# Jason Bulmahn Speaks about DDXP(His take on the system)



## SPECTRE666 (Mar 6, 2008)

-Jason Bulmahn Speaks about 4E He works for Paizo. I found this on the WotC forums. Good and Bad points.
[SBLOCK]*Jason Bulmahn-He works for Paizo(Whom have not decide if 4e will work for them yet..)

DDXP Roundup

location: Home

mood: contemplative*

/6070.html


So, DDXP is done and over with. I had a good time at the show, despite my poor showing in the D&D Miniatures Limited Championship (again... damn you 4th round redraft). The con for me started out on Thursday with the seminar about 4E, followed by both of the preview adventures, back to back. I will go into those, and my observations about the game a bit later. Following those two games, I had a few drinks with friends and wandered off to bed.

Friday was a minis day for me, during which I played the prerelease event for the new D&D Miniatures game. This was my first time playing and it took a bit of adjustment. The new game is pretty strongly based off the 4E rules, but one thing completely threw me for a loop. Pits. In the new game, when an effect pushed a opposing fig into a pit, you reroll the attack that pushed it. If you score a second hit, the figure is destroyed. In the first match, this little rule allowed me to win my game in the beginning of the third round, after being in a loosing position only minutes before. In the second game, my opponent had two figs that could push me, so I lost. In the third game, my opponent had no figs that could push so I won. After that, being 2-1 and feeling a bit dirty about the pit ruling bit, I dropped out. To be honest, until they fix this horribly broken rule, 2.0 DDM will not be the game for me (although I have heard that a change is most certainly in the works). After this, I had way too much beer, and a bit too much Vodka, and I stumbled off to bed.

Saturday was the Limited Championship and I woke with a buzzing skull. Not a good start. Despite this, I still made it to the tournament on time. It started at 9am and I had a pretty good first pull. After 4 rounds, I was 3-1, feeling like I had a pretty good shot of pulling out enough wins to make it to the top 8. Unfortunately, as it happens every year, my second pull was not so great. I had a good mix of figs, but nothing that could deal more than 15 points of damage. After losing my next made, dropping me to 3-2 with terrible tie breakers (I got paired down in round 3), I decided to cut my losses to spend more time chatting with friends and other gamers. More drinking followed that night... a lot more. 

Sunday.. ugg.. I slept in. Woke up at about 11 and hung out with folks as the con slowly wound down. I had breakfast with Chris Perkins, which made for entertaining discussions, as always. Chatted with some more people and finally went out to dinner at a great Italian restaurant a couple of blocks away. More drinks were had, including some fine wine, and a great glass of cognac to wash it all down (I love desert liquor.. what a great concept). Anywho... that was all for Sunday. Most of the other folks were flying home, but not me.

By the time I woke on Monday, most of the rest of the con folks were gone. I grabbed a shuttle to head over to the subway to catch a ride to the national mall. I walked up to the capital (photos to come later) and then made my way over to the national gallery. After seeing a veritable art education worth of masterpieces, I made my way over to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. I had missed both these museums on my first trip and was quite glad to catch them this time around. Great museums... from Van Goghs to the Hope Diamond, how could you ask for a better day. From there, I walked over to 1600 Pennsylvania for a quick photo or two and caught a train back to my hotel. The flights home were long and grueling.. but here I am and not too much worse for the wear.

But enough of all that... on to the real details. 4E

First.. a disclaimer. These are MY opinions. They might not even be good ones. I have not seen all the rules. These thoughts are cobbled together through my limited experiences at DDXP, chats with the folks at the show, and information from previous announcements. So, take them for what they are, the ramblings of one gamer/game designer. If you want to know what Paizo thinks or what Paizo is going to do about 4E, wait for their official announcements on the matter. One last thing, if you are trying to avoid spoilers about the preview events or 4E, turn back now. I am not going to hold anything back.

Intro
So, first I played "Excape from Sembia". In this adventure, I played a tiefling wizard. The adventure itself was pretty straight forward. Deliver a message. When that gets botched, run from the guards and escape the country before they catch and punish you. The adventure featured five encounters, the first of which was a fight against some guards, while trying to deliver the message. The second was a skill encounter (more on this later). The rest were all fights, one against humanoids, one against undead, and one against guards. We had no real problems with this adventure and played through to its conclusion. The second adventure was "Scalegloom Hall", in which I played a halfling paladin. This was a dungeon adventure that also featured five encounters, all of which were fights. The first four were all against Kobolds, while the final combat was against a dragon. The kobolds fights were terribly easy and the dragon fight was incredibly hard. We still won out with no casualties, and played the game to its conclusion.

Observations
Well, there were a number of interesting observations I made as I played the games. Some things I liked and others I didn't. I am going to try to focus on big-picture issues instead of smaller rules issues (although I am sure a couple will sneak in now and again).

- The game was pretty easy to learn. We picked up the basic mechanics with relative ease. That said, some of the finer points of our characters took an encounter or two to figure out. This seems pretty normal to me.

- We all had a class-relative action to take pretty much every round. In 3.5, you would sometimes get forced to perform actions that were not part of your core character concept, such as having the wizard attack with a crossbow. While I consider this a plus, it did lead to repetitive action (something I was hoping 4E would avoid) after you used up your more limited powers. In other words, once I ran out of my per encounter powers, I pretty much used the same at-will power over and over because it was the best option I had.

- Once you face a monster, you know what to expect the next time you face that monster. This was very true in Scalegloom Hall. We faced the same kobolds again and again, and they performed pretty similarly over and over again. Since monsters do not have as many options available to them, they really only have a few things to do. This may be a factor of them being low level, but looking at the Pit Fiend post, I kinda doubt it. There were some variances, due to the room set ups (like swinging skulls and a rolling boulder), but setting those things aside, the kobold slingers did the same thing in every fight we faced them. I am not sure I like this, but there are worse things I suppose.

- Static random rolls are far more common than I would prefer. PC saves are pretty much always an 10+ (unless you have one of a few adjustments). This includes death saves. In addition, monster powers recharge on a random roll, usually somewhere between 3+ and 6+ on a 1d6. When you combine these two, it means that the fights can be very "swingy". If your group fails a bunch of these rolls, while the DM makes his recharge rolls, you are in for a tough fight. Meanwhile, the same PCs fighting the same monsters might have an easy time if the rolls are reversed (this is, I think, why some groups got TPK'd in some of the mods, while others had a breeze). I am not saying that I like things to be predictable, but since these rolls never really change as you go up in level (afaik) it seems a little off. A 30th Lv Fighter should have an easier time shaking off the effects of a simple poison than a 1st Lv wizard. Maybe that is just me.

- I am not sure you can die in 4E. Let me clarify that a bit. I am sure you can die, but it seems to me that you need to throw a vastly overchallenging encounter at the PCs, or you need to be a bit of a jerk. When a character drops below 0, you can go as low as half your total HP below 0 before dying. Each round you make a save to see if you get closer to death (9 or less), remain unchanged (10-19) or heal (20+). You can fail twice before dying on the third fail (the three strikes rule). With monster damage being what it is, I do not see PCs getting knocked that far into negatives in one shot without a crit (and even that is not a guarantee at higher levels). I am not saying it will never happen, the odds just seem slim. So, if that is out, you have to worry about the three strikes rule. It seems to me that any group that groks the system is going to make sure to save anyone before that happens if possible. The only other option left, then, is to gang beat a downed PC until they are dead. This seems highly unlikely to me in a group amongst friends. I generally never used coup de grace in 3.5 unless it was a particularly evil villain or other extenuating circumstances. I do not see myself doing it in 4E either. So.. while I think some PCs will die, I don't think it is going to happen too often. Without the serious threat of death, I feel that takes a big bite out of the excitement. In the games I played, we were never really in danger until the dragon, and that was only because the dragon was a level 4 solo monster against 1st level PCs. The rest seemed like cake.

- More Options, Fewer Choices. Both of the characters I played had a number of options, but in each combat, I found that every round, only one was a good choice (usually an encounter power if I had it, daily power if I needed it, or an at will if nothing else was available). This might just be an artifact of not seeing the whole rules (I hope so), because once a fight got past a few rounds, I found myself taking the same action over and over again. 3.5 certainly suffers from this problem as well to some extent. The difference here is that you would never dare to try and think about what other options might work in the fight because your at-will powers are clearly far superior. As a 4E wizard, I would never use my dagger unless I had too, because magic missile was a better option in just about every way. In 3.5, I might still use that dagger, crossbow, or even do something weird like aid another if I ran out of useful spells. I am not necessarily saying either is better, but it seemed a lot more binary to me.

- Sacred Hamburger. I had to roll to hit with a magic missile. Ugg. I missed a number of times (3 out of 9 times in fact). The guy who played the wizard in my other table did a lot worse, missing 7 out of 11 times. Goodbye Chaos and Law. Bye bye specialist wizards. See you later (like next year.. or even longer) barbarian, bard, druid, monk and sorcerer. No more spells (Wizard and Cleric abilities are called spells and prayers respectively, but they work like every other class's abilities). I have a bad feeling this is only the tip of the iceberg. I hope I am wrong.

- Almost everything revolves around combat. Nearly all my powers and abilities had something to do with combat and dealing damage. Although I was never a fan of the Craft rules, they had a place in the game, as did a host of other spells and abilities that allowed you to do things that did not necessarily involve spilling blood. I heard someone at the show mention that even the Maze ability deals damage now. Maze! If such is the case, I am wondering if there is an encounter power called "Identify" that deals 1d8+Int damage and you learn the power of the one of the target's magic items on a hit. Anyway... Diplomacy is still in there, as is Stealth, and a few other knowledge skills, but it seems like the rest is for killing.

- Skill challenges seemed fun. In "Escape from Sembia" we needed to hide from some guards for a bit. To this end, we each picked a way to do it. I chose to hide, others tried to run, and so on. Once we decided, we had a choice of taking the easy way, normal way, or the hard way. This modified the DC, but if we failed on the easy way, it came with a penalty above normal failure. On the opposite end, if we succeeded on the hard way, we got an extra bonus. While this seemed fun to me, it did have a couple of weird bits I am still trying to work out. Why not just combine it into one system, with benchmarks of success (you made it by 10, you not only hid, but you also learned a bit about your pursuers for example). I can see some advantages, but they seem less to me than the added complexity that drew me out of the moment.

- Everything scales. Damage, Hit Points, AC, Defenses, Attack rolls.. everything scales up at a pretty reliable rate. I can see how this might balance higher level play and that is a good thing. On the other hand, it kinda feels to me like you cannot break away from that curve to excel in anything. When fighting monsters similar to you, the fighter and the wizard have a similar difficulty level attacking it. This changes a bit depending upon what defense or AC you are shooting at, but they are still kinda close (it seems). What this seems to mean though, is that a lot of class niches seem blurred. In earlier editions, various monsters allowed the different classes to shine, which I feel is important to the game. I am shaky on this point, but it did make me wonder why everyone was not playing a cleric or paladin. They attacked nearly the same way as everyone else and could throw around the ability to use healing surges quite easily.

- Power Variety. This is an unfounded fear I am having. Most of the powers of a class all seem to do things along a similar line. Clerics, for example, seem to have a bunch of powers that do radiant damage. While this might work fine for a sun cleric. What am I gonna do about clerics of a shadow god or frost god or nature god? Not all of them can do radiant damage all the time. I hope there are a ton of powers for me to chose from because I really do not want to have to create a bunch to make my pantheons work. The same goes for just about every other class, each in its own way. I need a ton of options, but with every class getting a list of them, I am worried that it means less for those that really need it. I don't know, but some rumors that were going around the show have me a bit worried. This one is a wait and see I guess.

- No reliable coolness. Having to roll for nearly every power means that they miss sometimes. This really sucks when you burn your daily power and have it miss. While many have effects on a miss (I would guess), it is still a big letdown. I don't think I ever hit with my daily powers.

Wrap-Up
I am sure I will come up with a dozen more points in the coming days and weeks, but this is all I got for now. I think 4E is an interesting game and I will certainly be giving it a closer look. I have a lot of apprehension right now though. The games I played were fun, but they seemed awfully rushed to me, showing off a tiny slice of a larger game. I know some changes were made at the show, some of which might get folded back into the core books, which I guess go to the printer very soon. I am full of questions right now... only the GSL and the 4E rules will truly answer them I guess. Will 4E be a good game? I think so. Will 4E be D&D? I don't know. The waiting is killing me.

Static" monsters. 
(Relatively) "static" characters. 
(Apparently) "static" tactics.[/SBLOCK]


SPECTRE666


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 6, 2008)

Heh, I don't think I've seen a single review from a Paizo guy that wasn't DEEPLY critical or suspicious of 4e... I'll be pretty surprised if they end up dumping 5 grand to become an early developer.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 6, 2008)

I think a lot of the reviewers seem a wee bit disappointed. Some of their gripes are complaints about stuff that has always been a 'problem', just in a different way. So what if you only have 3 things to do as a fighter? It's better than 1 thing isn't it? Or maybe a few options will make you feel more restrained than no options? Strange, the human psyche.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 6, 2008)

The comment about it being impossible to die seemed a bit wierd....I know of quite a few characters who died in DDE, including a number of TPKs.


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 6, 2008)

Interesting.  A lot of the things he found to be lacking are things I've been excited about.  I ran a game tonight (similar to the kobold adventure, but as a full game, not just encounters) with the party getting in different fights & the warlock only used 2 eldritch blasts the whole time, cleric only throwing out a total of 4 lances, and the fighter only brought the cleave twice.  In 3 combats that doesn't seem to me like the players are using the same things over and over.  I don't know what it might be like in an extended dungeon, but fighting 10 kobolds in a dungeon seemed to have them try interesting combinations of attacks, rather than just spewing magic missile.

As to the comments on monsters; I can agree with his thoughts, except I didn't ever see much different in 3.x.  The biggest difference is that monsters have specific racial powers which really seems to make them different than others.  Had I run rooms full of the same creatures over and over, though, I could see the tedium building. (though that's what the different monster roles should be for.  The kobold skirmisher & dragonshield soldier sure don't feel like the same creature to me.)

Ktulu


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

> If your group fails a bunch of these rolls, while the DM makes his recharge rolls, you are in for a tough fight.



I can't believe he said that and expected anyone to take him seriously.  Yes, when the DM rolls well and you roll poorly, you have a hard time.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 6, 2008)

Ktulu said:
			
		

> Interesting.  A lot of the things he found to be lacking are things I've been excited about.  I ran a game tonight (similar to the kobold adventure, but as a full game, not just encounters) with the party getting in different fights & the warlock only used 2 eldritch blasts the whole time, cleric only throwing out a total of 4 lances, and the fighter only brought the cleave twice.  In 3 combats that doesn't seem to me like the players are using the same things over and over.  I don't know what it might be like in an extended dungeon, but fighting 10 kobolds in a dungeon seemed to have them try interesting combinations of attacks, rather than just spewing magic missile.
> 
> As to the comments on monsters; I can agree with his thoughts, except I didn't ever see much different in 3.x.  The biggest difference is that monsters have specific racial powers which really seems to make them different than others.  Had I run rooms full of the same creatures over and over, though, I could see the tedium building. (though that's what the different monster roles should be for.  The kobold skirmisher & dragonshield soldier sure don't feel like the same creature to me.)
> 
> Ktulu




Also, D&D has always been about new monsters. You are not really supposed to combat kobolds five encounters in a row. In D&D there should be a new combo of mad monsters behind every single door. Even if it makes no sense at all.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 6, 2008)

I think some of his points are well taken, but I will say this. I'm getting tired of people mentioning combats being repetitive when its 1st level!!!

I mean a 1st level wizard throws a couple of magic missiles and then is shooting a crossbow (often badly) for the rest of the day. Then fact that character can do 2 or 3 things well I consider a HUGE improvement.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 6, 2008)

Jason Bulmahn said:
			
		

> -Jason Bulmahn Speaks about 4E
> 
> 
> snip
> ...





When was it ever different? At least the wizard has an actual power to use instead of mucking about with daggers. Also with more numbers in a battle then there should be greater tactical variation in each depending on terrain. I suspect that some DMs will have to learn a little about skirmish level tactics and not rely on the monster stats alone to challange parties.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Interesting.

After reading all of the previews (i.e. character sheets, adventure reconstructions) from the D&DE one of the big questions I also found myself asking was "So... what makes one class unique from one another again?"

While I understand that there are now supposed to be clearly defined roles (i.e. Defender, Striker, etc), I just didn't see a whole lot of difference between most of the classes. 

I personally thought that the Halfling Paladin had a striking, game-altering ability with the Divine Challenge (it really forces monsters to go after the Paladin or else they'd suffer a world of hurt). However, the rest of the abilities honestly seem like different variations of minor damage bonuses, or additional ways to do a bit of clever maneuvering (i.e. "shifting" an opponent's position).

