structures we are using for building monsters - but to me it highlights what is important about a monster in the context of an encounter. Generally, you need to know numbers for hp, defense, attack, and damage, and then you need the one or two special abilities that make the creature unique in combat. It seems obvious, really, and wasn't a novel realization, but was just something that I was thinking about last night.
> 
> (And yes, I know that many monsters need some interesting things to do outside of combat - but that wasn't information I needed during those encounters.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 20, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> IN Stephen Schubert's latest blog entry he mentions that bar-lgura are large creatures and mentions improvising spider stats in his latest game.



I am not prone to superlative, but if I will be able to reliably and effectively improvise monster stats on the fly (presumably using a simple system provided in the DMG or MM), this will be the best edition ever.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

I get the impression that they're basically going to have a list of attack/damage/hp/AC that's appropriate for a monster of x level. Sort of like the table of NPCs by class in the DMG. So you can mix and match. 

Which is a little nice.

Belatedy, thanks Glyfair.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 20, 2007)

Stephen Schubert said:
			
		

> With a couple of notes on those abilities, and using a generic set of level-appropriate attack bonuses and defenses, I was able to generate those monsters nearly entirely on the fly..




I truly hope that 4e can deliver on this promise. 

While I appreciated "PCs and Monsters are built on the same principles" as a 3e design principle, in actual play I found that it really hindered my enjoyment of the game.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 20, 2007)

I was very interested at seeing this. Heck, you could have an entry that says: 

Spider, large lvl5; AC 14, 1 Bite+3, 2 Claws +1, Poison/A, Webs

where there is a simple table that lists generic attacks for a lvl 5 creature:

LVL   BAB   Primary Damage Secondary Damage
 5      +4           1d8                   1d4


----------



## FreeXenon (Sep 20, 2007)

I think it has been sort of stated that a monster that fits a certain role will have a certain range of stats: A level 5 Defender will have HP: 40-60; BAB: +5; with the following saves. Most likely chart oriented like and the PC's level advancement that way a monster's stats should always be about right for each level with their special abilities listed in the monster entry, which will most likely scale with CR.

Or something like that...


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Sep 20, 2007)

This is from Shoe's quote:

"Generally, you need to know numbers for hp, *defense*, attack, and damage.." 

I suppose this means that AC as we know it is out and that a SWSE-style defense system is in.  Was this confirmed earlier and am I behind the power curve?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 20, 2007)

Am I missing something here?  Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.  I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight.  I've done this on numerous occasions, though it can break down if PC's try unexpected things against the opponents.  I mean in my oppinion he's taking an appropriate NPC challenge against the PC's(like those listed in the DMG) base stats and disregarding their abilities then adding a couple special abilities he wants to use.  

I'm not trying to be snarky but people have been able to do this with all editions of the game(if they were willing to use only the necessities of a basic encounter).  It's only when you get into specific/official monster design that it gets complicaed and that isn't addressed in the blog.  I'd rather hear how involved or fast the creation of an acceptable monster for a Dungeon magazine article would be.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I was very interested at seeing this. Heck, you could have an entry that says:
> 
> Spider, large lvl5; AC 14, 1 Bite+3, 2 Claws +1, Poison/A, Webs
> 
> ...



True, but flipping back and forth between the tables to get the hit and the damage could get bothersome.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Am I missing something here?  Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.




Generally speaking, I can do this now and do it rather well.

But then, I've been DMing for a long time and playing for even longer.

Making it easier for new DMs to do this is a good thing.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 20, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, I can do this now and do it rather well.
> 
> But then, I've been DMing for a long time and playing for even longer.
> 
> Making it easier for new DMs to do this is a good thing.




I totally agree here...but nothing stated in that blog makes a point of why this is easier than in 3.5.  It basically just seems to tout the idea that guesstimating is a new and innovative thing.  It seems a little like hyperbole for hyperbole's sake without anything really backing it up.  He doesn't say there's a system for it in 4e, just that it's easier to do when you realize you only need certain things in a particular encounter(I mean to me this is a no-brainer, most things in life are easier when you only focus on what you feel is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task).  The problem I see in this is only that PC's often do the darndest things so you also gotta be willing to roll with the improvisation if you go that route.  If the monsters stated fully, you don't have to worry so much about that, but yes it's more work.


----------



## JamesM (Sep 20, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why I never got all the Greyhawk grognard complaints about Greyhawk not really being the default setting in 3E.  Default setting has nothing to do with giving out campaign info, it has to do with where it draws its flavor.



To be fair, often when so-called grognards say this, their complaint is not that 3E's use of "Greyhawk" isn't of sufficient depth that you could play in the World of Greyhawk with only the core books. Rather, it's that 3E's use of it is superficial at best and outright contrary to the actual content of the Greyhawk setting at worst. Erik Mona has talked at length elsewhere about how 3E changes and misuses Greyhawk concepts to no good mechanical end. 

It's fine not to care about such things or to think they're trivial, but longtime fans of the setting don't feel the same way.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 20, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> I suppose this means that AC as we know it is out and that a SWSE-style defense system is in.  Was this confirmed earlier and am I behind the power curve?




I think he means the term generically. One of the earlier articles mentioned a dragon as having an armor class, but so far nothing has really come out about any difference in AC.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 20, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> True, but flipping back and forth between the tables to get the hit and the damage could get bothersome.




I would think if such a thing existed, it would be just a single small table. You could easily have it on a 3x5 card with room left over.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Am I missing something here?  Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.  I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight.



I take it that he implies that there are now tools for doing so, and that they produce good results without a lot of fuss.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Am I missing something here?  Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.  I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight.