Maybe later on with the whole book available we'll be able to see the big differences between each class. But as it stands it seems as though they erred on the side of maintaining game balance (by keeping everyone more or less similar) rather than on the side of giving each class a true sense of uniqueness.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I think a lot of the reviewers seem a wee bit disappointed. Some of their gripes are complaints about stuff that has always been a 'problem', just in a different way. So what if you only have 3 things to do as a fighter? It's better than 1 thing isn't it? Or maybe a few options will make you feel more restrained than no options? Strange, the human psyche.




Not really. I think the problem he pointed out is the Law of Darwinian Game Option Selection - No matter how many options there are in the game, there are always a few, clearly superior options that will _always_ be chosen by players who are driven to succeed.

(Okay, I made that term up, but what I described is rather Darwinian.)

Which is a bit disappointing since that's really not much different from 3.X. Some choices are still better than others.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think some of his points are well taken, but I will say this. I'm getting tired of people mentioning combats being repetitive when its 1st level!!!
> 
> I mean a 1st level wizard throws a couple of magic missiles and then is shooting a crossbow (often badly) for the rest of the day. Then fact that character can do 2 or 3 things well I consider a HUGE improvement.




I dunno. I've done plenty of creative stuff with level 1 characters. People just have to know to use all of their character abilities - such as Cantrips which are typically ignored by other players.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

> Which is a bit disappointing since that's really not much different from 3.X. Some choices are still better than others.



I'm afraid that it's a basic tenet of life.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I can't believe he said that and expected anyone to take him seriously.  Yes, when the DM rolls well and you roll poorly, you have a hard time.




There are ways to mitigate the effect of good or bad rolling though. Some people choose to make powerful builds. Others employ various methods (i.e. maneuvering) to get some sort of combat advantage (i.e. flanking), although in 3E this kind of bonus is so small that it's generally relevant only at low levels. 

Some other game systems require players to roll a heck of a lot of dice - which is one way to smooth out good or bad rolling by simply making sure everyone rolls more.

What the reviewer is likely saying is that these safeguards weren't present, at least during the demo. Decisive dice rolls are few in number so good or bad luck doesn't "smoothen out". In-built character bonuses and bonuses gained by battlefield gymnastics don't seem to yield a lot of dividends either. And that's why it's a cause for concern.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I can't believe he said that and expected anyone to take him seriously.  Yes, when the DM rolls well and you roll poorly, you have a hard time.




Yeah, I can see where that might seem a bit obvious. What I was trying to get across is this. The balancing mechanism for the encounter powers of monsters is a random rechange mechanic. If your DM has a string of lucky rolls in this regard, the fight is going to be much harder than it would be if he rolled an average amount. It would be like the DM rolling 1 for a 3.5 dragon's breath weapon recharge a number of rounds in a row. While this only has a 25% chance of happening each round, some of the monsters I saw had a recharge % greater than this. I am not 100% sure this is a huge problem, but it struck me as a bit odd.

Meh...

Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that it's a basic tenet of life.




Very true, but with just 3 or so at-will choices per character, I was kinda expecting all to be equally useful in most situations. As it stands, I could see one clear "optimal" at-will choice for each character. The others are simply too conditional to be used on a regular basis. 

And it's worth noting that in 3.X, the game was replete with highly conditional feats and abilities that saw little use. I was kinda hoping they didn't repeat that in 4E.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Which is a bit disappointing since that's really not much different from 3.X. Some choices are still better than others.




Welcome to tactics, and for that matter, any situation with multiple options.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think some of his points are well taken, but I will say this. I'm getting tired of people mentioning combats being repetitive when its 1st level!!!
> 
> I mean a 1st level wizard throws a couple of magic missiles and then is shooting a crossbow (often badly) for the rest of the day. Then fact that character can do 2 or 3 things well I consider a HUGE improvement.




I do agree with this to some extent. The wizard actually doing magic every round is an improvement over trying to shoot a crossbow poorly. From a purely mechanical perspective, however, if you strip away what the actual action is, you are still taking the same one over and over again. Once again, I am not 100% sure this is a huge problem. It was 1st level and all. It was just a thought I was having.

Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Welcome to tactics, and for that matter, any situation with multiple options.




I was expecting that, truth be told. I was hoping it would not be so clear cut. If I had more than 1 enemy within a small area, the fire blast ability was the best choice. If not, magic missile was the way to go. There were some mitigating factors some of the time I guess. Hmm... I need to ruminate on this a bit more. 

Jason

Edit: Ach.. Zinegata beat me to the same point.....


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can see where that might seem a bit obvious. What I was trying to get across is this. The balancing mechanism for the encounter powers of monsters is a random rechange mechanic. If your DM has a string of lucky rolls in this regard, the fight is going to be much harder than it would be if he rolled an average amount. It would be like the DM rolling 1 for a 3.5 dragon's breath weapon recharge a number of rounds in a row. While this only has a 25% chance of happening each round, some of the monsters I saw had a recharge % greater than this. I am not 100% sure this is a huge problem, but it struck me as a bit odd.
> 
> Meh...
> 
> ...




Actually, I think your instincts were correct in this regard.

It's generally not good to have the game change decisively because of a few dice rolls. You generally want a lot of dice rolls to "smoothen" out the chance that a player will get too lucky. That's why many games such as Risk, A&A, and Heroscape uses tons of dice rolls.

In contrast, letting the game boil down to one roll is generally too swingy and can be highly unbalancing. For instance, in Warhammer 40K, melee is generally considered superior to shooting. This is because in melee, an entire unit can be wiped out by a single bad die roll (a morale check), and destroying a unit entirely nets a huge amount of victory points. By contrast, wiping out an enemy unit by shooting requires a good die roll with each and every shot. 

Still, some games thrive on having few die rolls. But if balance was an important game objective (and it seems to be, given all of the emphasis on getting the math right), I'm not entirely sure this was the right move.


----------



## Alnag (Mar 6, 2008)

Few days ago I've posted a thread asking if the cost payed for balance isn't diversity. This review seems to support my worst worries...


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can see where that might seem a bit obvious. What I was trying to get across is this. The balancing mechanism for the encounter powers of monsters is a random rechange mechanic. If your DM has a string of lucky rolls in this regard, the fight is going to be much harder than it would be if he rolled an average amount. It would be like the DM rolling 1 for a 3.5 dragon's breath weapon recharge a number of rounds in a row. While this only has a 25% chance of happening each round, some of the monsters I saw had a recharge % greater than this. I am not 100% sure this is a huge problem, but it struck me as a bit odd.
> 
> Meh...
> 
> ...



I appreciate the explanation.  It strikes me though that a 3.x party running into bodaks and having a bad day on the dice is likely to go in the toilet pretty quickly.  I've seen girallons evicerate a healthy party simply because they won initiative.  With 4e, the larger number of hitpoints, the modest durational damage, absence of a 'swingy' standard/full attack bimodal system and the lack of save or die effects would seem to offset the issues you raise.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I appreciate the explanation.  It strikes me though that a 3.x party running into bodaks and having a bad day on the dice is likely to go in the toilet pretty quickly.  I've seen girallons evicerate a healthy party simply because they won initiative.  With 4e, the larger number of hitpoints, the modest durational damage, absence of a 'swingy' standard/full attack bimodal system and the lack of save or die effects would seem to offset the issues you raise.




I completely agree with your examples. My point though is this. The saves vs bodaks and the init rolls vs the four armed monkeys of doom are both rolls that the characters can influence with their build. These rolls are clearly outside the PCs (or even DMs) influence (afaik), making them a wild card in any combat (just like the 3.0 dragon breath weapon).

That said, I can certainly see where you are coming from. I am in a more hesitant mood right now I guess.

Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Welcome to tactics, and for that matter, any situation with multiple options.




True, but again the problem is that some abilities are simply too conditional. They are clearly to be used only in certain situation.

I would argue that true tactics is the use of the same tools, but in very different ways depending on the situation. For instance, let us use the example of movement allowance. A character may move five squares every round. That may seem simple and "boring", but a true tactician realizes that they can manipulate this movement in a heck of a lot of ways in order to defeat the enemy.

For instance, rather than just charge an enemy two square away, maybe you could decide to swing around and hit them from behind. Or you could decide to move to an entirely different part of the battlefield, to nail a different opponent. Or, you could just take one step backwards, so you have a clear line of sight against an enemy spellcaster hiding in the rear. With a clear LOS, you can now nail the spellcaster with your bow or spells.

That's the proper application of tactics. By contrast, having an ability that pretty much says "Use me against undead" (i.e. Turn Undead) or something similar is just adding new tools to your tool kit. And it doesn't take a lot of thinking if you need to choose between a screwdriver and a wrench when you want to tighten a loose pipe.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Actually, I think your instincts were correct in this regard.
> 
> It's generally not good to have the game change decisively because of a few dice rolls. You generally want a lot of dice rolls to "smoothen" out the chance that a player will get too lucky. That's why many games such as Risk, A&A, and Heroscape uses tons of dice rolls.
> 
> ...



Okay, let's try this again.  This time with context clues.


> If your group fails a *bunch* of these rolls, while the DM makes his recharge rolls, you are in for a tough fight.


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2008)

One thing I found interesting was that the designers of the modules didn't design the characters - for instance, Mearls was surprised that there was no rogue and only 2 melee, both defenders and said he'd have done things differently if he'd known.

On that note, I actually thought the wizard could have used a non-Reflex power... swap the races between the warlock and wizard and have the wizard with ray of frost, and suddenly the wizard's design space opens up a fair bit. 

I also found the ranger the least interesting of the bunch, even though it's one of the fan favorites because its encounter and daily powers were too specialized for my taste  and it overall lacked any control or 'wow' moments, except for the 'Whee, I killed two mooks off the bat' with the daily. Yet... it is one of the most popular among fans, so clearly there is a subset of player who is happy with a ranged character who does careful attack over and over again from a safe vantage point. Perhaps because that's 'normal' for 3e, whereas the wizard feels more restricted? I don't know.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Mar 6, 2008)

I am starting to feel that 4E is going to stifle creativity...a lot.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> I completely agree with your examples. My point though is this. The saves vs bodaks and the init rolls vs the four armed monkeys of doom are both rolls that the characters can influence with their build. These rolls are clearly outside the PCs (or even DMs) influence (afaik), making them a wild card in any combat (just like the 3.0 dragon breath weapon).
> 
> That said, I can certainly see where you are coming from. I am in a more hesitant mood right now I guess.
> 
> ...



Point taken.  It seems that irrespective of the 'swing' built in to the 4e mechanics you mention, there is also an implicit opportunity for mitigation.  The low damage effects and high hitpoints I mentioned before seem to provide(in my admittedly limited experience) a chance for PC response to actually matter.  Defenders can step into the gap, action dice can be spent, buffs can happen in real time without "putting down the sword".  

In any case, sorry if I was overly harsh in my initial comment.  Sometimes it's easy to forget that the internet is a public place.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can see where that might seem a bit obvious. What I was trying to get across is this. The balancing mechanism for the encounter powers of monsters is a random rechange mechanic. If your DM has a string of lucky rolls in this regard, the fight is going to be much harder than it would be if he rolled an average amount. It would be like the DM rolling 1 for a 3.5 dragon's breath weapon recharge a number of rounds in a row. While this only has a 25% chance of happening each round, some of the monsters I saw had a recharge % greater than this. I am not 100% sure this is a huge problem, but it struck me as a bit odd.




But doesn't that add an element of uncertainty and variability that would make fights with the same monster type less repetitive, since fighting the same creature twice can be quite different if one is chock full of special powers, while the other is less flashy? I mean, it makes monsters less predictable than monster from older editions, who get a clearly defined 1/day or 1/round ability.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Mar 6, 2008)

I am gonna be seriously annoyed if high level characters are resorting to casting magic missile and the like over and over again because they run out of 'options'.  That's just boring.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

Magic missile may be the worst option in most cases.  Leave that to the strikers.  The wizard should be dropping area attacks to get the baddies nice and bloodied.


----------



## Victim (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> I was expecting that, truth be told. I was hoping it would not be so clear cut. If I had more than 1 enemy within a small area, the fire blast ability was the best choice. If not, magic missile was the way to go. There were some mitigating factors some of the time I guess. Hmm... I need to ruminate on this a bit more.
> 
> Jason
> 
> Edit: Ach.. Zinegata beat me to the same point.....




Where is the real choice though?  Let's say that using Fireblast is the no brainer when it can hit multiple guys (I'm not sure that it is, since concentrated damage is generally more valuable since it means enemies drop faster and MM has twice as much range).  So then the big picture is: "How can our group get the enemies into a tightly packed formation via our movement and powers that shift enemies around?"  Of course, that needs be weighed against priorities like not dying, or having rangers/warlocks manipulate the enemy nearest to them for their curse/quarry stuff, etc.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Okay, let's try this again.  This time with context clues.




The "bunch" you refer to is still just a few dice rolls (relatively speaking). Assume a fight lasts five rounds, and all five of those rounds the monster is able to recharge his ability. That's a mere five dice rolls.

By contrast - take a look at the other game examples I showed. Just _one_ combat round in Risk typically requires five dice rolls - 3 from the attacker, and 2 from the defender. And it generally takes multiple combat rounds to resolve the conquest of a territory. And it often takes multiple rounds just to resolve a battle for one territory (of which there are dozens). 

When I say a lot of dice rolls, I mean a _lot_ of dice rolls.

To be fair though, this method does require more dice-rolling than the old dragon breath method so it's a little "smoother".


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2008)

That said... the ongoing damage from the dragon's breath doesn't stack, so it's not drastically better than its other options that it really breaks the bank if it rolls particularly well on its recharge rolls and it appears to be _less_ likely to allow a dragon to breath _Every round_ than previous editions.

Amusingly, a lot of the downsides of reviews have been what I'd consider as "Better than 3e, but not as much better as I wanted it to be"


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2008)

4E combat at 1st level is swingy because a black dragon might roll high on 3-4 recharge rolls. Okay. Compare to: 3E combat at 1st level is swingy because an ogre might roll middling-to-high on one damage roll. Context please, people.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2008)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> I am starting to feel that 4E is going to stifle creativity...a lot.




Why?

I'm curious what there is in this post which elicits this reaction.


----------



## arscott (Mar 6, 2008)

Wait...  The sun cleric has a bunch of radiant powers... And that's a bad thing?

Am I missing something?


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 6, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> Am I missing something?



I think that the fear is that "This cleric has radiant powers, so every cleric must have radiant powers."

As a side note: all 4E fighters will be dwarven women.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 6, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I'm curious what there is in this post which elicits this reaction.




The reference to limited number of abilities.  WotC has pretty much said once you reach a certain point the gaining of abilities stops and you only replace or swap out abilities.  The lack of diversity is characters such as wizard won't have as many spells to call upon through the course of the game thereby restricting the way they are played.  People like diversity, but if you are restricting what everyone can do so they all do the same number of actions then there really isn't any diversity.  You get game balance this way, but lose the diversity in the return.  Both characters able to only do x number of actions means the only difference is in how you do it, with the odds of being similar now more profound.  A good example of this was the comparison someone did in another post concerning the ranger and warlock, both strikers, who have an attack doing a d10 + modifier.  Once all the dailies and encounter powers have been used, they will both fall back to doing their d10 attack action, thus the only difference between them is how they are supposedly doing their damage as the action is technically the same thing, leaving not much diversity between them.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 6, 2008)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> I am gonna be seriously annoyed if high level characters are resorting to casting magic missile and the like over and over again because they run out of 'options'.  That's just boring.



No, that's the 3E wizard. The 4E wizard doesn't "run out" of higher-level at-will powers.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> The "bunch" you refer to is still just a few dice rolls (relatively speaking). Assume a fight lasts five rounds, and all five of those rounds the monster is able to recharge his ability. That's a mere five dice rolls.




Actually, the bunch to which he is referring is talking about save rolls, which, in a party of 6, over your 5 round combat (although it seems combats are likely to be nearer 10 rounds in duration) is closer to 30 rolls than 5. Surely that's approaching a lot of rolls?


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2008)

It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> A good example of this was the comparison someone did in another post concerning the ranger and warlock, both strikers, who have an attack doing a d10 + modifier.  Once all the dailies and encounter powers have been used, they will both fall back to doing their d10 attack action, thus the only difference between them is how they are supposedly doing their damage as the action is technically the same thing, leaving not much diversity between them.




I saw the post where someone said that, and I was very surprised - in my experience the warlock player has very good reasons for moving between eldritch blast, evil eye and ray of frost, to target different defences (and typically focussed on evil eye most of the time when there was a single bad guy because the side effect was so good). The Ranger was a bit of a one trick pony but mostly because he didn't consider the benefits that nimble strike could give him in terms of mobility and keeping out of the way (he was very much in a 3e "stand still and full attack" sort of mindset).

Cheers


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2008)

I think that many people see the pregens and focus on what power does how much damage ignoring the additional effects. Sure almost all classes have a definite main at-will nuke but several of their other powers have rider effects that can prove very useful in the battlefield. Offense is not always the best defense you know?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.



Well, aren't you already writing the reason why they "nitpick" - they have to lose the most if 4E fails. And pretending that a weakness or possible problem doesn't exist won't help them if players still notice the weaknesses and encounter the problems and hate the game for it. 

Unless you believe that them glossing over it and highlighting the positive points means that more people will get enthusiastic over 4E and it will become a strong success?

But then, there might be different ways to express concerns...


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, aren't you already writing the reason why they "nitpick" - they have to lose the most if 4E fails. And pretending that a weakness or possible problem doesn't exist won't help them if players still notice the weaknesses and encounter the problems and hate the game for it.
> 
> Unless you believe that them glossing over it and highlighting the positive points means that more people will get enthusiastic over 4E and it will become a strong success?
> 
> But then, there might be different ways to express concerns...




When you work in a certain industry your opinions about changes in it automatically carry more weight to the consumer. The review format of picking on every single detail and if ever you mention anything positive you immediately have to invalidate it by making it ambiguous is unhelpful, not objective, if not downright passive aggresive. People who are involved in the business of making RPGs especially those who primarily work of D&D should exercise caution in presenting their opinions in a neutral manner.
Glowing reviews are even more unnerving; being overtly enthusiastic about something, even if it is the greatest thing in the world, will make your review sound biased and put people on the defensive about it. Some will embrace it, but that is confirmation bias.

I have no problem with reviewers being very critical; that's their job. But the tone and structure of a review are as much a part of it as the arguments and observations in it. 

If you work in the RPG industry and want to write a review about 4E make certain that the feel of your review is dispassionate. I understand that you are likely emotionally invested in this game a lot more than the average player; choosing to work in this industry denotes that and you sure are not doing it for the money. But if you cannot divorce tone and feeling from argument and observation, you are doing a disservice to the community.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 6, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion.



Given that most of these publishers make their livelihood off of 3.x, and the running concerns over 4E licensing, I would posit that they have the most to suffer if 4E _succeeds_. I *do not* believe that anyone is cynical enough to consciously dump on 4E for that reason; but I do think it colors their responses on some level.

I, for one, know that I certainly decide first if I _want_ to like something, or if it's in my best interests, before deciding whether I like it or not. It's not a strong as an outright prejudice, because it's more easily overcome (I didn't want to like 4E because it looked like a cynical cash-in, but ended up loving what I've seen so far, anyway).


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> Actually, the bunch to which he is referring is talking about save rolls, which, in a party of 6, over your 5 round combat (although it seems combats are likely to be nearer 10 rounds in duration) is closer to 30 rolls than 5. Surely that's approaching a lot of rolls?




Again, compared to Risk or A&A, not really. 

However, the Save mechanic is smoother than in previous editions, where "one bad roll condemns you to kill your party mates". At least in 4E you have a chance to save every round.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 6, 2008)

I suggest we all consider something before we worry too much about the options and complexity of 4th edition.

Have you ever demoed D&D or Magic at Gen Con? Or any of their other games? Compare how many options you get in that demo to how it is in the real game.

The demo of Magic basically boils down to "We've both got creatures of ascending power levels, but you're the blue-white mage so you can bounce a few and prevent some damage, and I'm the red-green mage so my critters are bigger and I can burn you to the face."

Last night I played a game of Magic where I Ray of Commanded my opponent's Brooding Saurian, Blood Lusted his only potential blocker, Electrolyzed to kill the blocker and hit my opponent for 1 damage and draw a card, and then cast Haze of Rage which copied itself once for each other spell I'd played that turn, giving the stolen Saurian and my Wee Dragonauts each +4 power (not to mention the +8 power the dragonauts got because I cast all those instants), and then I swung in for the kill.

Demos are meant to be simple to learn. They're meant to be easy so as not to discourage players from trying the game out again. To people unfamiliar with D&D, I'm sure the demo was great fun. For those of us with D&D experience, well, the D&D Experience was never going to have enough options to satisfy us. It was just showing off some of the new stuff. You have to assume there's going to be tons more options in the full game.

Complaining about how difficult or how simple the game is from a half-hour demo is jumping to conclusions.

(I'll agree about the saves seeming simplistic, though.)


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 6, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 4E combat at 1st level is swingy because a black dragon might roll high on 3-4 recharge rolls. Okay. Compare to: 3E combat at 1st level is swingy because an ogre might roll middling-to-high on one damage roll. Context please, people.




I thought that making combat, especially low-level combat, less swingy was one of 4e's design goals? Didn't Andy Collins bring up the swinginess of low level combat in 3e as one of his big gripes with it?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Not really. I think the problem he pointed out is the Law of Darwinian Game Option Selection - No matter how many options there are in the game, there are always a few, clearly superior options that will _always_ be chosen by players who are driven to succeed.
> 
> (Okay, I made that term up, but what I described is rather Darwinian.)
> 
> Which is a bit disappointing since that's really not much different from 3.X. Some choices are still better than others.



I think you're on the right track here.

There are two kinds of selection at work before one of these powers comes to our attention. First, the power must be useful, but not overpowered enough, to survive the design process. Second, the power must be one interesting enough to be included in the preview adventure.

The preview adventure may be specifically designed to show off particular abilities at particular times.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 6, 2008)

I do think we may need to rethink what we mean by swingy combat.  From the design notes, it seems as though the writers wanted to eliminate encounters that simply resulted in resource management issues (i.e., the explicit equal EL should deplete 25% of resources rule of thumb).  This would supposedly result in three encounters being uninteresting until you get to the fourth encounter where your life is on the line.  Oversimplified, sure.  So they've attempted to rejigger the math such that the standard combat gives the feeling of the threat of failure/death, without necessarily bringing you that close to it in actuality.  I think this may mean that we may see characters drop more often in 4e in "common" combats, but perhaps see less actual character death due to the rules for healing surges, taking care of fallen comrades and the downplaying of save-or-die.  

Of course, as noted, the dragon encounter was placed specifically for the design team to show that encounters in 4e aren't somehow nerfed to eliminate character death and TPKs (a common fear, as it was in the early days of 3e).  We'll see if it's "too" swingy in actual play.  It would be ironic after all the hand-wringing over nerfing and unkillable characters in 4e if in actual play the dice create more deaths and TPKs than previous editions.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> I completely agree with your examples. My point though is this. The saves vs bodaks and the init rolls vs the four armed monkeys of doom are both rolls that the characters can influence with their build. These rolls are clearly outside the PCs (or even DMs) influence (afaik), making them a wild card in any combat (just like the 3.0 dragon breath weapon).




Ok, so these rolls are just like when you fight a demon or devil in any previous edition.  If the demon makes the roll to gate in additional demons, the fight just got a lot harder if not impossible.  That's part of the danger involved in fighting such creatures.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I thought that making combat, especially low-level combat, less swingy was one of 4e's design goals? Didn't Andy Collins bring up the swinginess of low level combat in 3e as one of his big gripes with it?



4E is swingy if you have a long succession of bad rolls on one side and good roles on the other side. 
That's actually not swingy (which either hong wanted to imply or should have said  )
4e combat is swingy at first level since only two good rolls (to hit and damage) are enough to take anyone out of combat, and kills many. That _is_ swingy.


----------



## Tuft (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Again, compared to Risk or A&A, not really.




It's interesting that people keep bringing up Axis & Allies in this discussion.

I had some friends hat played a lot of A&A (2nd edition). So much that the system kind of "broke" for them.

They noted that there always seemed to be a few extremely decisive armored battles around Leningrad/Murmansk early on in the game. If the German player won a decisive victory, then the Russian player would be so weakened that he fell to the Japanese Armor rolling up his rear through Siberia from Chinese factories. If the Russian player won a decisive victory, the German player was so weakened that the British and the US could get a foothold in Western Europe. Only in a non-decisive draw in these early battles was the rest of the board anything but window dressing.  

Very often either the Allied or the Axis side would simply concede after losing these early battles due to bad dice rolls - usually before the US player had time to do little more than to produce a few transports and tanks and ship them over to the UK... 


I guess it is that kind of swingyness that the opening post hints at.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I suggest we all consider something before we worry too much about the options and complexity of 4th edition.
> 
> Have you ever demoed D&D or Magic at Gen Con? Or any of their other games? Compare how many options you get in that demo to how it is in the real game.




Actually, I've actually done it for Heroscape. And the thing that worries me is that this feels way too much like the Heroscape demos that I run ^_^.

(One of the major lessons I learned demoing Heroscape though: Players, even kids as young as 5, don't like the Basic version. They want the full version with the special rules. And even the five year-olds can remember terminology like height advantage).


----------



## mhensley (Mar 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 4e combat is swingy at first level since only two good rolls (to hit and damage) are enough to take anyone out of combat, and kills many. That _is_ swingy.




In every test combat I've run so far, it took at least two hits with the most damaging powers to take down a character.  And that's pc vs pc.  NPC's seem considerably weaker.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> In every test combat I've run so far, it took at least two hits with the most damaging powers to take down a character.  And that's pc vs pc.  NPC's seem considerably weaker.




I think he actually meant 3e in his second  paragraph


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> It's interesting that people keep bringing up Axis & Allies in this discussion.




Actually, I think only I keep bringing it up. 



> I had some friends hat played a lot of A&A. So much that the system kind of "broke" for them.
> 
> They noted that there always seemed to be a few extremely decisive armored battles around Leningrad/Murmansk early on in the game. If the German player won a decisive victory, then the Russian player would be so weakened that he fell to the Japanese Armor rolling up his rear through Siberia from Chinese factories. If the Russian player won a decisive victory, the German player was so weakened that the British and the US could get a foothold in Western Europe. Only in a non-decisive draw in these early battles was the rest of the board anything but window dressing.
> 
> Very often either the Allied or the Axis side would simply concede after losing these early battles due to bad dice rolls - usually before the US player had time to do little more than to produce a few transports and tanks and ship them over to the UK...




Not really. You've actually hit upon the main problem of Axis & Allies: There is only one initial setup. The same number of troops start in the same number of territories each game. Each player gets the same amount of money at the start of every game. It's not really a problem of dice swinginess. It's the problem of having a _static_ initial setup.

And yes, a lot of casual players eventually get tired of it. If you want an extreme example - take a look at Chess which also suffers from the static initial setup problem. Even though there are an almost infinite number of Chess openings that are _possible_ - true grandmasters only use a tiny handful. The trillions of other openings aren't used because they're just not that good.

Given that D&D has very variable "initial setups" (unless the DM isn't very imaginative and runs the same kind of enemies and encounters over and over again), this shouldn't be too much of a problem


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Halivar said:
			
		

> Given that most of these publishers make their livelihood off of 3.x, and the running concerns over 4E licensing, I would posit that they have the most to suffer if 4E _succeeds_. I *do not* believe that anyone is cynical enough to consciously dump on 4E for that reason; but I do think it colors their responses on some level.



I dislike these types of  "conspiracy" theories. 
If 4E fails, that doesn't mean 3.x companies will have an easier time. It will split the fanbase, and as long as WotC doesn't go back to 3.x (which will take a long time, since none of the current designers wants to go back, as far as I can see), many people would see both 3.x and 4E as "dead" games, and move on to greener pastures. Some of these might be OGL companies, but most won't. 

I think the reason for critic is more based on personal preferences, and the general attitude people have towards the game. If you're skeptic, you automatically focus on the downsides and downplay the positive sides. If you're optimistic, you focus on the upsides and downplay the downsides. 
The general attitude for some OGL publishers is skeptic, since converting to a new system isn't easy, and the fact that they have to use a different license is also problematic. 
But that doesn't mean they actually have a business interesting in 4E failing. The moment 4E was announced, the dice have fallen. If 4E isn't a success, things will get problematic. And then, secondly If the GSL isn't up to what the current OGL publishers need, things will get problematic, too, even if 4E succeeds..


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 6, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think some of his points are well taken, but I will say this. I'm getting tired of people mentioning combats being repetitive when its 1st level!!!
> 
> I mean a 1st level wizard throws a couple of magic missiles and then is shooting a crossbow (often badly) for the rest of the day.




I'm afraid "casting magic missile" is going to become the new "shooting a crossbow" for 4e wizards....


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I'm afraid "casting magic missile" is going to become the new "shooting a crossbow" for 4e wizards....




Only when 5E rolls around, and designers will convince us that using one main "at will" ability every round is so no fun, and that it will be a lot more exciting if you have 3-5 at will abilities that are roughly equal in combat power but completely different in effect.  Hmmmm, shifting the choosing phase a pre-4E wizard has to do once a day to having it once per round...what better way to satisfy the guy who loves to juggle spell slots.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 6, 2008)

Thank you for the review.  It raises some interesting concerns.   Granted that some of them may be due to the factors of this being a first level adventure run at a convention by people new to the game.  

I'm surprised to hear that the people writing the scenarios weren't told which characters would be running through it.  That seems like a significant oversight.  The first thing a DM does when creating an adventure is take a look at his group and their skills, and balance the encounters around that.  Knowing the 6 player group had no rogue and 2 defenders certainly would impact the challenges you throw at them.  I guess it boils down to lack of communication.


----------



## Andur (Mar 6, 2008)

I think the big part of what is missing, is the options available to the PC's that were NOT taken in the build.

I would hope that MM or FB are not the only two choices for a Wizard for at will attacks.  And what about the whole "different weapons have different effects" that was mentioned a while back, maybe the cleave ability is only available with the war pick, but that seems sorta strange.  

The problem with only seeing the tip of the iceberg is it generally gives the worst reaction to it.  (With icebergs that is typically, how beautifu, it is small, let's get closer for a better picture, riiiiiiiiiipppppp, glug, glug, glug.)


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 6, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> I think the big part of what is missing, is the options available to the PC's that were NOT taken in the build.




True.



> I would hope that MM or FB are not the only two choices for a Wizard for at will attacks.  And what about the whole "different weapons have different effects" that was mentioned a while back, maybe the cleave ability is only available with the war pick, but that seems sorta strange.




Actually, I also wonder if there's a way for abilities to evolve. For instance, a level 1 "Encounter-only" ability might morph into an At-will ability by level 5.


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 6, 2008)

I think part of the problem with static options is that after everybody had done their initial positioning and blew their encounter powers, the combats themselves would occasionally get static.  To put it another way, if nobody's moved, and the situation hasn't drastically changed since your last round, are you going to change your action?

I actually think that the random recharge mechanics, and monsters that did something different when they or their foes were bloodied did a lot more to keep players from just continuing the take the same action round after round than anything.

That and like I said on another forum, responding to Jason's post, most of the PCs seemed to have two types of at-will powers.  They had a situational one, and a general purpose one.  A good example is the ranger, with Nimble Shot (situational) and Careful Shot (all-purpose) Once the combat got to the point where they wouldn't have to use the situational one, they'd use the general purpose one every round.

I'm not sure what to do about that.  Probably when the PCs have a few more powers, especially ones that only kick in when the enemy is bloodied, I'd guess they'd take more varied actions.  Like most people here though, I'd have to see and play the full system to know for sure.


----------



## kclark (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I'm afraid "casting magic missile" is going to become the new "shooting a crossbow" for 4e wizards....




Well the "shooting a crossbow" has two main problems. One, it isn't what you would expect a magic using person to be doing. Two, it rapidly gets ineffectual. With a +2 to hit from dex compared to a +5 or 6 of an archer character you have a rather large gap in performance.

The magic missile solves point 1 (although it is mainly just window dressing) and point 2 pretty well.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 6, 2008)

kclark said:
			
		

> Well the "shooting a crossbow" has two main problems. One, it isn't what you would expect a magic using person to be doing. Two, it rapidly gets ineffectual. With a +2 to hit from dex compared to a +5 or 6 of an archer character you have a rather large gap in performance.
> 
> The magic missile solves point 1 (although it is mainly just window dressing) and point 2 pretty well.




Very true.  I still think it has the potential to be just as boring, which was really my point.

At least the wizard will look cool as he casts magic missile at the darkness...and misses.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2008)

> Once you face a monster, you know what to expect the next time you face that monster. This was very true in Scalegloom Hall. We faced the same kobolds again and again, and they performed pretty similarly over and over again.



That seems a little unfair.  In 3e, you'd get one type of kobold that the DM would kit out with different weapons and tactics.  In 4e, you get several types of kobolds already kit out with different weapons and tactics.  Its unfair to pick out one type of kobold in 4e and complain that it doesn't have the same breadth of the entire 3e kobold race.

As for other points, I do think it will be easy to create characters that just do one thing every round after they're out of limited use abilities.