To a lot of people I've talked to, it would _be _ insight. I have seriously had people tell me that each and every monster they do is fully statted up and leveled just like it was a PC. They have a full stat block, advanced and customized skills, etc, simply because they see the examples in the PHB  and it _never occurs to them that it could be done differently_. 

Now, to me it's insight of a different kind. I doubt very seriously that this is what the MM is like, but if you had a set of generic damage and BABs for each level such as that you would be creating a level appropriate encounter, then you could reduce the stat-block space a monster entry takes up to a couple of lines. That would be a huge and interesting change to me. Then you'd just need the fluff text and the description of any special abilties it had that were not covered in the generic special powers. You could probably put seven or eight monsters on a page that way and cut the size of the book down to about 40 pages or less.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Am I missing something here?  Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.  I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight.




I think good DM's know how to handle this, but the game needs to work equally well for those who don't have that insight - whether because they're not as quick on the uptake as others, or just because they're new to the ruleset.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

4e is being structured so that there are rules to allow DMs to do things that only very seasoned DMs could do by their familiarity with the system and their experience as DMs.

To use another example, Monte Cook when discussiong how 3e was built, said that 3e used Magic: The Gathering as a source of rules construction. Namely that some cards are better than others, and the experienced Magic player is rewarded by figuring this out and using the Better cards. Thus Toughness and Whirlwind are bad feats, but only someone familiar with teh system and experienced would realize this and thus ignore those feats. 

The "Look at a table and guestimate" may seem pretty obvious to you. I'm sure that lots of stuff in the DMG, namely that tells you how to run the game, is also obvious to you. It's not there for you. And just as you ignore the "How to make a town and handle DMing", you can ignore the "How to guestimate monsters on the fly".


----------



## Imaro (Sep 20, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 4e is being structured so that there are rules to allow DMs to do things that only very seasoned DMs could do by their familiarity with the system and their experience as DMs.
> 
> To use another example, Monte Cook when discussiong how 3e was built, said that 3e used Magic: The Gathering as a source of rules construction. Namely that some cards are better than others, and the experienced Magic player is rewarded by figuring this out and using the Better cards. Thus Toughness and Whirlwind are bad feats, but only someone familiar with teh system and experienced would realize this and thus ignore those feats.
> 
> The "Look at a table and guestimate" may seem pretty obvious to you. I'm sure that lots of stuff in the DMG, namely that tells you how to run the game, is also obvious to you. It's not there for you. And just as you ignore the "How to make a town and handle DMing", you can ignore the "How to guestimate monsters on the fly".




You missed the point of my post.  In your first paragraph you state alot of what the designer's are doing...now show me something in the article that supports that assertion.  That is my point, telling me if you only use hp's, attk, defense, damage and a few qualities you want for a monster speeds up designing the monster, I wholehartedly agree, AD&D/C&C/OD&D/etc. all use this as default monster design anyway.  What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this?  Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.

Your second paragraph...not really getting where you're going with this since it has nothing to do with monster design.

Third paragraph...well see what my point is in the first paragraph and you'll understand.  You're assuming there will be a table, chart, etc.  Where did this assumption come from?  I think alot of people are projecting their own ideas on what the designer's are saying and this is a prime example.  He says nothing about 4e and how it facilitates this methodology.  Are we back to simple monsters with only what the designer's deem necessary?  Will all monsters of a certain challenge level have the same attk, defense etc.  will there be a system to balance one of these factors by subtracting from another?


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this?  Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.



And they aren't telling us what they're doing at all. Thus far, WotC has said: "Here's what we want. But we're not going to show you the mechanics until December."



> Your second paragraph...not really getting where you're going with this since it has nothing to do with monster design.



That 3e's emphasis was "We'll just give you the system and let you figure out what's good and what's not" and it's been stated that for 4e it's "We're going to make it obvious for you how to get the best mileage out of x y and z."



> Third paragraph...well see what my point is in the first paragraph and you'll understand.  You're assuming there will be a table, chart, etc.  Where did this assumption come from?  I think alot of people are projecting their own ideas on what the designer's are saying and this is a prime example.  He says nothing about 4e and how it facilitates this methodology.  Are we back to simple monsters with only what the designer's deem necessary?  Will all monsters of a certain challenge level have the same attk, defense etc.  will there be a system to balance one of these factors by subtracting from another?



So you're basically complaining because there's not enough information to go on?


----------



## HeinorNY (Sep 20, 2007)

Another clue that robots may be in phb  

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13849270&postcount=4

"And, let me tell you, it was a good thing that I was of that opinion. Our party was pitifully short of defenders or anything with hit points and armor class, so answering the call of duty, I decided to play a warhammer-wielding warforged fighter."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 20, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this?  Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.




Going off of the quote (and the other monster info we have), my guess is that there will be a table in the MM, somewhere, that says:

If you need a quick Bruiser monster type, here's the stats to give it:


```
CR  |  HP   | Attack | Fort | Ref | Will
1    |  10   |  +2     |  12   | 11  | 10
2    |  15   |  +3     |  13   | 11  | 10

....

etc.
```


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 20, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Another clue that robots may be in phb



Once again, warforged are not robots.  If you need examples of constructs that are not robots, look at stone golems, Pinocchio, or Sergeant Schlock.  (Okay, I'll cop.  The last one was just for gratuitous fun.  But Schlock is technically a construct.)
-blarg


----------



## HeinorNY (Sep 20, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Once again, warforged are not robots.  If you need examples of constructs that are not robots, look at stone golems, Pinocchio, or Sergeant Schlock.  (Okay, I'll cop.  The last one was just for gratuitous fun.  But Schlock is technically a construct.)
> -blarg



But I think they are robots.
Am I wrong? Why?