But just looking at the powers available, I don't think that will automatically happen.  Look at the Rogue preview- there was one attack that had improved accuracy, and one attack that had improved mobility.  Which one you use will vary by situation.  Or look at the Fighter.  There's one attack for pushing people, and one attack for hitting multiple adjacent foes.  Which one you use depends heavily on your situation.  Or look at the Warlock, who has three at will powers, each which attack a different defense, and two of which come with rider effects.

Overall, I was pretty impressed with the diversity of options.  For non spellcasters, the diversity of choice available to these first level characters basically outstripped what you'd get in 3e until moderately high levels.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I'm afraid "casting magic missile" is going to become the new "shooting a crossbow" for 4e wizards....



Well, it's already in 3E for high level wizards - either thanks to Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer or Wands.  And it's not that different from a fighter's "I make a full attack". 
"Same procedure as last year, Ms. Sophie?" "Same procedure as every year, James."

But I agree, it was boring then, and there is little reason to assume it changes in 4E. 
But we really need to see more of the at-will and per encounter powers to see how fast it can get boring...


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 6, 2008)

I think people may be taking the criticism from certain game designers a little too much to heart. As designers, they're going to try to make as balanced a review as possible; that includes posting those things they didn't like or that worried them. Also, they're not going to review the product with an eye to what is most likely included in the core rules, but will review the actual product they played. A guy trying to find good and bad might come off as having a negative review when that might not have been his intention.

Overall, I'm just trying to take their reviews in context with the other, positive, reviews we've received from gamers that were at the con. In the end I'm going to have to find out for myself but they're all helpful.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 6, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I think that the fear is that "This cleric has radiant powers, so every cleric must have radiant powers."




I for one don't have a problem with this.  

A cleric of the god of Shadow using radiant spells not make sense in your campaign?  Who says that the god of Shadow has to have clerics?  Maybe he has necromancers as his main priests instead?

Now that leaders of various power sources (shadow, primal, etc) are gonna be available, I have no problems with shoehorning clerics into armor wearing wielders of light and healing.

After all, if it's true that all non-combat spells are being moved into rituals, then things like commune, consecrate and other "prayer" type spells can now be used by non-clerics taking on a "priest" role of a religion.

It never did make much sense to me why a god of death or entropy would grant healing...


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> But doesn't that add an element of uncertainty and variability that would make fights with the same monster type less repetitive, since fighting the same creature twice can be quite different if one is chock full of special powers, while the other is less flashy? I mean, it makes monsters less predictable than monster from older editions, who get a clearly defined 1/day or 1/round ability.




While I mostly agree with Jason's points, I find myself agreeing with Mourn here.  I think I like the recharge mechanic.

What I find interesting is that the combination of 'swingy' fights and PCs not dying until they're way way negative seems like it will resolve into more situations where the whole party gets captured.  I am wondering if 4E will have an 'Escape' mechanic. 

Ken


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 6, 2008)

When it comes to concerns about creativity and repetitive actions, never underestimate the ability of players and DMs to be unpredictible.  The Demos had limited options on purpose.  Once the full rules are available and gamers everywhere get to use them under less structured circumstances, I'm fairly certain the results will be very different.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I'm afraid "casting magic missile" is going to become the new "shooting a crossbow" for 4e wizards....




I see no problem with that. Aside from D&D, wizards in most fantasy stories pretty much attack with magic exclusively.

Really the only thing I've heard about 4e that I just shake my head at is the static saves.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 6, 2008)

Well I think what a lot of people will miss will be the repertoire of spells they had before where they could go through a battle and cast several spells throughout the course of a battle and now they won't.  Gone are the days of having eight or nine spells to cast in a given battle if not for a given level of spells alone at high level.  Might still have the same number of things to choose from but will not be able to go through all of them like before.

As a side note, I wouldn't mind a third party consolidating the various 3.x stuff and coming out with an OGL set making it available in just three or four books within limits so we have a final authoritative set.  Basically harvest all the good stuff and put it together.  Even if only making it available through PDF or Lulu.  I think there will still be a demand for 3.x modules for a very long time so there will still be a market for them, just not as big as right now.


----------



## National Acrobat (Mar 6, 2008)

Interesting, and the one thing I keep seeing is 'monsters don't have that many options anymore' is something I fully expect many GMs to fix from the 'cookie cutter' mold almost immediately.

Everyone in my group that I have talked to about this agrees that they would simply start altering monsters to fit their needs, as they have through every version of the game so that every encounter isn't the same.


----------



## themilkman (Mar 6, 2008)

Regarding the swinginess of the system, Jason hit the nail on the head.  Whereas he breezed through his games, I got TPKed in both of mine.  Mostly, this was due to two things:

1.) The loss of a party member.  This one is pretty obvious.  In one game, we lost both of our defenders, and in the other game we lost our Ranger, which was a big loss against the big bad dragon (BBD).  All of these deaths were due to poor familiarity with the game mechanics.  Our defenders didn't Second Wind when they should've, and our Ranger kept moving close to enemies to avoid concealment and firing-into-melee penalties that weren't there.  I'm sure that a group more familiar with the rules (and possibly with more options available) would have fewer character deaths.  Also, dead characters tend to get replaced quickly in my home games, but that wasn't possible in the preview adventures.

2.) Coin-toss rolls.  In the BBD fight, the dragon recharged his breath weapon just about every other round, and we failed about 75% of our saving throws to stop ongoing damage.  This means that some people had damage from two (or more) effects stacked up.  If you're taking 10+ damage per round automagically, you're not going to stand for long.  I'm not sure what to do about this, but for the times when we weren't horribly overwhelmed, it did make for some pretty tense throws.

-The Milkman


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> Well I think what a lot of people will miss will be the repertoire of spells they had before where they could go through a battle and cast several spells throughout the course of a battle and now they won't.  Gone are the days of having eight or nine spells to cast in a given battle if not for a given level of spells alone at high level.  Might still have the same number of things to choose from but will not be able to go through all of them like before.



Wait.  What?  You are talking about the notorious 2-3 round battle of 3.x right?


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 6, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I see no problem with that. Aside from D&D, wizards in most fantasy stories pretty much attack with magic exclusively.
> 
> Really the only thing I've heard about 4e that I just shake my head at is the static saves.




Remember that these aren't saves in the 3E sense of saves.  The initial determination of "does this power affect your character" is made by comparing the bad guy's attack roll versus your defense.  Both of those will alter from leveling and various effects.

4E "saves" are much more analogous to rolling 1dX+Y to determine how long an effect will linger.  Instead of rolling as soon as the effect hits and then remembering to tick down once each round, you roll each time.

In 3E, a lot of spells would last 1 round per caster level.  At higher levels, this is pretty much "the entire combat".  At lower levels, it was annoying trying to recall how many rounds ago the Prayer was cast.  And if you did keep track successfully, the effect was predictable and less tactically exciting.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 6, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Wait.  What?  You are talking about the notorious 2-3 round battle of 3.x right?




Don't forget the laundry list of buffs needed for that 2-3 round combat.


----------



## Gundark (Mar 6, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Heh, I don't think I've seen a single review from a Paizo guy that wasn't DEEPLY critical or suspicious of 4e... I'll be pretty surprised if they end up dumping 5 grand to become an early developer.




Yeah I'm getting suspicous of the Paizo suspiciousness. I'm even doubting they make 4e products. I don't think the 3.5 market can sustain them for long term.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Don't forget the laundry list of buffs needed for that 2-3 round combat.



He did specifically mention spells cast "throughout the course of battle" but even if we take buffs into account, utility powers in 4e seem to require an action of less than a standard action, so there's actually more opportunity to burn through your roster if you so choose.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 6, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I see no problem with that. Aside from D&D, wizards in most fantasy stories pretty much attack with magic exclusively.
> 
> Really the only thing I've heard about 4e that I just shake my head at is the static saves.



I'm sure you can use Players Roll All the Dice in 4e just as easily as in 3e. (I use it currently, and I'm sure my players like making their defense rolls instead of my rolling for the bad guys!)


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 6, 2008)

I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature. If it's really good feature, he upgrades it to what can only be described as grudging acceptance. But if the feature is okay/merely adequate, then he actively dislikes it.

That's not healthy, and it's not fair. A review of 3E--or any game!--in the same style would likewise come away as generally unfavorable. "Death in 3E is a process that begins at -1 and ends at -10, with characters taking an additional 1 point of damage each round unless they stabilize (a 10% chance). The -10 threshold does not scale with level, and the low starting hit points of first level characters combined with the massive damage potential from crits means that 1st to 6th level characters can be taken from full hit points to stone dead by a single arrow. How lame is that?"

I mean, come on. Can we get a little optimism here? If you really dislike new games so much--if you view a new game arms folded, pouting, with a grouchy "you need to impress me" attitude--then please give yourself a break and just stop playing them.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2008)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Yeah I'm getting suspicous of the Paizo suspiciousness. I'm even doubting they make 4e products. I don't think the 3.5 market can sustain them for long term.



I've found it interesting to watch the commentary of various 3rd party developers and free lancers.  Contrary the comments someone made above, 3rd party publishes have the LEAST reason to be honest about their negative views, if they have them.

The smartest ones (in my opinion) are the ones saying something along the lines of "I loved 3e, and I think there was limitless room for fun in it.  Maybe I'll continue to write 3e products if the demand is there, or if it strikes my fancy.  But I'm really looking forwards to the future and to digging in to 4e.  It looks like it will be really great."  This is smart because it makes a conciliatory gesture to rage filled fans of 3e, while making the developer a part of the 4e fan club, so to speak.  Now the developer can sell to both groups.

The next smartest are the ones saying things like, "I really like 4e, except for issue X.  But I bet that could be fixed with a rule like Y, or maybe Z."  This is smart because it doesn't burn bridges with 4e, establishes a connection with others who have similar concerns with issue X, and best of all, positions the developer as a can-do kind of guy who will in the future write good products that take the positive things about 4e and merge them with whatever it is that people concerned about X wish 4e had.  Rule Y and Z become a sort of preview for future work by that writer.

After that comes the Paizo types you mention.  They raise concerns about X, and also Y, and also Z, but provide no solutions, and make vague comments about 4e not being good at telling the right kinds of stories.  This garners them appeal with the ragers, but does burn a few bridges- if a writer thinks that 4e doesn't do a good job of telling the right kind of stories, doesn't that bring suspicion on later projects that tell exactly that kind of story?  If I think that I can tell a certain type of story with 4e, but a writer thinks it can't be easily done, doesn't that suggest that my work is about as good as the writers?  When facing a change in your industry, you generally do not want to position yourself as fearful.  These people should instead be saying something along the lines of "3e and 4e look to be good in different ways, and we look forwards to supporting both."

The worst are the developers and freelancers who say things like "I hate X, Y, and Z about 4e, and I'm sure that 4e will be bad for running games of the sort I like to run."  This is basically a big, bold print warning to the rest of us: "DON'T BUY 4E PRODUCTS FROM THIS GUY!  HE'S TELLING YOU IN ADVANCE TO EXPECT HIS FUTURE WORK TO SUCK!"  There are only a few people doing this.  They really should stop, for the sake of their own careers.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature. If it's really good feature, he upgrades it to what can only be described as grudging acceptance. But if the feature is okay/merely adequate, then he actively dislikes it.
> 
> That's not healthy, and it's not fair. A review of 3E--or any game!--in the same style would likewise come away as generally unfavorable. "Death in 3E is a process that begins at -1 and ends at -10, with characters taking an additional 1 point of damage each round unless they stabilize (a 10% chance). The -10 threshold does not scale with level, and the low starting hit points of first level characters combined with the massive damage potential from crits means that 1st to 6th level characters can be taken from full hit points to stone dead by a single arrow. How lame is that?"
> 
> I mean, come on. Can we get a little optimism here? If you really dislike new games so much--if you view a new game arms folded, pouting, with a grouchy "you need to impress me" attitude--then please give yourself a break and just stop playing them.




Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.

When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism. It was not my intent.

As far as what this implies for Paizo. I am just one voice there and there are a number of factors that have nothing to do with the game itself that will lead to Paizo's decision. Many of those factors have not been resolved yet, and I would appreciate folks not reading more into my comments then what you see on the page.

Thanks.

Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That seems a little unfair.  In 3e, you'd get one type of kobold that the DM would kit out with different weapons and tactics.  In 4e, you get several types of kobolds already kit out with different weapons and tactics.  Its unfair to pick out one type of kobold in 4e and complain that it doesn't have the same breadth of the entire 3e kobold race.




That is a fair point. I think most of my concern stemmed from the adventure design and perhaps the DM handling of it. The adventure did feature similar foes in 4 encounters, one after another, and my DM handled each pretty much the exact same way each time. Having looked at them afterward, they did have a few different options. I have to say, without seeing the monster building rules, it is hard to comment on how hard it might be to modify a base creature to make it a more diverse encounter selection, like in 3E, adding a single class level might do. I am hoping that it is an easy process, but until I see them, I have to run with what I know.

Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature. If it's really good feature, he upgrades it to what can only be described as grudging acceptance. But if the feature is okay/merely adequate, then he actively dislikes it.



Or, just maybe, he simply said what he thought.  What basis do you have for your "default" claim and how does one tell the difference between a default dislike and a discovered dislike?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 6, 2008)

themilkman said:
			
		

> 2.) Coin-toss rolls.  In the BBD fight, the dragon recharged his breath weapon just about every other round, and we failed about 75% of our saving throws to stop ongoing damage.  This means that some people had damage from two (or more) effects stacked up.  If you're taking 10+ damage per round automagically, you're not going to stand for long.  I'm not sure what to do about this, but for the times when we weren't horribly overwhelmed, it did make for some pretty tense throws.
> 
> -The Milkman



 I wonder if there was a misapplication of the rules or if it might be something they will/have fixed in the final rules.  We know the temp HP cannot stack, I wonder if ongoing damage also should not stack - at least from the same attack type.

If you have a cup of flammable liquid that you ignite, it won't burn hotter or faster if you add more of it to the cup, it will flare for a moment as you add it and then return to the level it was burning at before except it will burn for a longer time.  

Without knowing the rest of how the rules work, I would consider changing something like this so that the ongoing damage does not stack, but the save to end the effects becomes more difficult with additional attacks piled on.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.
> 
> When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism



I can understand people in the business being a little more nit-picky. (Maybe it should become a common disclaimer.)

But I think it's important to not forget the praise. Highlighting thinks that look good or awesome or show promise - even if the rest of the system sucks, highlighting the good parts  can inpsire people to "redo" the good parts. Off course, if you don't find any good qualities, there's nothing you can do.


----------



## Ktulu (Mar 6, 2008)

On the subject of clerics doing radiant damage only.  I think this will prove to be incorrect.  So far, we can assume the fighter builds are "two handed" or "sword + board", the rogue is "agile" or "brawny", the wizard focuses on implements and the warlock makes pacts.  I think the cleric build style will be one of radiant or necrotic, for the most part.

Radiant will be what more of the "good" gods provide, while necrotic will be the stuff for the darker clerics.  Their abilities will probably incite damage and beef up the allies, rather than protecting them like the radiant spells do.

This is speculation, but it seems to make sense.

Ktulu


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Remember that these aren't saves in the 3E sense of saves.  The initial determination of "does this power affect your character" is made by comparing the bad guy's attack roll versus your defense.  Both of those will alter from leveling and various effects.
> 
> 4E "saves" are much more analogous to rolling 1dX+Y to determine how long an effect will linger.  Instead of rolling as soon as the effect hits and then remembering to tick down once each round, you roll each time.
> 
> In 3E, a lot of spells would last 1 round per caster level.  At higher levels, this is pretty much "the entire combat".  At lower levels, it was annoying trying to recall how many rounds ago the Prayer was cast.  And if you did keep track successfully, the effect was predictable and less tactically exciting.




I understand the difference, and appreciate the loss of book keeping of how many rounds of acid arrow damage are left, just think the implementation is a bit weak. Why have everyone have the same chance to shrug off the effects? if a wizard is less likely than the fighter to be charmed in the first place, why are they equally likely to break free? Its hardly a deal breaker, just a design decision I dont understand compared to, say... ongoing attacks vs. the target's defense, which is a more unified system and no more rolling than the alternative.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 6, 2008)

Please remember not every group plays the same so the statement of 2-3 round combat doesn't apply to everyone.  Some players don't pick out the best things they can find to optimize their damage, preferring to role play so battles for them tend to last longer than normal.  Short combat is not the sum all 3.x battles, just the average.

Thanks Jason for clearing up your position.


----------



## Gundark (Mar 6, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.





QFT...and just not PAizo either.

I'm not saying they should love it unconditionally(or even love it), I would think you would hold off. As a consumer I'm more likely to hold off buying something from you if you think the system stinks. If you hate it what is the level of Quality going to be at?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.
> 
> When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism. It was not my intent.




Okay, I get it. Thanks for replying/clarifying!


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2008)

> Why have everyone have the same chance to shrug off the effects?




Everyone was already differentiated based on defenses - in 3rd ed, if both got hit by Fort effect that lasted level rounds, did the fighter somehow have his last half as long cause he had a better Fort, even though he failed his save?


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 6, 2008)

Several points:

• Magic Missile every round vs shooting a crossbow - 
In 3E wizards shoot stuff with crossbows at first level because they are decent at it.  They usually have a good dex for the AC it provides, and their base attack bonus is +0, which is the same as the cleric and rogue.  Of course at higher levels that's not the case anymore.  Then when they run out of spells they get cranky and need a nap.  I'd rather see a wizard able to keep shooting his magic missiles all day, even if he has a chance to miss with them (like the crossbow, and every other ranged attack).  It's more magical than pulling out the bow, and more in-line with the character concept.  

• Options in combat
There aren't a lot of choices in first level combat in 3.5.  It seems there are some more options in 4E, but the choices are still limited.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  You don't want to overwhelm the players at first level.  I haven't played 4E, so I can't say how it feels in comparison to a 3.5 first level fight.  At least in 4E the options are part of the character concept, not whacking something with your staff due to a lack of any other choice.  

• Clerics and Radiant energy
Clerics in 3E channel either positive or negative energy from their gods depending on alignment.  I would suspect we'll see a similar mechanic in 4E.  Evil clerics won't use glowy holy light stuff, but rather scary dark shadowy stuff. 

• Static saves vs. ongoing effects
It does seem odd that the roll needed to overcome the effect is the same for everyone.  George Fighter may not have the best Will, so won't it be tougher for him to break out of the charm than Martha Wizard?  

• Monster diversity
I'm not sure why there were so many kobolds in the one dungeon, but perhaps some DM's were more creative in how they played them than others.  From what I've heard, it sounds like it will be easier to mix things up a bit if you make sure to put in some different flavors of monsters (mmmm, monster flavors).  Use some different roles and vary them from one fight to another - even if they are all kobolds.  Here's hoping anyway.  

• 3rd party publishers
Their employees are entitled to individual opinions, and I'm personally glad to see them taking the time to post their feelings, whether positive or negative.  The companies themselves are justifiably annoyed that they still don't have their hands on the new GSL (so far as I know).  WotC dropped the ball on that one, even if it does come down to the lawyers.  The lead time the 3rd parties are considering paying for is ticking away.  It's only a few months to publication now, so they won't have the rules in their hands that much in advance of the rest of us.  Any product they tried to do would be rushed.  The 5K buy-in seems less worth it as the months eke away.  So on the one hand the 3rd parties are being pressured by fans to commit to 4E publications in the future, but they are hesitant to do that without knowing the terms they will have to agree to.  It's frustrating all around.


----------



## fnwc (Mar 6, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> I have to say, without seeing the monster building rules, it is hard to comment on how hard it might be to modify a base creature to make it a more diverse encounter selection, like in 3E, adding a single class level might do.



I think if you're creating NPCs or Monsters for published content, you'll probably love 4E over 3E. From what I've read, instead of tediously building a monster from the ground up, you can reference a table to check the appropriate values for a given monster's level and arbitrarily assign it values, without having to justify any of it through the rules that PCs follow.

You can think of a power, design a mechanic around it and go, without having to worry if it follows the rules of some existing subsystem (say, grapple).

Modifying base creatures might be as simple as looking at another monster of the same level and swapping a power or two.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 6, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Everyone was already differentiated based on defenses - in 3rd ed, if both got hit by Fort effect that lasted level rounds, did the fighter somehow have his last half as long cause he had a better Fort, even though he failed his save?



 Only on Hold person, and that variant was not so brilliant either (hey, you got lucky to hit the enemy wizard (next round he has a 90% chance to recover :/)


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 6, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature.



I saw no evidence of that whatsoever. (And his reply confirms it. No surprise there.)



> I mean, come on. Can we get a little optimism here? If you really dislike new games so much--if you view a new game arms folded, pouting, with a grouchy "you need to impress me" attitude--then please give yourself a break and just stop playing them.



Pffft. What a ridiculous statement.

Given your rather hyperbolic post, I have to wonder what your current "attitude" towards 4e is? (I can guess.)


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinovia said:
			
		

> • Clerics and Radiant energy
> Clerics in 3E channel either positive or negative energy from their gods depending on alignment.  I would suspect we'll see a similar mechanic in 4E.  Evil clerics won't use glowy holy light stuff, but rather scary dark shadowy stuff.




In 4e's new cosmology, don't all gods reside somewhere in the astral sea? This is pure speculation, but maybe the "radiant" descriptor encompasses all energy originating from that plane. So instead of glowy holy light or dark unholy light, we just have a more generic divine light. This radiance--like the light from the sun--can be warm and pleasant, stark and blisteringly hot, or even cold and scary (reflected off the moon, or the light from the outdoor shots of "the Ring"'s videotape, for instance). 

Think of Gozer the Gozerian (from Ghostbusters). He was definitely a Bad god, but his realm was full of radiant light.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 6, 2008)

I was under the impression that Radiant energy came from the Feywild, due to it being where all the shiny stuff went in the cosmology.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 6, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that Radiant energy came from the Feywild, due to it being where all the shiny stuff went in the cosmology.




Radiant seems to be the new Holy/Positive energy.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Mar 6, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Why have everyone have the same chance to shrug off the effects? if a wizard is less likely than the fighter to be charmed in the first place, why are they equally likely to break free? Its hardly a deal breaker, just a design decision I dont understand compared to, say... ongoing attacks vs. the target's defense, which is a more unified system and no more rolling than the alternative.




Yeah, but that's like saying it doesn't make sense that _ray of enfeeblement_ takes the same amount of Strength away from a wizard and a fighter in 3E. I mean, sure, the wizard is more likely to be affected, but shouldn't that mean he takes more Strength damage? 

Obviously, I'm asking those questions rhetorically. The point that saves are just duration rolls spread out over several rounds is a very good one. Does it skew things in favor of the target? A bit. But you've also not seen every way that saving throws can be affected by the classes and their abilities, so you'll see eventually that things shake out a bit differently. 

In the end, I think that it works out just fine in gameplay, and shifts the responsibility of duration tracking onto the player's combat round instead of on the DM side of things.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 6, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> In the end, I think that it works out just fine in gameplay, and shifts the responsibility of duration tracking onto the player's combat round instead of on the DM side of things.




How so?  Does the player roll a d20 to see whether the enemy his wizard has put to sleep recovers?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature.




You seem to forget - he isn't attempting to give an impartial review, he is talking about his experiences and his take on the system.

Please DON'T try to second-guess his reasons for saying what he does. The same goes for anyone who feels like saying "Oh, he's a Paizo designer so of course...".

We don't ask you to agree with peoples opinion, but we do ask you to respect it.

Thanks


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 6, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Everyone was already differentiated based on defenses




So you're agreeing it makes sense to have people who are more resistant to effects shrug them off easier? 



> - in 3rd ed, if both got hit by Fort effect that lasted level rounds, did the fighter somehow have his last half as long cause he had a better Fort, even though he failed his save?




Because of one wonky system we need another? COnsider hold person, which DID allow a save every round. It wasnt static... it was based off your save... the same mechanic you used to resist in the first place.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Mar 6, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> How so?  Does the player roll a d20 to see whether the enemy his wizard has put to sleep recovers?




No, but rather than the DM tracking all durations, he only tracks the ones currently affecting living foes. It also eliminates the need for the DM to keep durations a secret because the dice determine the duration from round to round. 

Additionally, even those durations being tracked by the DM (those on monsters/NPCs) are easier to manage since you don't count rounds, you just roll the save, which is just now part of the normal turn.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2008)

Zinovia said:
			
		

> Several points:
> • Static saves vs. ongoing effects
> It does seem odd that the roll needed to overcome the effect is the same for everyone. George Fighter may not have the best Will, so won't it be tougher for him to break out of the charm than Martha Wizard?




But in 3e once someone has failed the save, they are affected for the same duration whether a tough fighter or a wimpy wizard (with the exception of the very few spells they turned into 'save each round' like hold person).

So in 4e the 'saving throw' isn't a saving throw, it is the 'has the duration ended yet' check. Not as snappy saying it that way, but it would focus the mind on why at this point the toughness or will of the character doesn't come into it.

Now, this notwithstanding we know of some racial abilities to throw off effects more quickly (Eladrin throw off charms quickly. Dwarfs throw off poison quickly. Dragons throw off everything quickly). There may be powers that do similar things that we haven't seen yet.

Cheers


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 6, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Obviously, I'm asking those questions rhetorically. The point that saves are just duration rolls spread out over several rounds is a very good one. Does it skew things in favor of the target? A bit. But you've also not seen every way that saving throws can be affected by the classes and their abilities, so you'll see eventually that things shake out a bit differently.




So if in the end the fighter has a better chance to save due to his class this change makes even less sense.  Why invent an entirely different mechanic to tack onto the attack vs. defense system, when you can just have ongoing attacks vs. the defense. 



> In the end, I think that it works out just fine in gameplay, and shifts the responsibility of duration tracking onto the player's combat round instead of on the DM side of things.




Since everyone rolls saves, everyone is equally responsible for duration tracking. Similarly, if everyone rolled ongoing attacks vs. defense, then everyone would still be responsible. Its a net gain of nothing, while having an additional and IMO goofy mechanic crammed in there.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> So if in the end the fighter has a better chance to save due to his class this change makes even less sense.  Why invent an entirely different mechanic to tack onto the attack vs. defense system, when you can just have ongoing attacks vs. the defense.




It's a lot easier for the guy who has the spell on him to remember to save, than for the guy who cast the spell to do it.

One thing that may be bugging people is that the current saving throw mechanic gives the same duration regardless of _caster_ level, all other things being equal. A 30th level wizard casts sleep or hold person spells with the same duration as a 5th level one. This is not true for 3E durations; a 30th level wiz might have a 30-round duration on these spells while the 5th level wiz has 5 rounds. Hopefully there will be mechanics to deal with this, eg feats to change the save probability or something.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 6, 2008)

Take a look at the Shadow Demon's Shadow Drain ability.



> Shadow Demon
> Medium Elemental Humanoid (Demon)
> Level 11 Skirmisher
> AC 25, Fort 23, Ref 24, Will 22, HP 72, Bloodied 36, Init +8, Spd 2, Fly 8 (Hv)
> ...


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I thought that making combat, especially low-level combat, less swingy was one of 4e's design goals?




And it is. The evidence so far is that if you want to one-shot a 4E 1st level character, you use something like a black dragon, which is a level 4 boss. If you want to one-shot a 3E 1st level character, you only need to use a CR 2 ogre. Or, if it's a 3E 1st level wizard, a CR 1/2 orc with a greataxe.

You can always one-shot a character with a sufficiently powerful monster. The question is how powerful you have to go.


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2008)

> Because of one wonky system we need another?




Which 3e wonky system are you talking about at this point? Durations? Saving Throws? D&D? 

I played the game. The saves system works well. Different creatures get bonuses, as appropriate - for instance, halflings are bold and get +5 vs. fear, and humans can get a generic bonus, while dragons are particularly resilient. Bad things just don't affect dragons as long as kobolds. You don't need to track durations, it's easy to manage, and very straightforward.


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Mar 6, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> if a wizard is less likely than the fighter to be charmed in the first place, why are they equally likely to break free? Its hardly a deal breaker, just a design decision I dont understand compared to, say... ongoing attacks vs. the target's defense, which is a more unified system and no more rolling than the alternative.




Another way to look at it is: That's double jeopardy. It's making two ways in which a wizard is worse at resisting effects instead of one, and that makes him FAR worse at defending against those effects instead of somewhat worse. It's sort of like giving small creatures a Strength penalty _and_ making them use weapons that deal less damage. Doing one of these gets the desired result: Small creatures deal less damage with weapons. Doing both means small creatures do insignificant damage with weapons and are dumb to use them. Instead of a nudge away from something, we've given a shove. That's not what we want.

Let's say fighter, ranger, and wizard all get attacked with an attack against Fortitude. Their Fort defenses are: fighter 18 (40% chance of being hit), ranger 16 (50%), and wizard 14 (60%). Now pretend we had Fort, Ref, and Will saves. The fighter gets +2 to Fort, ranger gets +0, and wizard gets –2. Now, each round the fighter has a 65% chance to drop the effect, the ranger has a 55% chance, and the wizard has a 45% chance.

At that point, the progression is far worse for the wizard than is sensible. We don't want the enemies to _always_ attack the wizard's Fort or the fighter's Will. We use only one measure—a defense—to differentiate the characters' resistances to these effects for a reason: We only need one of them to achieve the desired result. The idea that the fighter has a better defense against some types of attacks is carried in his Fortitude defense.


----------



## Imp (Mar 7, 2008)

So am I the only one who liked 3e's wizards-with-crossbows?

It made starting wizards seem, I dunno, kind of Giles-ish. They knew about arcane stuff, but couldn't bend it to their wills regularly yet, so they got a fairly effective weapon to use.

Though this may just be in comparison with their earlier-edition brethren, who were stuck throwing darts and flaming oil.  Mind you, I don't really pine for Vancian magic either.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> So am I the only one who liked 3e's wizards-with-crossbows?




I don't know about _only _one, but I think it is probably quite a small minority


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> Another way to look at it is: That's double jeopardy. It's making two ways in which a wizard is worse at resisting effects instead of one, and that makes him FAR worse at defending against those effects instead of somewhat worse. It's sort of like giving small creatures a Strength penalty _and_ making them use weapons that deal less damage. Doing one of these gets the desired result: Small creatures deal less damage with weapons. Doing both means small creatures do insignificant damage with weapons and are dumb to use them. Instead of a nudge away from something, we've given a shove. That's not what we want.




In short, you don't want a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Definitely not a bad design choice.



> Let's say fighter, ranger, and wizard all get attacked with an attack against Fortitude. Their Fort defenses are: fighter 18 (40% chance of being hit), ranger 16 (50%), and wizard 14 (60%). Now pretend we had Fort, Ref, and Will saves. The fighter gets +2 to Fort, ranger gets +0, and wizard gets –2. Now, each round the fighter has a 65% chance to drop the effect, the ranger has a 55% chance, and the wizard has a 45% chance.
> 
> At that point, the progression is far worse for the wizard than is sensible. We don't want the enemies to _always_ attack the wizard's Fort or the fighter's Will. We use only one measure—a defense—to differentiate the characters' resistances to these effects for a reason: We only need one of them to achieve the desired result. The idea that the fighter has a better defense against some types of attacks is carried in his Fortitude defense.




Ah. So what you're saying is that the decision to make Saves standard for everyone is because the "smoothening" of the Save rolls (because you now roll every round) has greatly highlighted the real (probability-wise) differences between the Fortitude, Will, and Reflex saves of various classes. Unlike before where everything was simply swingy because everyone makes just a single roll.

Instead, the main method for avoiding effects will be the Reflex, Will, and Fortitude defense, which is still different depending on the class of your character.

Okay, I think that works for me.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> In the end, I think that it works out just fine in gameplay, and shifts the responsibility of duration tracking onto the player's combat round instead of on the DM side of things.




I'm not entirely sure that making the player track their own status effects is a good thing. I mean, most players even forget about the _buffs_ they have on their characters like Bless. 

Though I will say that making players roll for a save at the top of their round (if done consistently) would help in reminding players that they should keep track of their status effects.


----------



## jonrog1 (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> In short, you don't want a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Definitely not a bad design choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Having run the system, that's pretty much it.  The class bonuses are in the initial chance to affect you, which meshes with the new power design.  After that, individual racial "save" (and I put that in quotes because it is definitely NOT the save of your youth) bonuses hve pretty decent effec ton how LONG the power has you in its thrall.  It is indeed snappy and useful in combat.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 7, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's sort of like giving small creatures a Strength penalty _and_ making them use weapons that deal less damage. Doing one of these gets the desired result: Small creatures deal less damage with weapons. Doing both means small creatures do insignificant damage with weapons and are dumb to use them. Instead of a nudge away from something, we've given a shove. That's not what we want.




Does this mean we've seen the last of 1d3 damage Small daggers?!?   

Belkar will be happy.

Edit: wait, it probably just means no Str penalty for halflings. Still going to have to live with the weapon shrinkage then.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 7, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I wonder if there was a misapplication of the rules or if it might be something they will/have fixed in the final rules.  We know the temp HP cannot stack, I wonder if ongoing damage also should not stack - at least from the same attack type.
> 
> If you have a cup of flammable liquid that you ignite, it won't burn hotter or faster if you add more of it to the cup, it will flare for a moment as you add it and then return to the level it was burning at before except it will burn for a longer time.