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But I think they are robots.
> Am I wrong? Why?



I think you're using the word "Robot" a little too loosely.

Undead are robots. They aren't alive and are powered by a source not their own. 

If you agree with that, then you shouldn't have a problem with Warforged.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 20, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But I think they are robots.
> Am I wrong? Why?




There was a topic in the General section discussing this. That's probably a better place to debate that particular issue. It has lots of good stuff in it.


----------



## Naathez (Sep 20, 2007)

Well, I'd say warforged aren't robots because robots are mechanical; warforged aren't. They don't move because of skilfully crafted gears in every joint: they move, as a golem does, because magic animates them.

My 2 cents, of course.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 20, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But I think they are robots.
> Am I wrong? Why?





			
				Joseph Engelburger said:
			
		

> I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one.



Is a warforged a robot?  Depends on how you define "robot".


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 20, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Another clue that robots may be in phb




Why the sad face?  Robots kick ass!

Later
silver


----------



## HeinorNY (Sep 20, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I think you're using the word "Robot" a little too loosely.
> 
> Undead are robots. They aren't alive and are powered by a source not their own.
> 
> If you agree with that, then you shouldn't have a problem with Warforged.



I don't care with semantics, sorry, nice point though.
To me they look like robots, they feel like robots, If I saw one warforged walking on the street I'd say, "wow look that wodden robot there!", and probably 99% of the world's population would think the same.


----------



## HeinorNY (Sep 20, 2007)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Why the sad face?  Robots kick ass!
> 
> Later
> silver



I like robots, but they don't feel quite right in a medieval fantasy setting. 
By the looks SWSE is really a preview for 4E   
"I'm Bel148,  protocol warforged, I'm fluent in 8 million types of communication"


----------



## HeinorNY (Sep 20, 2007)

YAY! no robots in PHB http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13850918&postcount=12

"And now I'll just mention that I'm working on an appendix for the Monster Manual that provides the basics on how to play some of the non-PH races appearing in the MM as PCs.

Which ones, you ask? Well, the final list is still under quite a bit of discussion, but options that have been floated ranged from aasimar (or as I like to call 'em, the Awesomer) to warforged."


----------



## Jer (Sep 20, 2007)

Aw, you didn't quote the best part:



			
				Andy Collins' Blog said:
			
		

> Which ones, you ask? Well, the final list is still under quite a bit of discussion, but options that have been floated ranged from aasimar (or as I like to call 'em, the Awesomer) to warforged.
> 
> Goblins? Orcs? Kobolds? Hogboblins? Githyanki? Drow?




Who cares about warforged?  Yay!  No Drow in the PHB!  And confirmation that Aasimar aren't in the PHB with the tiefling (as many suspected).

Also - I like that it's an Appendix, and not in the main entries.  In my ideal world, the main entries in the MM would be all on one page (or on two pages if the layout lets them fall on an open page) and ideal for using during a game.  Moving the "as a PC" information to an appendix keeps it in the book, but out of the way.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 20, 2007)

Andy Collins said:
			
		

> . . . aasimar (or as I like to call 'em, the Awesomer) to warforged.
> 
> Goblins? Orcs? Kobolds? Hogboblins? Githyanki? Drow?.




Damn.

I would have really liked to see any (or all) of those races as playable in the PHB.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 20, 2007)

While it's not quite "news item" material, it seems next podcast will be worth a listen according to James Wyatt's blog.



> Yesterday I recorded a segment for the D&D podcast, talking about monsters. When it was done, Dave Noonan said I was dropping "truth bombs" right and left, that I said way too much and the fans will love me for it.


----------



## Blind Azathoth (Sep 20, 2007)

Here's hoping that _all_ of those races Collins mentioned are playable out of the MM--along with githzerai and lizardfolk, as well.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 20, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Damn.
> 
> I would have really liked to see any (or all) of those races as playable in the PHB.



Agreed. I was rootin' for Kobold or Goblinoids. Also Aasimar to an extent.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Sep 21, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> This is from Shoe's quote:
> 
> "Generally, you need to know numbers for hp, *defense*, attack, and damage.."
> 
> I suppose this means that AC as we know it is out and that a SWSE-style defense system is in.  Was this confirmed earlier and am I behind the power curve?




I very much hope this is the case! I don't think it's enough to confirm, but it is a positive indication.


----------



## NaturalZero (Sep 21, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Damn.
> 
> I would have really liked to see any (or all) of those races as playable in the PHB.




Does it really matter as long as they are playable in the first round of core books? Ill be pretty damned happy if there is a playable warforged in the MM.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 21, 2007)

Sweet!  MM's as good as the PHB as far as I'm concerned.  I'm very happy that they'll be giving us multiple playable races right off the bat that will likely be in the SRD.  Woot!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 21, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Sweet!  MM's as good as the PHB as far as I'm concerned.  I'm very happy that they'll be giving us multiple playable races right off the bat that will likely be in the SRD.  Woot!




Like the mind flayer, beholder, yuan-ti ...

I'd expect WOTC to keep warforged as IP.  Which is fine with me; I don't care for player robots in my brand of fantasy.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Sep 21, 2007)

My question right now is why the tiefling is a playable race in the PHB but not the aasimar?


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 21, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> My question right now is why the tiefling is a playable race in the PHB but not the aasimar?




Rhymes with "Schmorlock".


----------



## Jer (Sep 21, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> My question right now is why the tiefling is a playable race in the PHB but not the aasimar?




My question is - if devils are now all fallen angels, what's the real difference between an aasimar and a tiefling mechanically anyway?


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> My question is - if devils are now all fallen angels, what's the real difference between an aasimar and a tiefling mechanically anyway?