On the other hand, if I get napalm splashed on my left forearm, then get some more splashed on my legs, then on my back, I will be in progressively deeper trouble. Or if you ingest some toxic substance, you are generally going to be even worse off if you ingest more. So stacking ongoing effects _can_ make sense, at least in some situations. Of course, in other situations, it won't make sense -- if you're engulfed in freezing mist and the cold is slowly freezing you, adding more mist doesn't seem to be worse -- you're already engulfed.  

Thus, I would hope that some ongoing damage powers would stack, and others wouldn't, with the differences being where it makes sense (and is balanced for the particular entities intended power level).

(Hmm, power level -- I just realized 4e monster levels appear to have much the same purpose as M&M power levels for villains -- a particular level will give you a solid idea of what the parameters of that foe's combat abilities should be. Interesting.)


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 7, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> Well I think what a lot of people will miss will be the repertoire of spells they had before where they could go through a battle and cast several spells throughout the course of a battle and now they won't.  Gone are the days of having eight or nine spells to cast in a given battle if not for a given level of spells alone at high level.  Might still have the same number of things to choose from but will not be able to go through all of them like before.




I can't speak for anyones experience but mine, but I find the above statement to be not at all how wizards played out in my games.

Wizards always had a spellbook full of fun to do things, but when it came time to figure out your daily spells it was invariably something like this.

Scorching Ray X3
Color Spray
Something Different

Invisibility X2
Something Different

Fireball

The fun-to-do-once-in-a-blue-moon effects were accomplished by using scrolls, not by memorizing a wierd list of random spells just in case.

So the intent was to give the wizards a couple of reuseable combat powers to eliminate the Scorching Rays and Fireballs from the spelllist, and to give them a few fun powers they can do throughout the day taken from their spellbook.  Since the playtest was combat-focused the two "fun" powers were Sleep and Acid Arrow, one of which wasn't particularly fun.

I think that in the end of the day, a 10 level 4e wizard will end up casting more "fun" powers a day than the 3e, because they don't have to dedicate slots to combat powers, unless they want to.

DS


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And it is. The evidence so far is that if you want to one-shot a 4E 1st level character, you use something like a black dragon, which is a level 4 boss. If you want to one-shot a 3E 1st level character, you only need to use a CR 2 ogre. Or, if it's a 3E 1st level wizard, a CR 1/2 orc with a greataxe.




I think the CR 1/2 orcs with greataxes could pretty much one-shot 9/10 classes with a good damage roll and outright obliterate any class with the heart-wrenching crit.  Dying in the first round of combat because the GM rolled a 20 and followed up with just a decent confirm is pretty "swingy".  I have no idea how anyone can see 4e as being "swingy" compared to that.

DS


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyones experience but mine, but I find the above statement to be not at all how wizards played out in my games.
> 
> Wizards always had a spellbook full of fun to do things, but when it came time to figure out your daily spells it was invariably something like this.
> 
> ...




Not really. The reason why the once in a blue moon effects were cast using scrolls is because the Wizard just doesn't have that many spell slots to use in the first place .

And if you're going to be strict about it, pulling a scroll out of a case is at the minimum a Move Action. Finding a scroll from a pile of scrolls would also take longer.

As Wizards go up in level however, they'll generally get enough spell slots to do "fun stuff".



> So the intent was to give the wizards a couple of reuseable combat powers to eliminate the Scorching Rays and Fireballs from the spelllist, and to give them a few fun powers they can do throughout the day taken from their spellbook.  Since the playtest was combat-focused the two "fun" powers were Sleep and Acid Arrow, one of which wasn't particularly fun.
> 
> I think that in the end of the day, a 10 level 4e wizard will end up casting more "fun" powers a day than the 3e, because they don't have to dedicate slots to combat powers, unless they want to.
> 
> DS




The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.

Moreover, the tension of choosing whether or not to use "minor" powers is lost since you can use them At Will. Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Moreover, the tension of choosing whether or not to use "minor" powers is lost since you can use them At Will. Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.




But its not always the most sensible thing to do and I think a good 4e DM who wants to challenge his players needs to realize that...for example, the wizard's magic missile power is a ranged attack, meaning that it provokes an opportunity attack if used against someone in an adjacent square.  Imagine a pair of eladrin skirmishers fey step and flank your wizard....yeesh, that could get ugly fast if no one around you to help.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.




Encounter and Daily powers are generally meant to be combat applicable.  They will also be able to do rituals, which are supposed to be the out-of-combat things like identifying and raising dead.  I haven't seen any details yet on how often you can do these things, but you have to add these to the pile of things the wizard can do.

DS


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

> The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.



That's at least 4 unique attacks per encounter.  That's significant, especially when you factor in potential dailies, additional at wills and utility spells.



> Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.



The Quickstart sheet explicitly stated that the At-Will abilities are the default.  The basic attack is the exception.  What does that matter?  

If a casual gamer wants to shoot their magic missile every round without worrying about the complexities of resource management, that's fine.  In previous versions of the game, such a person would usually be stuffed into the role of the fighter.  Now they can fill other needed roles.  This is a good thing.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> But its not always the most sensible thing to do and I think a good 4e DM who wants to challenge his players needs to realize that...for example, the wizard's magic missile power is a ranged attack, meaning that it provokes an opportunity attack if used against someone in an adjacent square.  Imagine a pair of eladrin skirmishers fey step and flank your wizard....yeesh, that could get ugly fast if no one around you to help.




Aren't the defenders supposed to prevent the said skirmishers from flanking the Wizard in the first place? .


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Encounter and Daily powers are generally meant to be combat applicable.  They will also be able to do rituals, which are supposed to be the out-of-combat things like identifying and raising dead.  I haven't seen any details yet on how often you can do these things, but you have to add these to the pile of things the wizard can do.
> 
> DS




True, but again the amount of variety you get when it comes to combat Per Day encounters seems to be rather small. Two for a level 5 character doesn't seem to be much.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> That's at least 4 unique attacks per encounter.  That's significant, especially when you factor in potential dailies, additional at wills and utility spells.




That's four _potential_ unique attacks. The somewhat limited usefulness of some of the abilities may make their use impractical however.



> The Quickstart sheet explicitly stated that the At-Will abilities are the default.  The basic attack is the exception.  What does that matter?




Simple. Why have a basic attack in the first place if the At-Wills are clearly superior?



> If a casual gamer wants to shoot their magic missile every round without worrying about the complexities of resource management, that's fine.  In previous versions of the game, such a person would usually be stuffed into the role of the fighter.  Now they can fill other needed roles.  This is a good thing.




I dunno. On the flip side, you could also say that all characters now play like Fighters. That's not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> True, but again the amount of variety you get when it comes to combat Per Day encounters seems to be rather small. Two for a level 5 character doesn't seem to be much.



 And so it should be. If you can blow off per-day stuff in every battle, that defeats the purpose of making them per-day.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Simple. Why have a basic attack in the first place if the At-Wills are clearly superior?




Is this a trick question?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And so it should be. If you can blow off per-day stuff in every battle, that defeats the purpose of making them per-day.




The thing is, I'm assuming that each per-day ability is different from one another. That means you can't just spam Fireballs anymore. You Per-day suite of abilities will consist of several different abilities. Maybe you have one Fireball, and one Haste. But you can't have 2 Fireballs.

And if you can only pick two options out of the whole arcane power list, you might run into a situation where both of your Per Day abilities end up being rather useless.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Is this a trick question?




Nope. I'm referring to the fact that if basic attacks are clearly obsolete in the face of At-wills, why have a basic attack in the first place?


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> That's four _potential_ unique attacks. The somewhat limited usefulness of some of the abilities may make their use impractical however.



The examples of play provided by various people have repeatedly shown that this isn't the case.  Positioning, quantity and types of foes and a host of externalities determine what is optimal on a given round.  The one exception may be the ranger and that very well could have been due to a typo on the character sheet.


> Simple. Why have a basic attack in the first place if the At-Wills are clearly superior?



 For the reasons stated on the Quickstart Guide, charging, opportunity attacks and powers like Fox's Cunning.


> I dunno. On the flip side, you could also say that all characters now play like Fighters. That's not necessarily a good thing.



If you mean that they have something meaningful to contribute every round, then yes it's a good thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> The thing is, I'm assuming that each per-day ability is different from one another. That means you can't just spam Fireballs anymore. You Per-day suite of abilities will consist of several different abilities. Maybe you have one Fireball, and one Haste. But you can't have 2 Fireballs.




Why?



> And if you can only pick two options out of the whole arcane power list, you might run into a situation where both of your Per Day abilities end up being rather useless.




One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> The examples of play provided by various people have repeatedly shown that this isn't the case.  Positioning, quantity and types of foes and a host of externalities determine what is optimal on a given round.  The one exception may be the ranger and that very well could have been due to a typo on the character sheet.




Like I said above though, this seems to be more of "the right tool for the right enemy" approach we're already used to in 3E. Not really any real revolution in terms of how tactics radically change the battlefield.



> For the reasons stated on the Quickstart Guide, charging, opportunity attacks and powers like Fox's Cunning.




I'm aware of it. Again though, the thing that bugs me is that the "basic" attack is more of an _exception_ rather than the rule. Maybe I'd just like it better if they added something to _complement_ the basic attacks of the old editions - not replace it.



> If you mean that they have something meaningful to contribute every round, then yes it's a good thing.




Not always. A Fighter rolling an attack roll is contributing meaningfully every round, but it can get a tad boring since it's the same action every round. Granted, the Fighter at-will, per encounter, and per day abilities are an improvement as far as martials are concerned, but on the whole it still feels like a mere extension of the old "right tool for the right enemy" approach.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I'm aware of it. Again though, the thing that bugs me is that the "basic" attack is more of an _exception_ rather than the rule. Maybe I'd just like it better if they added something to _complement_ the basic attacks of the old editions - not replace it.




The solution to this is to not let it bug you.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why?




Because when they had a chance to feature a 3/Day ability, they made it an "At Will" ability that could just be used 3 times a day.



> One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.




Dunno if nerfing schticks was an entirely good thing either, quite honestly.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The solution to this is to not let it bug you.




Nope, the real solution would be to figure out why they went this route rather than the approach I mentioned.

Because as it stands, basic attacks really feel like a relic that somebody forgot to remove.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Because when they had a chance to feature a 3/Day ability, they made it an "At Will" ability that could just be used 3 times a day.




Which is the inverse of a per-day ability that can be selected 3 times.




> Dunno if nerfing schticks was an entirely good thing either, quite honestly.




Your point being...?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Nope, the real solution would be to figure out why they went this route rather than the approach I mentioned.




No, the real solution would be to not let it bug you.



> Because as it stands, basic attacks really feel like a relic that somebody forgot to remove.




"At-will" does not mean "whenever I want".


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

> Like I said above though, this seems to be more of "the right tool for the right enemy" approach we're already used to in 3E. Not really any real revolution in terms of how tactics radically change the battlefield.



I give up.  I have no idea what would make you happy.  Are you worried about being bored or do you want all options to always be optimal?  Beats me. LOL


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Nope, the real solution would be to figure out why they went this route rather than the approach I mentioned.
> 
> Because as it stands, basic attacks really feel like a relic that somebody forgot to remove.



I think I have a solution for you on this one point.  Write in Magic Missile on the front of your character sheet.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, the real solution would be to not let it bug you.




You're not helping.



> "At-will" does not mean "whenever I want".




Technically speaking, it does.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I give up.  I have no idea what would make you happy.  Are you worried about being bored or do you want all options to always be optimal?  Beats me. LOL




Neither. I'm trying to figure out why the 4E team made these design decisions, and I'm wondering if they're the right ones.

Honestly, what worries me is that the changes seem to be largely cosmetic when it comes to improving tactical combat. The At-will stuff sounds neat and all, but right now it seems to be a somewhat shallow rehash of the "One spell for the right occassion" tradition we're used to in 3.X. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I was just hoping that there would be more emphasis on movement and terrain usage over picking the right tools in 4E.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I think I have a solution for you on this one point.  Write in Magic Missile on the front of your character sheet.




I can remember MM just fine. Again, I'm just wondering why they didn't just remove it.

Again, speaking from the "How did they design this thing?" perspective here, not "How will I play it?"


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> You're not helping.




Of course I am. It's not my fault if NOONE LISTENS TO ME.



> Technically speaking, it does.




Technically speaking, no it doesn't. Informally speaking, it does.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which is the inverse of a per-day ability that can be selected 3 times.




But they didn't say it's a per-day ability that can be used three times in the same day. They said the inverse. Hence, logically speaking, the "Per-Day" label is likely the stricter label. 

In short, when they say it's a Per Day ability, it's really something that you can use just once a day.



> Your point being...?




Losing schticks takes away some of the uniqueness of each character. Not always a good thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Honestly, what worries me is that the changes seem to be largely cosmetic when it comes to improving tactical combat. The At-will stuff sounds neat and all, but right now it seems to be a somewhat shallow rehash of the "One spell for the right occassion" tradition we're used to in 3.X.




At-will is not there to solve "one spell for the right occasion". At-will is there to solve "no spells at all".



> Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I was just hoping that there would be more emphasis on movement and terrain usage over picking the right tools in 4E.




Did you just claim that people in 4E combat don't move enough?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> But they didn't say it's a per-day ability that can be used three times in the same day. They said the inverse.




Yes, I know this, because that's what I said.



> Hence, logically speaking, the "Per-Day" label is likely the stricter label.




What?



> In short, when they say it's a Per Day ability, it's really something that you can use just once a day.




What?



> Losing schticks takes away some of the uniqueness of each character. Not always a good thing.




Exactly.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> At-will is not there to solve "one spell for the right occasion". At-will is there to solve "no spells at all".




... Which was solved by weapon usage in 3.X, also known as a basic attack.

Transforming a basic attack into an at-will power that does mainly the same thing is, for the most part, a cosmetic change.



> Did you just claim that people in 4E combat don't move enough?




Maybe you could direct me to the good and valid reasons as to why the characters should keep moving in 4E, and then maybe I'll see where the tactical improvements are?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, I know this, because that's what I said.




Let me to try to explain via analogy.

In Magic, there are spells that can be played at any time (even the opponent's turn) known as "Instants". 

However, an "Instant" card is its own card type. It can never be a creature card or an enchantment card at the same time. 

Instead, if a Magic designer wants a creature that can be played at any time (even the opponent's turn), they instead use a keyword known as "flash". In short, while Instant cards can't be modded to become creatures, creature cards can attain some elements of Instants through the use of the keyword flash. You also don't need to do both since they just do the same thing.

In this case, we've seen cases where At-will powers can be limited in use per day. But we haven't seen Per day abilities that can be used multiple times per day. Since both actually have the same mechanical effect, it may be safe to conclude that only the former exists (At-will powers that can be used multiple times), while the latter does not.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> ... Which was solved by weapon usage in 3.X, also known as a basic attack.




Which is not a wizard's schtick.



> Transforming a basic attack into an at-will power that does mainly the same thing is, for the most part, a cosmetic change.




Which addresses the wizard's schtick.

If you had no problem with the wizard firing off a crossbow bolt for 1d8 every round, then this change is unnecessary. If you considered a wizard firing a crossbow as doing un-wizardly stuff, then this change is good.

If you are talking about non-wizard at-will powers, then the distinction between basic attacks used in some tactical situations and at-will powers used otherwise provides a non-cosmetic point of difference between the two.

Isn't pointless arguing fun?




> Maybe you could direct me to the good and valid reasons as to why the characters should keep moving in 4E, and then maybe I'll see where the tactical improvements are?




Movement is not always voluntary.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Let me to try to explain via analogy.




Let me try to repeat: One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which is not a wizard's schtick.




It is until they get more spells.



> Which addresses the wizard's schtick.
> 
> If you had no problem with the wizard firing off a crossbow bolt for 1d8 every round, then this change is unnecessary. If you considered a wizard firing a crossbow as doing un-wizardly stuff, then this change is good.




Which again, is just a cosmetic change.



> If you are talking about non-wizard at-will powers, then the distinction between basic attacks used in some tactical situations and at-will powers used otherwise provides a non-cosmetic point of difference between the two.




Not really. There used to be things like Cleave, Power Attack, and other Feat-based tactical stuff too.



> Isn't pointless arguing fun?




*shrugs* Whatever.



> Movement is not always voluntary.




So? Involuntary movement points to the lack of tactics, because you don't have control over your movement .


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Let me try to repeat: One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.




Having Wizards unable to boom more than a handful of people IS nerfing the Wizard.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

My guess is that a multiple per day would be due to it being taken more than once.

I think the proper balance would be to give the wizard fewer at wills and encounters and more per days to give them the diversity they had before since the wizard's difference is suppose to be their spells.  It would also give an older feel to to the class similar to previous editions.  Right now the wizard feels more like a sorcerer to me.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> It is until they get more spells.