The tiefling's power source is "emo".


----------



## Andor (Sep 21, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> My question is - if devils are now all fallen angels, what's the real difference between an aasimar and a tiefling mechanically anyway?




Aasimar favor sparkly pastel eyeshadows while Tieflings always go for red or black.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 21, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> My question is - if devils are now all fallen angels, what's the real difference between an aasimar and a tiefling mechanically anyway?



Because devils were transformed by their fall, and they've passed their new qualities onto their descendants. Think of it like a mutation that breeds true.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 21, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> My question is - if devils are now all fallen angels, what's the real difference between an aasimar and a tiefling mechanically anyway?



When it comes to outsiders, 'a state of grace' is literal.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 21, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> To use another example, Monte Cook when discussiong how 3e was built, said that 3e used Magic: The Gathering as a source of rules construction. Namely that some cards are better than others, and the experienced Magic player is rewarded by figuring this out and using the Better cards. Thus Toughness and Whirlwind are bad feats, but only someone familiar with teh system and experienced would realize this and thus ignore those feats.



Yeah, and I cannot even express how much that design ethic bothers me.  I'm really hoping 4e's character options are free of deliberate newb traps and penalty prerequisites.


----------



## Cake Mage (Sep 21, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> The tiefling's power source is "emo".




/Win


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 21, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> The tiefling's power source is "emo".



I doubt that Tieflings bother to listen to My Chemical Romance or Fugazi or Hawthorne Heights or  Linkin Park.  And if they did listen to Fugazi they'd probably call themselves Indy Kids instead.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Sep 21, 2007)

Where is the "truth bombs" update?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 21, 2007)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> Where is the "truth bombs" update?




I'd guess they need a little time to edit the podcast...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 21, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> My question right now is why the tiefling is a playable race in the PHB but not the aasimar?




'Cause assmar is a silly name and they are putting eladrin in instead.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 21, 2007)

They're still using Aasimar, they've been mentioned as being in the MM...

Of course you could go with this idea:

Tiefling = "Teufel" (German for Devil) + "ling"

so instead of Aasimar which was derived from Aasimon, you could use:

Engelling = "Engel" (German for Angel) + "ling"


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 21, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'd guess they need a little time to edit the podcast...




It was about 1 1/2 weeks between the recording of the last one and its being posted.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 22, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> My question right now is why the tiefling is a playable race in the PHB but not the aasimar?




Cuz everyone knows that evil is what's in, yo.    :\  Warlocks and Tieflings are the cool people that get to play with all the l33t evil powers that the Dark Lords pass out for free, like candy, to show people how awesome the dark side is.  You're not a _real hero_ unless your _emo_.    Hercules was a _wuss_.  You want to be _Vampire Hunter D_.

Cuz only _sissy hero wannabees_ call on saints and angels for help against the forces of darkness, or bear the blood of such creatures in their own veins.  You have to sell your soul or be the spawn of evil if you're going to be a _real_ hero, and kick evil's arse with evil's own l33t powers of dooooom.

Join the dark side!!  We have _cookies_!!!!



 

.......or, y'know, it's probably something more realistic like "Points of Light is the new Official D&D Setting and we expect all you gullible consumers to accept it as your Gaming Messiah and the One True Way of D&D, with all its doom and gloom and antiheroes, so buy it _and like it_ suckahs, _or else_." :\


----------



## Lackhand (Sep 22, 2007)

Or "We figured that, as planetouched go, Eladrin would be a lot more palatable to the majority of our consumers than Aasimar. More thematically appropriate, too."

I do like the level of hatred engendered against the Tiefling. I don't share it, myself, but it definitely puts some steel into the 'hated outcast' role they're to fit.

I mean, they're already filling it, without any players playing them yet!


----------



## Arthnek (Sep 22, 2007)

I find it tiresome to hear game developers bashing on AD&D.

The first comment in this thread which stated that monsters in the old monster manual were basically slapped together to see if they were fun and usually were not is completely wrong.

Writing good adventures is a bit like writing an adventure story or fantasy novel.  A fantasy writer does not sit down with his slide rule or calculator to create a mathematical formula to balance one character against another.  They write something creative and entertaining and there is a certain amount of art involved in the process.

This is what happened with the monster creations for AD&D.  It was meant to be fun and the monsters were written up as a fantasy game with a lot of shoot from the hip and artistic creation going on more than anything else.

To say that they were not fun to play is total hogwash.  I find it disturbing that the game designers working on the new D&D are not fans of the old D&D.

I am sorry to hear that the original poster had such a horrible time in his apparently deep and lengthy experience running monsters in the old D&D.  My memories of the game and those of everyone I know who played avidly in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's - are absolutely different.  We had a great time playing the game then.  We had no problem having fun with the monsters as they were written and in using that largely artful, non mathematical slide rule method of writing up an adventure so that it was fun.

All the number crunching smacks loudly to me of GURPS and Hero.  I like Hero for playing super hero characters but for running anything else which requires a lot of adventure creation I find that massive time involved in building -anything- in that system to make it unwieldy and -not fun- to game master.

Using it to pit a couple of villains against a couple of heroes is great.  Trying to write up hundreds of monsters, dungeons, modules, magic items using the system sucks so much time out of writing the story and setting and into building stat blocks for mobs and items that I have largely abandoned Hero as unwieldy.

Now I have to number crunch encounters to make them "fair"?  

The entire notion of writing good stories seems somehow completely lost in this mix to me and like I said to start with I was pretty offended to read about how the old monsters and the old game was not fun.

It was fun and remains a lot of fun.

I am sure someone is going to post..hey..old guy...if you don't like 4e then why post?

This is why I am posting here young padi-wan.  As a player and DM with more than 30 years of experience running this game I have a great deal of experience and perspective.  It was my dollars and my input as a player and DM along with hundreds of thousands of other people like -me- that took D&D out of the little stapled books and into a major hobby.  If it was not for us leading the dungeon parties and adventuring groups over the last thirty years you wouldn't have a forum or a game to be discussing.

Telling us old timers not to post because we are not thrilled with some of the stuff we are reading is frankly insulting.  We were the ones making this game happen when many of you younger folks were not even born yet.


----------



## Andor (Sep 22, 2007)

Anybody else notice this?



			
				Greg Bilsland's Blog said:
			
		

> That is, instead of having to change everything manually, one could simply change their level and much of their corresponding *skills* and defenses would change accordingly.




Looks like some king of saga-esqe system will be used for skills, rather than the 3.X point system.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 22, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I doubt that Tieflings bother to listen to My Chemical Romance or Fugazi or Hawthorne Heights or  Linkin Park.  And if they did listen to Fugazi they'd probably call themselves Indy Kids instead.



Craaaaaaaaawlllliiiiiinnnnngggg iiiiiiiinnnnn myyyyyyy skiiiiiiiinnnnnnn!!!

...

No, really.  There are things crawling in my skin.  I could use some calamine lotion over here.  Or a Remove Disease, maybe.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 22, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Or "We figured that, as planetouched go, Eladrin would be a lot more palatable to the majority of our consumers than Aasimar. More thematically appropriate, too."
> 
> I do like the level of hatred engendered against the Tiefling. I don't share it, myself, but it definitely puts some steel into the 'hated outcast' role they're to fit.
> 
> I mean, they're already filling it, without any players playing them yet!



Eladrin aren't planetouched, though.  At least not in any edition before 4E, AFAIK.  Nor do I see in any way how they're more palatable than aasimar or more thematically appropriate.  Just how common is the mythological/legendary/fictional concept of a hero descended from the gods, nature spirits, or other such creatures?  Or blessed with their favor?

Aasimar are cool.  They deserve to be in the PHB at least as much as tieflings do, if not moreso, because they're a more heroic race, and D&D is first and foremost about heroes.

I don't hate tieflings, either.  I just think it's silly and backwards to make them a PHB race without aasimar _at least_ being included the same way.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I totally agree here...but nothing stated in that blog makes a point of why this is easier than in 3.5.  It basically just seems to tout the idea that guesstimating is a new and innovative thing.  It seems a little like hyperbole for hyperbole's sake without anything really backing it up.  He doesn't say there's a system for it in 4e, just that it's easier to do when you realize you only need certain things in a particular encounter(I mean to me this is a no-brainer, most things in life are easier when you only focus on what you feel is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task).  The problem I see in this is only that PC's often do the darndest things so you also gotta be willing to roll with the improvisation if you go that route.  If the monsters stated fully, you don't have to worry so much about that, but yes it's more work.




This is true of many of the 4e previews.  Instead of getting tidbits of new, innovative items, I keep reading things that have me scratching my head and saying "I could do that now if I wanted to".


----------



## rounser (Sep 22, 2007)

> I don't hate tieflings, either. I just think it's silly and backwards to make them a PHB race without aasimar at least being included the same way.



Yeah, it's difficult to suspend judgement on this one.  Tieflings without their mirror image seem arbitrary.  Yes, they look kewl in pictures, and promise to be "the next drow", but without aasimar they seem unbalanced, incomplete...arbitrary.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 22, 2007)

I very much doubt Eladrin are going to take the same role in the default cosmology in 4e as they did in 3e. I predict that Eladrin will be distinctly Fae creatures, not Celestial. For better or worse, it seems that Fourth Edition will be embracing more of a 'shades of gray' model than previous editions. 

Interestingly enough the Desert of Desolation preview mentions that Fire Archons are servants of Elemental Fire, and may be aligned with Imix. It remains to be seen how exactly that relationship plays out.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 22, 2007)

Arthnek said:
			
		

> I find it tiresome to hear game developers bashing on AD&D.
> 
> The first comment in this thread which stated that monsters in the old monster manual were basically slapped together to see if they were fun and usually were not is completely wrong. (snip)



This was all real interesting (if self-congratulatory), but I believe you've misunderstood. From my reading of the quote, it seems clear to me he's talking about _homebrewing_ monsters for AD&D 1st and 2nd edition.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 24, 2007)

Yay, finally something about Eberron
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13890192&postcount=162



> We are planning to advance the timeline 2 years.
> 
> I don't think that timeline advancement will change the tone of the world. The Treaty of Thronehold will be two years more distant in the past, but the shadow of the Last War will loom just as large over the political landscape—quite possibly more so
> 
> ...


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 24, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Cuz everyone knows that evil is what's in, yo.    :\  Warlocks and Tieflings are the cool people that get to play with all the l33t evil powers that the Dark Lords pass out for free, like candy, to show people how awesome the dark side is.  You're not a _real hero_ unless your _emo_.



I am seriously wondering what the hell emo means to people, these days.  To me, it's the obnoxious, my girlfriend-left-me-and-I'm-a-clinical-depressive wuss-rock stuff that would find its way onto the punk compilation CDs I used to buy, forcing me to hit fast forward every few songs.  It ain't "dark and brooding"; it's _skinny and whining_.

But, yeah, tieflings without aasimars seems like a dumb idea to me, too.