Apparently not, in the presence of at-will powers.



> Which again, is just a cosmetic change.




You say this like it's a negative thing.



> Not really. There used to be things like Cleave, Power Attack, and other Feat-based tactical stuff too.




Can we get straight what it is we're trying to pointlessly argue, please? It's hard to construct a pointless counterargument otherwise.



> *shrugs* Whatever.




Indeed.



> So? Involuntary movement points to the lack of tactics, because you don't have control over your movement .




Well, that was enlightening.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Having Wizards unable to boom more than a handful of people IS nerfing the Wizard.



 The wizard is perfectly capable of booming plenty of people, plenty of times per day. He just might have to wait until later than 1st level, like everyone else.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

The wizard has no problem nuking the battlefield even at 1st level.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Apparently not, in the presence of at-will powers.




I was referring to older editions.



> You say this like it's a negative thing.




Cosmetic changes rarely result in long-term endearment. Short-term excitement, yes. But if the crunch behind the fluff is still basically the same it won't amount to much.



> Can we get straight what it is we're trying to pointlessly argue, please? It's hard to construct a pointless counterargument otherwise.




*shrugs* Whatever. If you think it's pointless, it's not my problem.



> Well, that was enlightening.




I hope it was. I thought it was fairly obvious that not having control over your own movement is to let someone else do the tactics for you


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The wizard is perfectly capable of booming plenty of people, plenty of times per day. He just might have to wait until later than 1st level, like everyone else.




... With two per-day abilities even at level 5?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> The wizard has no problem nuking the battlefield even at 1st level.




To clarify, in which edition, and how so?


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> To clarify, in which edition, and how so?



I think you might benefit from playing the game.  Kobold minions plus scorching burst equals trivial encounter.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I think you might benefit from playing the game.  Kobold minions plus scorching burst equals trivial encounter.




In 4E or 3E again? Just clarifying the edition. I've played plenty of 3E, but none of 4E, so I don't know how to answer "Wizards can nuke plenty" when you don't mention the edition.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I think you might benefit from playing the game.  Kobold minions plus scorching burst equals trivial encounter.




Unless you play them literally as suggested, too which they are indestructible until you slap them at which point they explode (referencing cross thread where someone pointed out they die from combat damage).


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

> In 4E or 3E again? Just clarifying the edition. I've played plenty of 3E, but none of 4E, so I don't know how to answer "Wizards can nuke plenty" when you don't mention the edition.



4th edition.


> Unless you play them literally as suggested, too which they are indestructible until you slap them at which point they explode (referencing cross thread where someone pointed out they die from combat damage).



Scorching Burst requires attack rolls, so it's sufficient to kill them.  Cleave, Divine Challenge and Wall of Ice cause problems.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Scorching Burst requires attack rolls, so it's sufficient to kill them.  Cleave, Divine Challenge and Wall of Ice cause problems.




They cause problems if you lack common sense, honestly. If a single hit from a rusty dagger that deals a single point of damage is enough to kill them, then common sense would dictate that any point of damage from any other source would kill them. This whole "a punch kills them, but the sun going supernova and destroying the planet won't" argument is beyond silly.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> They cause problems if you lack common sense, honestly. If a single hit from a rusty dagger that deals a single point of damage is enough to kill them, then common sense would dictate that any point of damage from any other source would kill them. This whole "a punch kills them, but the sun going supernova and destroying the planet won't" argument is beyond silly.



Someone, somewhere is gaming across the table from Hypersmurf.  However reasonable _I_ am doesn't much matter if I play with ruleslawyers.  It ain't worth the strife.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

I was being humorous with my comment as I am sure you read my comments in the actual post I refer to.  Anyone who would take that literally is begging for trouble in their game.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> I was being humorous with my comment as I am sure you read my comments in the actual post I refer to.  Anyone who would take that literally is begging for trouble in their game.



Sorry.  I've been sitting in this thread slowly losing my mind listening to contradictory nonsense.  I think I've lost some perspective.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

I sympathize with you about the rules lawyers.  My head instantly started aching as soon as I read the mentioning of them.  My recommendation is to give them two cyanide and not to call them in the morning, but at last what can we do.  The things we will put up with to keep a gaming group going.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah.  The dirty little secret is that ruleslawyering is infectious.  If I run, I just carry the disease with me.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

I understand why they have gone to the at will, encounter, daily system, but at the same time as I mentioned I think certain classes should be focused on these aspects differently.  The wizard being more of a daily user than the other types.  The various fighting forms would allow for fighters to have more at wills, and so on.  What real difference can there be between a wizard and a sorcerer now with this system, if any?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I was referring to older editions.




I was referring to 4E.



> Cosmetic changes rarely result in long-term endearment.




Nobody said anything about long-term endearment.



> Short-term excitement, yes. But if the crunch behind the fluff is still basically the same it won't amount to much.




Tell that to everyone whinging about how succubae got nerfed.



> *shrugs* Whatever. If you think it's pointless, it's not my problem.




Indeed.



> I hope it was. I thought it was fairly obvious that not having control over your own movement is to let someone else do the tactics for you




... and therefore, the solution is to move away from them, yes?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> ... With two per-day abilities even at level 5?



 Consider the possibility, no matter how distant, that in 4E a wizard's abilities might extend beyond those usable only once per day.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> 4th edition.




Then nope, no experience then.

How many HP do Kobolds have? One Scorching Burst is enough to kill them?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I was referring to 4E.




What we have here is a failure to communicate.



> Nobody said anything about long-term endearment.




Nope, but that was the implied problem of relying only on cosmetic changes.



> Tell that to everyone whinging about how succubae got nerfed.




They aren't in this thread, so not really relevant.



> ... and therefore, the solution is to move away from them, yes?




Uh, how can one move away if you can't voluntarily move away?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Consider the possibility, no matter how distant, that in 4E a wizard's abilities might extend beyond those usable only once per day.




If you consider per-encounter abilities, yep, they have more firepower. Still, the "big gun" ones seem awfully few.

Does anyone have any info if per-day abilities may eventually become per-encounter ones though? (Once you go up a few levels anyway)


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> What we have here is a failure to communicate.




What we have here is pointless argumentation, which is my schtick.



> Nope, but that was the implied problem of relying only on cosmetic changes.




Nobody said anything about relying only on cosmetic changes.



> They aren't in this thread, so not really relevant.




Perfectly relevant, as an example of how fluff can impact a game.



> Uh, how can one move away if you can't voluntarily move away?




Sigh.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> If you consider per-encounter abilities, yep, they have more firepower. Still, the "big gun" ones seem awfully few.




Which is a feature, not a bug, at least until the paragon tier.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What we have here is pointless argumentation, which is my schtick.




I noticed.



> Nobody said anything about relying only on cosmetic changes.




Which is why I asked for the non-cosmetic changes.



> Perfectly relevant, as an example of how fluff can impact a game.




Yeah, but they're not here so I can't tell them their whining is irrelevant.

That was the irrelevant part, not how fluff can impact the game.



> Sigh.




... You're the one who told me that you don't have to voluntarily move in 4E. Since you previously implied 4E was full of movement, the conclusion is that much of the movement is involuntary.

Perhaps you can clarify?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which is a feature, not a bug, at least until the paragon tier.




Ah. Right, the game goes up to level 30 now. So ability/power progression (from a level by level perspective) was likely made slower.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I noticed.




I do this better than you.



> Which is why I asked for the non-cosmetic changes.




The non-cosmetic changes include per-encounter and per-day abilities.



> Yeah, but they're not here so I can't tell them their whining is irrelevant.
> 
> That was the irrelevant part, not how fluff can impact the game.




And since it is all irrelevant, presumably you'll now stop whining about how wizards can zap magic missiles at will.



> ... You're the one who told me that you don't have to voluntarily move in 4E. Since you previously implied 4E was full of movement, the conclusion is that much of the movement is involuntary.
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?




If you don't want to be MOVED, you have to MOVE.

Isn't this fun?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Ah. Right, the game goes up to level 30 now. So ability/power progression (from a level by level perspective) was likely made slower.



 Indeed.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Ah. Right, the game goes up to level 30 now. So ability/power progression (from a level by level perspective) was likely made slower.




Yeah, that is definitely one thing to consider when speculating about damage, hit points, and all that. Since the power curve has been flattened a bit by the addition of 10 levels to the core "balancing act," things are going to look odd to us until we can actually put it through it's paces.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I do this better than you.




Good for you. Because I don't really care.



> The non-cosmetic changes include per-encounter and per-day abilities.




They're basically just reworked spells.



> And since it is all irrelevant, presumably you'll now stop whining about how wizards can zap magic missiles at will.




Uh, who's whining about Wizards able to zap MMs all day?

I was just saying it's weird they retained basic attacks when they can already zap MM's all day.



> If you don't want to be MOVED, you have to MOVE.




What are the consequences of getting moved?



> Isn't this fun?




Not really, but enduring it might reveal some good tidbits and insights, which is fun.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Good for you. Because I don't really care.




You don't?



> They're basically just reworked spells.




Nobody said anything about spells being bad.



> Uh, who's whining about Wizards able to zap MMs all day?
> 
> I was just saying it's weird they retained basic attacks when they can already zap MM's all day.




Since it's just fluff either way, who cares?



> What are the consequences of getting moved?




You don't get to move away when a monster tries to eat your face.



> Not really, but enduring it might reveal some good tidbits and insights, which is fun.




That's the theory anyway.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I was just saying it's weird they retained basic attacks when they can already zap MM's all day.




Take away basic attacks, and they have no way to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks, since we've no indication that ranged attacks can be used.



> What are the consequences of getting moved?




Depends on the battle. It might put you over a cliff. It might put you up against a soldier who doesn't want to let you go, thus making your life more dangerous. It might put you into a flank, which grants combat advantage to your foes.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You don't?




Nope. 



> Nobody said anything about spells being bad.




The point is that this particular change is cosmetic. Since they're spells with new packaging, it's merely cosmetic.



> Since it's just fluff either way, who cares?




Because sometimes "relics" (i.e. the basic attacks) point to a decisive change in the middle of the design process which resulted in a significant shift in how the game plays. I'm just trying to figure out if such a change did happen, and if so what change it is.



> You don't get to move away when a monster tries to eat your face.




They try that all the time in all editions. In 4E, are there far more incidences where a monster is forced to "waste" a turn and be unable to attack at all?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Nope.




Sure you don't.



> The point is that this particular change is cosmetic. Since they're spells with new packaging, it's merely cosmetic.




Hm, so changing the system so that some spells are now per-encounter instead of per-day is "merely cosmetic". I wonder what a substantial change would be. Maybe something like dragonborn women having breasts.



> Because sometimes "relics" (i.e. the basic attacks) point to a decisive change in the middle of the design process which resulted in a significant shift in how the game plays. I'm just trying to figure out if such a change did happen, and if so what change it is.




... or you could just play the game when it comes out.



> They try that all the time in all editions. In 4E, are there far more incidences where a monster is forced to "waste" a turn and be unable to attack at all?




What?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Take away basic attacks, and they have no way to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks, since we've no indication that ranged attacks can be used.




True, but I wonder why can't you simply use an At-Will power for an opportunity attack. (There are exceptions, but I'm speaking in terms of most At-Will powers). Was there something particularly overpowering about using At-Will attacks for an opportunity attack?

This is the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out. I know most people probably won't have insights unless they were on the design team, but it's a topic I'd like to see more discussion on.

(And it's worth noting we got a good answer as to why Saves are just a plain 50-50 roll in this thread)



> Depends on the battle. It might put you over a cliff. It might put you up against a soldier who doesn't want to let you go, thus making your life more dangerous. It might put you into a flank, which grants combat advantage to your foes.




Ah, so there is more "nudging" as opposed to 3E where all you have is Bull Rush and a few spells. Interesting.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> True, but I wonder why can't you simply use an At-Will power for an opportunity attack.




To insert more tactical variety into the game, of course.

Oops, I forgot we're including tactical variety in the cosmetic change category now. My bad.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Sure you don't.




Really I don't. Declare yourself the winner if it makes you happy.



> Hm, so changing the system so that some spells are now per-encounter instead of per-day is "merely cosmetic". I wonder what a substantial change would be. Maybe something like dragonborn women having breasts.




What you describe is also cosmetic.

Though admittedly "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" is a somewhat significant change in the number of times abilities can be used, as opposed to the X/Day used before. But still, spells are spells.



> ... or you could just play the game when it comes out.




Why wait when you have 3 months to talk about it?



> What?




Are there more instances in 4E where a monster simply can't reach a Player-character and attack him/her?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To insert more tactical variety into the game, of course.




If you're talking about variety, then letting a character use At-Will abilities to do Opportunity Attacks adds to the variety. Because there are more types of At-Will abilities compared to basic attacks, of which there is but one.



> Oops, I forgot we're including tactical variety in the cosmetic change category now. My bad.




Your sarcasm is boring. Moreover, I wasn't talking to you for this particular point.

Just respond to the ones where I specifically respond to you.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> If you're talking about variety, then letting a character use At-Will abilities to do Opportunity Attacks adds to the variety. Because there are more types of At-Will abilities compared to basic attacks, of which there is but one.




No, there is more variety because number of attacks = number of attacks +1 if basic attacks are included. Further, this also means actions that provoke OAs are less dangerous than otherwise, encouraging people to take risks.



> Your sarcasm is boring. Moreover, I wasn't talking to you for this particular point.
> 
> Just respond to the ones where I specifically respond to you.




You mean, like this one?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Really I don't. Declare yourself the winner if it makes you happy.




No, I don't get to make declarations unilaterally.



> What you describe is also cosmetic.




Somehow, I don't think you get to do that either.



> Though admittedly "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" is a somewhat significant change in the number of times abilities can be used, as opposed to the X/Day used before. But still, spells are spells.




And a twenty-sided die is a twenty-sided die, regardless of whether it has 20 or 10 sides, yes?



> Why wait when you have 3 months to talk about it?




Indeed.



> Are there more instances in 4E where a monster simply can't reach a Player-character and attack him/her?




Say rather, are there more instances in 4E where a monster can move to attack someone and deal full damage?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, there is more variety because number of attacks = number of attacks +1 if basic attacks are included. Further, this also means actions that provoke OAs are less dangerous than otherwise, encouraging people to take risks.




I thought most At-Wills aren't useable for OAs?

Still, good point - it could very well be to encourage risk-taking.



> You mean, like this one?




Yep, it counts now.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I thought most At-Wills aren't useable for OAs?




Exactly. Do keep track of the pointless argumentation, please.




> Yep, it counts now.




I thought you were going to let me declare myself the winner?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. Do keep track of the pointless argumentation, please.




Actually, I'll just keep track of the insights. 



> I thought you were going to let me declare myself the winner?




*shrugs* Whatever.


----------



## kristov (Mar 7, 2008)

*2 things*

#1. good read.

#2. i really do believe that if pazio doesnt jump on the 4e wagon and ride it with WOTC they will tank. 

This will be true for most publishers out there. fact is our wonderful gaming market is really quite small and its hard hard hard to make a living in it without following along with the big dogs. 

I havent played 4e and am not saying I approve of it, but seriously, business sense kicks in and says this isnt a choice. You don't bite the hand that feeds you unless your tired of being fed.


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> At-will is not there to solve "one spell for the right occasion". At-will is there to solve "no spells at all".




This was already addressed in 3.x its called a reserve feat.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 7, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> This was already addressed in 3.x its called a reserve feat.




Really?
A non-core feat in a book I don't own that hasn't been released in the OGL?

Solved all my problems.


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I do this better than you.
> 
> 
> Isn't this fun?




Indeed, if there was an ENie Award for meaasageboard asshat of the year it wold be named after Hong.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

Moderator/

Hong and Zinegata

Having had a whole page of what I shall loosely term discussion between yourselves, I think it is time for you two to stop replying to each other at this point in the thread.

Thanks


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 7, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Really?
> A non-core feat in a book I don't own that hasn't been released in the OGL?
> 
> Solved all my problems.




Yes its true they like to make money, don't expect this to change with the new edition making money will still be the name of the game sounds like the OGL will be significantly changed as well so don't get your hopes up for free rules etc.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Yes its true they like to make money, don't expect this to change with the new edition making money will still be the name of the game sounds like the OGL will be significantly changed as well so don't get your hopes up for free rules etc.



He didn't say anything about it having to be free. But if it is not opened in the OGL or GSL, no other publisher can use it. So it's only useable in a small subset of situations. It can't be referenced in an OGL module (either by a NPC using it, or by the author addressing how this ability might or might not be applied in a certain situation), and it can't be built upon in other modules. That is a limitation. 