Still, all the predictions about tieflings not being "heroic" sound incredibly weird to me.  I don't think they're going to come with an alignment restriction, you know?  And if--as many folks are bemoaning--their inclusion as a PC race suggests that they're actually relatively _common_ in the default setting, where's the sense in pigeonholing them as angsty outcasts?  I know I never played half-orcs that way, certainly.  The whole "one of my ancestors was evil so I'm inherently tainted" bit has always been deeply stupid.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I am seriously wondering what the hell emo means to people, these days.  To me, it's the obnoxious, my girlfriend-left-me-and-I'm-a-clinical-depressive wuss-rock stuff that would find its way onto the punk compilation CDs I used to buy, forcing me to hit fast forward every few songs.  It ain't "dark and brooding"; it's _skinny and whining_.
> 
> But, yeah, tieflings without aasimars seems like a dumb idea to me, too.
> 
> Still, all the predictions about tieflings not being "heroic" sound incredibly weird to me.  I don't think they're going to come with an alignment restriction, you know?  And if--as many folks are bemoaning--their inclusion as a PC race suggests that they're actually relatively _common_ in the default setting, where's the sense in pigeonholing them as angsty outcasts?  I know I never played half-orcs that way, certainly.  The whole "one of my ancestors was evil so I'm inherently tainted" bit has always been deeply stupid.



Yes, emo = "boo hoo", but there is a connection.  I blame White Wolf.  They set up the drama in the World of Darkness, and particularly Vampire: The Masquerade to generate character concepts that can be summarized in the following sentence:

"I am a misunderstood good guy trapped in the body of a villain, and sometimes I do bad things, but I feel awful about it afterwards (woe is me)."

Add in some Driz'zt, a dash of Angel, about ten years of goth culture (the bits of it that Jhonen Vasquez parodied, anyway), and you've got a recipe for weepy leather-clad demonspawn: Emo tieflings.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 24, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> "I am a misunderstood good guy trapped in the body of a villain, and sometimes I do bad things, but I feel awful about it afterwards (woe is me).".



You know, I read that and you know what it made me think of?

The first sentence makes me think of The Punisher. The second makes me think of Highlander.

In other words, there are way to play the "I'm a monster but I'm fighting for good" or "I do bad things but I'm not happy about it" and do it _well_. Hell, I would _expect_ "I do bad things but I don't like it" to come from Good characters who realize that their actions very well could hurt innocents.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> But, yeah, tieflings without aasimars seems like a dumb idea to me, too.




Although I could get right behind Eladrin being available as a good 'equivalent' to the Tieflings.

'cos Eladrin is a cooler name that is less likely to end up sounding like a donkey, if you know what I mean.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 24, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> ... where's the sense in pigeonholing them as angsty outcasts?  I know I never played half-orcs that way, certainly.  The whole "one of my ancestors was evil so I'm inherently tainted" bit has always been deeply stupid.




Actually, in anything but a super-egalitarian society (far surpassing even our fairly enlightened world), they are more than likely to be killed at birth.

As far as being raised amongst humans, I have a hard enough time believing that even a cambrion would survive, let alone it getting a chance to have a brood of its own. 

Almost every campaign setting out there works under the assumption that the general populace lives in an undereducated, pre-industrial society, where demons and devils are KNOWN to be evil... thus feared... thus hated.

Who would nurture a demon-spawn to adulthood? or better yet WILLINGLY have sex with a demon in the first place?

Any breeding would be through black magic pacts, rape, or succubi covertly gathering seed, but I seriously doubt any typical human/elf/dwarf/halfling society would welcome demons/devils or anything spawned by them with anything but hostility and violence.


Even in a world where my next-door neighbor is an elf and the new addition to the house was built by a dwarf, I'm gonna become an instant pariah bringing baby Neeshka to the towne faire.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 24, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Almost every campaign setting out there works under the assumption that the general populace lives in an undereducated, pre-industrial society, where demons and devils are KNOWN to be evil... thus feared... thus hated.
> 
> Who would nurture a demon-spawn to adulthood? or better yet WILLINGLY have sex with a demon in the first place?
> 
> Any breeding would be through black magic pacts, rape, or succubi covertly gathering seed, but I seriously doubt any typical human/elf/dwarf/halfling society would welcome demons/devils or anything spawned by them with anything but hostility and violence.



Cults. Evil societies. People living in the wilderness. Hell, Forgotten Realms has a whole area that has a lot of Elf or Orc versions of Tieflings, because demons in the area overtook a castle and the surrounding countryside and had specific breeding programs.

More reasonably, I'd say the Warlock or something appropriate. "My dad made a pact with a demon and it infused his body with the demon's powers. And that power carried over in his bloodline to me."

As for "bringing baby Neeshka to the towne faire", how about "exercising the Disguise skill'? Or even more likely, the Tiefling's fiendish appearance doesn't surface until it hits puberty.

The creator of Eberron suggested some Setting-specific origins for Tieflings; they're not from breeding with Fiends, but from births that occur when a plane is lined up with the stars and the Plane itself is touching the immediate area. And the tief's personality corresponds with the Plane that they are tied to - a Tief born when the Plane of Fire is in line with the site of his birth is passionate, chaotic and often fire obsessed. Tieflings could also come from births that occur in proximity to sites over-rich with dark magic (the Underdark, Mournland, etc).

I mean really, if you're going to go that far, how could Half-orcs be allowed to survive, since they're always the product of rape? Or wizards, because we're operating on an uneducated, pre-industrial society? If anything, necromancers would be mobbed on sight.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 24, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Although I could get right behind Eladrin being available as a good 'equivalent' to the Tieflings.
> 
> 'cos Eladrin is a cooler name that is less likely to end up sounding like a donkey, if you know what I mean.



Well, it doesn't take much to turn eladrin into something awful, either:
Eladrin, Elatrin, Elatrine, E-Latrine, ...


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 24, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Cults. Evil societies. People living in the wilderness. Hell, Forgotten Realms has a whole area that has a lot of Elf or Orc versions of Tieflings, because demons in the area overtook a castle and the surrounding countryside and had specific breeding programs.
> 
> More reasonably, I'd say the Warlock or something appropriate. "My dad made a pact with a demon and it infused his body with the demon's powers. And that power carried over in his bloodline to me."
> 
> ...




These are all pretty good ways to explain their possible existence for many campaigns, but unless you're using the evil society thing, it seems they'd still be pretty rare... especially to supplant a core race in the PHB1. 

I guess sometimes placating popularity trumps tradition or _my_ view of common sense.  :\


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 27, 2007)

Some interesting stuff today, particularly when I remember past criticisms of the developers.

Historical Perspective on D&D 3.0, Part II



> Multiclassing restrictions for monks and paladins. Fairly late in the 3.0 process, there was a push to get rid of them and let monks and pallies multiclass however they like. The playtesters told us with some certainty: "Don't you dare." So the multiclass restrictions remain.
> 
> And they're a mistake. ... With the benefit of hindsight, I wish we'd stood our ground--and I tend to hold playtester feedback in high regard, so that's a weird attitude for me to take.




In other words, yes, the developers listen to us. Sometimes we're dead wrong, but they still do what we suggest. 

Reverse Engineering & Campaign Starting  



> Given a stat block, such as for a male malenti (sahuagin) of legend cleric 7 or a female half-fiendish twelve-headed elite pyrohydra, one must take what is given and compare it with the original creature, figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Unfortunately, between point A and point B is a whole lot of math and deconstruction that requires consideration of not only the respective stat blocks, but also all of the peripheral “Gotcha” rules. Such rules are usually modifiers (often related to size class and the like) that are almost invariably forgotten or miscalculated. *As we come to the end of 3rd edition, the sheer number of Gotchas out there is daunting. The math and science are so finite that often repairing stat blocks becomes not a case of creating a flawless, pristine creature, but rather, a creature with a minimal amount of mistakes.* I’d like to think I catch everything, but I won’t delude myself. When you’re dealing with a combination of advancement, templates, class levels, and monstrous races in a limited amount of time, some mistakes are bound to slip by (which is part of the reason I also work on errata!)
> 
> And that’s why 4E represents a change in creature-making philosophy. The construction of monsters still appears to be a science, but it is no longer an exact science. Allowing ourselves and DMs the wiggle room to adapt and change monster stat blocks as they see fit *lifts the inane attention to detail required to create and edit creatures*, allowing the focus to fall on aspects of creation that are more fun (and ultimately important), such as overall mechanics, gameplay, powers and story.




So, to the people that have complained about some of the stat blocks: it comes down to flaws in the system. I am very heartened by the second bolded peice.

Recent Reading  

OK, nothing on D&D there but I like that Henisoo is reading basically the same list I am right now


----------



## Rechan (Sep 27, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> These are all pretty good ways to explain their possible existence for many campaigns, but unless you're using the evil society thing, it seems they'd still be pretty rare... especially to supplant a core race in the PHB1.



In my opinion, *PCs are rare*. 

That's the whole point of PCs. They are the exception to the norm, more than mere men, those who stand up and can make a difference. They have luck or fate or divinity or the power of magic on their side. I expect 90% of the world have NPC classes. 

So Tieflings being rare fit in with PCs being rare. It also means that Tieflings are more than likely than other races to be PCs, because the tiefling's existence is exceptional. 

It's like Supers or Mutants in Marvel comics. By all accounts, _they are rare_. It would make little sense to say "Since they're so rare, it makes no sense to have them as the main characters in a roleplaying game". 

I would _hate_ to find a city of tieflings where the streetcleaners are tieflings, the chimney sweeps are tieflings and the farmers surrounding the city are tieflings. Just as I'd hate to find a city where the bus drivers have super powers and the mailmen have superpowers.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Sep 27, 2007)

Deleted ... Moved to seperate thread.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 27, 2007)

Thanks for the links, WayneLigon.
-blarg


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Sep 28, 2007)

Something else interesting in Greg Bilsland's blog that WayneLigon linked to above:



> I will say that we have a Tiefling Warlord, a Rogue, a Human Wizard, and a *Half-Elf* Fighter.




We haven't seen very much about half-elves, just one early quote about their inspiring presence. Since this is a playtest group I think this is a confirmation of half-elfs in PHB1, if it was needed. Oddly, the Rogue has no race mentioned? Accident, or should we wildly over-speculate?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 28, 2007)

Check the news article for Rich's most recent post expanding on the cosmology from his most recent post.

For his off-topic comment, we've been sitting watching the roller coaster ride.  I got to see one of the '93 World Series games at the Vet (the one Schilling won).


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 28, 2007)

There's a note in David Noonan's blog I notice there's been almost no discussion of:


			
				David Noonan's blog said:
			
		

> I realize this is late, but Friday morning was just a leg-humper for me. In his blog, Rich Baker scoops me on the whole fireball crit thing. When that second crit happened, I remember thinking, "I should put that in the blog." Rich beat me to it. *Did he mention that one of the crits was against a shambling mound?* I'm not sure.



So apparently we can crit plants now, at least with fire-based spells. A minor change, but one that seemed to have gone unnoticed.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 28, 2007)

Wait a minute. Didn't he say he hit a troglodite? 

Maybe he didn't get a double crit (like I thought it was), but that he got two crits in the span of the night's encounters.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Sep 28, 2007)

Rich Baker wrote:



> I rolled not one, but *two* critical hits with fireball attack rolls last night. The second actually one-shotted a tough troglodyte skirmisher;




So two different criticals. That one of them is against a shambling mound is very interesting. I think this was previewed in SW Saga: there are very (any?) few things there that are immune to criticals.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 28, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> We haven't seen very much about half-elves, just one early quote about their inspiring presence. Since this is a playtest group I think this is a confirmation of half-elfs in PHB1, if it was needed. Oddly, the Rogue has no race mentioned? Accident, or should we wildly over-speculate?



I have a feeling there is still one or two races in the PHB1 that haven't been mentioned.  Or at least that they aren't allowed to confirm.

For instance, I think eladrin are IN the PHB1, but they've never actually SAID that.  I think at this point they aren't allowed to.  So, it may be that the player chose Eladrin and they can't say it.  As soon as something is leaked by one of the designers in a clear fashion, it sounds like the rest of them are allowed to say it.

In the same way that the Warlord kept being referred to as "a class that relies on tactics" before people knew the name Warlord.


----------



## Intrope (Sep 28, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I have a feeling there is still one or two races in the PHB1 that haven't been mentioned.  Or at least that they aren't allowed to confirm.
> 
> For instance, I think eladrin are IN the PHB1, but they've never actually SAID that.  I think at this point they aren't allowed to.  So, it may be that the player chose Eladrin and they can't say it.  As soon as something is leaked by one of the designers in a clear fashion, it sounds like the rest of them are allowed to say it.
> 
> In the same way that the Warlord kept being referred to as "a class that relies on tactics" before people knew the name Warlord.



 OTOH, a previous blog post mentioned the playtest characters (at 2, 4, 6 & 8th level?)--and one of those was an Eladrin Rogue.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Sep 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I expect 90% of the world have NPC classes.




If I remember correctly, in 3e, 90% of the world has Commoner class...  the other NPC classes take up anothe 5 or 6% of the world population.  The PC classes make up the other 4 or 5%...


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 4, 2007)

*Minor note on "Powers"*

From James Wyatt's blog:



> Rich Baker and I are finishing up the Player's Handbook writing this week. On my list for this morning: read through the Skills chapter (I think it's in pretty good shape), and write the first couple of pages for each of the Classes chapter, the Feats chapter, and the *Powers chapter*.




i) There's a Powers chapter in the PHB. As well as Skills, Classes and Feats chapters, but they're not surprises.

ii) From Rich Baker's post that's already linked on a front page, it looks like "Power" in 4e is a term that covers what were clerical spells and warlock invocations in 3e. Probably all spells from 3e, and at a guess maneuvers as well.

Just noting this since "Powers" in 3e referred to psionics, and this is a change in terminology.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Just noting this since "Powers" in 3e referred to psionics, and this is a change in terminology.




I'm thinking powers might be one of two things.  First, it might just be a way of classifying "class abilities."  Second, it might be a classification of the "at will" spells.


----------



## helium3 (Oct 4, 2007)

Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it. When people first started complaining about R&D bagging on the current edition I thought they were being overly sensitive. Now I'm just kinda sick of it.

Also, do the R&D guys all play in each other's campaigns? Seems kinda inbred to me if that's the case.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it.



Yeah, I want to see the "This worked great in 3.5, so we are changing it in 4E" comments.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yes, emo = "boo hoo", but there is a connection.  I blame White Wolf.  They set up the drama in the World of Darkness, and particularly Vampire: The Masquerade to generate character concepts that can be summarized in the following sentence:
> 
> "I am a misunderstood good guy trapped in the body of a villain, and sometimes I do bad things, but I feel awful about it afterwards (woe is me)."




I blame people that don't understand how personal horror works in a roleplaying game.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it. When people first started complaining about R&D bagging on the current edition I thought they were being overly sensitive. Now I'm just kinda sick of it.




What's the point in doing a new edition with changes if you aren't willing to be honest about the problems with the old edition? Why change the game if everything you have to say about it is all sunshine and daisies?



> Also, do the R&D guys all play in each other's campaigns? Seems kinda inbred to me if that's the case.




Yeah, it's totally bad for a group of professional game designers to play in eachother's games to test out mechanics and playstyles, especially when they all work together at the same company and usually on the same products.

Totally bad idea.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 6, 2007)

Mike Mearls' latest describes the current state of the PHB in general terms and what they're looking for from playtesting.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's totally bad for a group of professional game designers to play in eachother's games to test out mechanics and playstyles, especially when they all work together at the same company and usually on the same products.
> 
> Totally bad idea.



To be fair. Having fresh eyes, people who DON'T know the 4e system as its various incarnations, is also helpful.

But I believe that Noonan's Eberron playtest game has two guys in it who are NOT WotC employees; they're just casual gamers in the Seattle area.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> To be fair. Having fresh eyes, people who DON'T know the 4e system as its various incarnations, is also helpful.




Hence the reason we have the RPGA/DDI playtest.

And since every major edition has a playtest of that nature, I think that complaining about developers playing with other developers is just an excuse to find something to bag on them about.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 6, 2007)

From Mearls blogpost:



> For something like feats, we've polished the mechanics of existing feats and identified areas where we need a few more of them. As we work through the home stretch playtests, we'll likely send out new feats for testing and comment to fill those holes. At this stage, it's much more an issue of making sure we have a good *mix of feats for every class and race.*



So there are race feats.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So there are race feats.



Not necessarily.  This reads more to me as "A good mix of feats that people playing every race and class will want to take."

For instance, Toughness is a feat you might want to take as a Dwarf to feel more Dwarf-like even if it isn't a Dwarf only feat.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 6, 2007)

Weren't racial feats mentioned in the very first Design & Development article covering races? I don't think there's too much of a doubt of them being in (with the usual "everything's in flux' caveat).


----------