And furthermore, it being "non-core" points out that it is "patch" to 3E, and can have unforseen problems. If it's build into the system from the get-go, such problems can be better accounted for.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> This was already addressed in 3.x its called a reserve feat.




The cute little $ symbol you have under your moniker proceeding the word sceptic, would be much more appropriate to 5th edition, you know, the shape?


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 7, 2008)

kristov said:
			
		

> #2. i really do believe that if pazio doesnt jump on the 4e wagon and ride it with WOTC they will tank.
> 
> This will be true for most publishers out there. fact is our wonderful gaming market is really quite small and its hard hard hard to make a living in it without following along with the big dogs.
> 
> I havent played 4e and am not saying I approve of it, but seriously, business sense kicks in and says this isnt a choice. You don't bite the hand that feeds you unless your tired of being fed.




I have to disagree with this.  I think there will be a market for 3.x stuff after 4.0 comes out.  As with previous editions there will be people still playing 3.x as there are people playing every previous version of D&D.  My old game group just switched to 3.x back in October of last year after playing 2nd all these past years and only changed because the DM who was stuck on 2nd finally decided to change over.  Course now that he finally left it behind the group is more willing to move to 4.0 since it is so close and they won't have to buy as many books to start (not everyone has bought their books yet as they've only been playing one mod and could go back to 2nd).  There are players out there though who will never change for the most part and some of those will buy 4.0 to check it out even though they might never play it.  Not to mention a lot of the popular secondary 3.x systems (WoW RPG, Midnight, Conan, etc) have gone OGL so their players don't need to switch to 4.0 if they don't want too.  There will be a market, just not as big as before, but probably enough to sustain a few companies.


----------



## Woas (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> The cute little $ symbol you have under your moniker proceeding the word sceptic, would be much more appropriate to 5th edition, you know, the shape?




Yeah... but the dollar symbol is shift-4. Hmmmmmm... I'm thinking CONSPIRACY!


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> The cute little $ symbol you have under your moniker proceeding the word sceptic, would be much more appropriate to 5th edition, you know, the shape?



This isn't the place to whine about other people's custom titles.



Back to the thread at hand, I thought was Jason said was certainly interesting. I also didn't see it as a "review" in any way - just his 'feelings' on a blog (isn't that what a lot of blogs are for?). In any case, more information is always good.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 8, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> There will be a market, just not as big as before, but probably enough to sustain a few companies.




Well, if 50%* of your market is switching to a new format and abandoning the old one, can you survive on the remaining 50% that is left?

That is the question these companies need to ask themselves if they don't plan on supporting 4.0.

Honestly, the rules aren't that amazingly different that it is entirely possible for a company to write adventures without any stat blocks in the main part of the adventure and just put the stats/combat tactics of the monsters in the back of the mod, in both formats.  By the way 4e looks to be turning out, it would be a simple matter without need of advancing monsters since you can just select from a list of similar ones. Something like, "If using 4e rules, instead of the advanced gibbering monster of legend, use Aberrant Morass, boss monster, page 296 of the 4e MM".

 *  50% is a number totally pulled out of the air, but it's a nice conservative estimate.  Going by my personal circle of gaming friends and acquaintances though, that number is closer to 95%.


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2008)

If it's 50%, it's a lose/lose for them, really.

And yeah, it's looking a lot closer to 95% from what I've seen.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 8, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> If it's 50%, it's a lose/lose for them, really.
> 
> And yeah, it's looking a lot closer to 95% from what I've seen.




Really, 95%?  Hmmm...interesting.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2008)

I'm sure there's enough 3e market remaining to support a few companies.

I'm not sure there's enough 3e market to support _Paizo._

We're not exactly talking about a basement pdf operation here.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 8, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> This was already addressed in 3.x its called a reserve feat.




Which, while nice, and while I am a fan of them...lag pretty heavily in usefulness pretty quickly. By higher levels, there's really no point to them.

Reserve feats were a good idea, not a solution to any problem by any means.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 8, 2008)

The companies I see continuing on will be those who have already broken from the pack.  They might do some 4e stuff, but for the most part will probably keep doing what they have been doing.  Companies like Green Ronin, Mongoose, and Fantasy Flight already have 3.x related independent products holding up on their own and continue that way.

Don't forget players who will play more than one game system.  I've bought enough variety stuff over the years to keep a few manufacturers in business for a couple of years at least.  Some will be willing to continue playing 3.x while moving on to 4.0.

The fact we don't know about the guessed statistics mentioned is out of that 50% or even 5%, how much of that will be pre-existing market already.  If they aren't losing their market then there will be nothing to gain by moving to 4.0.  Also some companies have developed a good enough reputation that some fans will buy the product anyway just converting it over.  Another defining issue will be the new GSL, or whatever acronym WotC finally settles on, and if it will allow companies to still work with the OGL or not.  If it does then I see companies like GR modeling Freeport stuff to work with both products if only posting conversion information on their website.  Chris Pramas has already mentioned to some extent that this element will be one of the deciding factors for them.  How much or to what extent we'll have to wait and see once they decide.

The allowance of the OGL will be an important aspect also.  It has been both a blessing and a curse to the industry as we've seen.  We've all seen how it has raised companies out of the ranks while crushing others.  WotC needs as many people on board 4e as possible because of that.  A company, because of the OGL, actually has the potential to destroy D&D if you really think about it.  All it takes is for someone to come out with a game concept based on the OGL that everyone likes more than D&D and it would be game over.  Think WoW when it emerged compared to EQ, most figured it would do well, but I don't think anyone really expected it to do as well as it has, coming to dominate the MMO industry.  Both are online games, both play similar for the most part, and so there is no reason they shouldn't be running neck and neck other than people like playing WoW more than playing EQ or any other MMO for that matter.  The more companies WotC gets onboard with 4e though, the less likely people will remember the OGL down the road, and the less likely something like this will happen.  However if WotC denies it outright the decision will probably hurt them as everyone I mentioned rely on their dominate products, which all depend upon the OGL, and having to shutdown their main cash flow will be a big turn off.

I'm looking forward to 4e, but it has to live up to what has been promised and everyone has got to get on board if you look at it from a business sense thanks to the OGL.  Small companies eking a living off the OGL and 3.x related stuff isn't the worry and they will thrive, thanks to those few who remain behind, without any problems.  The whole thing reminds me of a Greek tragedy in how the hero does something he thinks is helpful, but in the end it comes back to bite him.  I am interested in seeing how everything turns out come this time two years from now, finding out who lives or dies because of 4e.

Please realize the companies I've mentioned have found niche markets for themselves and are used as examples.  Fantasy Flight Games have Midnight covering dark epic fantasy, Green Ronin has Mutants & Masterminds covering super heroes and True20 which has grown into its own game system but still based on 3.x for the most part, and Mongoose has Conan covering bloody epic fantasy.  I almost forgot Sword & Sorcery has the World of Warcraft RPG put out through White Wolf.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 8, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Really, 95%?  Hmmm...interesting.



Well, 65% of all statistics are made up... 

So, my made-up statistic: Our group (5 people) will certainly switch. That means 100 % of the guys I play with will play 4E. 

That said, there are 2 persons I know that were part of the gaming part but can no longer game regularly. One of them was skeptic, but on a very general base ("It will be all the same as  3E - a new 3.5.") since at that time, nobody knew any details. The other has already said he wants to buy the new core book (or at least the PHB) if it comes up...

But I am certain that there are groups out there where this is reserved. Because people in most groups have similar likes and dis-likes, and when one of them dislike a game, most of them will...


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> The point is that this particular change is cosmetic. Since they're spells with new packaging, it's merely cosmetic.





			
				Zinegata said:
			
		

> Though admittedly "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" is a somewhat significant change in the number of times abilities can be used, as opposed to the X/Day used before. But still, spells are spells.



You seem to be saying that the change in the Wizard's of abilities, from various per-day powers to a mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities, is merely cosmetic.

That's a bizarre claim.



			
				Zinegata said:
			
		

> Because sometimes "relics" (i.e. the basic attacks) point to a decisive change in the middle of the design process which resulted in a significant shift in how the game plays. I'm just trying to figure out if such a change did happen, and if so what change it is.



This remark is very abstract. What sort of change are you suspecting, and in what way is the notion of "basic attacks" evidence that it occured?

Also, is it relevant to your debate with Hong that Magic Missile includes the following text: "This power counts as a ranged basic attack."



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Hm, so changing the system so that some spells are now per-encounter instead of per-day is "merely cosmetic". I wonder what a substantial change would be. Maybe something like dragonborn women having breasts.



QFT!!!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's enough 3e market remaining to support a few companies.
> 
> I'm not sure there's enough 3e market to support _Paizo._
> 
> We're not exactly talking about a basement pdf operation here.




But by staying with 3e, they will get business from 1e, 2e, 3e, C&C, Hackmaster, etc players.  I imagine it will be pretty difficult to shoehorn a 4e module into any of the above campaigns.  But I've used 3e adventures in a number of different rulesets.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 8, 2008)

*Zinegata - The explanation of Basic Attacks*

The Basic Attack is the base on what all weapon "at will" and "per encounter" and "daily" abilities are built on. The Fighter's "Cleave" is a basic attack _plus_ a special ability (3 damage to adjacent foe... possibly that's Str-based).

In addition, when Charging or making an Opportunity Attack, you may only use a Basic Attack.

There are certain "at will" abilities that count as basic attacks, allowing them to be used during Charges and Opportunity Attacks, although I daresay they're basic magical attacks for spellcasters.

So, yes, while there's never really a time you'd use just a Basic Attack instead of an at-will ability, there are times when it's your only choice.

Cheers!


----------



## Primal (Mar 8, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> The comment about it being impossible to die seemed a bit wierd....I know of quite a few characters who died in DDE, including a number of TPKs.




These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 8, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.




And apparently more than a few parties were able to overcome the dragon, which attests to their toughtness as well.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 8, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.




I'm pretty sure that I also read reports that other parties died or had TPKs to other monsters in the DDXP modules.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 9, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You seem to be saying that the change in the Wizard's of abilities, from various per-day powers to a mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities, is merely cosmetic.
> 
> That's a bizarre claim.




Actually, I already mentioned what's different between the old spells and the new spells (read the second quote you quoted from me). Any other differences that Hong was saying was just cosmetic.



> This remark is very abstract. What sort of change are you suspecting, and in what way is the notion of "basic attacks" evidence that it occured?




Well, for one thing it seems to have been a design decision to encourage risk-taking. Since a Basic attack is generally less powerful than an At-Will Power, then it's clearly a design decision to encourage risk-taking.

If you have other ideas, it'd be great to hear them.



> Also, is it relevant to your debate with Hong that Magic Missile includes the following text: "This power counts as a ranged basic attack."




Which again points to some sort of design decision - why aren't all At Will powers simply also considered a basic attack?



> QFT!!!




Whatever. Again, I'm trying to figure out stuff. If you want to engage in frivolous silliness or pointless argumentation for the sake of improving imagined self-worth, that's your problem.

I just willingly endure this in the hopes I can figure out the new edition better.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 9, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Zinegata - The explanation of Basic Attacks*
> 
> The Basic Attack is the base on what all weapon "at will" and "per encounter" and "daily" abilities are built on. The Fighter's "Cleave" is a basic attack _plus_ a special ability (3 damage to adjacent foe... possibly that's Str-based).
> 
> ...




Thanks. I was kind of looking more along the lines of "Why did they choose to retain basic attacks, rather than make everything at-Willable" though ,


----------



## PoeticJustice (Mar 9, 2008)

Even as I am not going to switch to 4E, I do think there will be a wide range of powers to use. The convention format makes it impossible to give the full experience; after all, they must save some things for June.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 9, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> Thanks. I was kind of looking more along the lines of "Why did they choose to retain basic attacks, rather than make everything at-Willable" though ,



Because it's absurd to suggest that a wizard can't try to stab someone with a dagger.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 9, 2008)

There is money to be made for third-party companies, both in switching to 4E and sticking with 3.X.  But which is the right choice depends on the company.

The companies that switch to 4E get to compete in the bigger market.  Realistically, the vast majority of players will eventually make the jump, or else drop out of the hobby and not be replaced.  Whether or not you think 4E is better than 3.5, the fact remains that one of those editions will be fully supported by Wizards and one will not; one will be the most up-to-date edition and one will not; one will have a big marketing operation pushing it and one will not; most tellingly, one will be on bookstore shelves and one will not.  The only way 4E doesn't end up dominating the market is if it sucks so badly that it drives most gamers away from D&D entirely.

For companies that stay with 3.X, though, there will still be a market, since there will always be some holdouts.  That market will be a much smaller one, but intensely loyal.  The company that supports it--and I don't think there will be room for more than one or two--will probably make its living by sticking to a tried-and-true formula, not innovating or experimenting much.  This is not to say that 3.X enthusiasts don't want innovation or experimentation; but the market will be too small to support much of that.

The real question is, which companies will do best with which approach?  I'm fairly sure most of the big names in third-party d20 will have to switch over.  They're too big to sustain themselves exclusively off 3.X diehards.  If they don't switch, they'll have to scale back considerably.

I think we may also see a small renaissance of alternative game systems.  The much more restrictive new license does not look like encouraging the creation of games like Iron Heroes.  At the same time, games created under the old OGL will wither and die as 3.X mechanics cease to be a well-known universal.  Their death will create openings for new systems...

...or so I hope.  The other possibility is that, with the OGL having killed off a lot of competing systems, and the OGL itself no longer being supported by WotC, the RPG market under 4E will be even more completely dominated by D&D than it is now.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 9, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Because it's absurd to suggest that a wizard can't try to stab someone with a dagger.





They seem to be suggesting things just as absurd under the per encounter mechanic.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Mar 9, 2008)

Lets not kid ourselves PAIZO will go 4E. Erik has indicated this is his preference and what he sees the company doing. The only thing holding them back is the lack of GSL. 

The big companies didn't really expect an OGL or a GSL and started taking steps a year or two ago to insulate themselves from 4E. 

Green Ronin focused on Mutants and Masterminds and True 20. 
FFG moved into board games and to all intents and purposes stopped publishing d20, they now have the warhammer license and don't need DnD anymore. 
AEG stopped publishing d20 focusing on L5R. 
Privateer Press have focused on mini's.
White Wolf have their story teller system.

The only company that needs 4e to survive is Paizo. Paizo don't have a fall back plan (beyond perhaps 3.75). It's 4e or bust. WOTC isn't making there life any easier but I don't see them having any other options but to play along.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 9, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> They seem to be suggesting things just as absurd under the per encounter mechanic.




This is D&D, nothing is absurd.


----------



## Primal (Mar 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, 65% of all statistics are made up...
> 
> So, my made-up statistic: Our group (5 people) will certainly switch. That means 100 % of the guys I play with will play 4E.
> 
> ...




While I agree that most people will likely switch to 4E by the end of the year, all my local D&D groups (around 20 people or so) will *not* switch. So that means that 0% of the guys who play D&D and who I personally game with will not switch. All of us have made up our minds individually, but definitely there has been discussions about whether we should switch or not. Frankly, everyone said that so far they haven't seen anything innovative or revolutionary about 4E so far. 

I think Paizo *will* have a sizable and profitable share of the D&D community. Already they've announced that the sales have exceeded their expectations. And why not? They've really invested in top-notch quality in their art, maps and adventure design -- not to mention that they are really interested in communicating with their customers.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Mar 9, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:
			
		

> Lets not kid ourselves PAIZO will go 4E. Erik has indicated this is his preference and what he sees the company doing.




Interesting... Gotta source for this statement?


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 9, 2008)

Zinovia said:
			
		

> Thank you for the review.  It raises some interesting concerns.   Granted that some of them may be due to the factors of this being a first level adventure run at a convention by people new to the game.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear that the people writing the scenarios weren't told which characters would be running through it.  That seems like a significant oversight.  The first thing a DM does when creating an adventure is take a look at his group and their skills, and balance the encounters around that.  Knowing the 6 player group had no rogue and 2 defenders certainly would impact the challenges you throw at them.  I guess it boils down to lack of communication.




My impression is that it is not true anymore, or at least it is to a lesser degree than before. Classes seems to be much more alike than they was in 3e. there are stil some differences but are minor if compared to before. In 3e you could have a situation when without the right class you would be screwed (clerici and undeads, rogue and traps) or where a certain class would be useless (wizard (core only) and golems or rogue and undead), in 4e those will be gone or much, much rarer, sure agaisnt undead a cleric would be better, as a rogue with traps, but even without them the other classes can work just fine, the rouge cna sneak attack the skeletons and the fighter just bash the traps, or something, I'm sure they had thought to something.

I'm not sure this is a totally good thing, mind you.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 9, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> It never did make much sense to me why a god of death or entropy would grant healing...



How true, that is why I liked 2e spheres much more than 3e domains.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Mar 9, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> The companies I see continuing on will be those who have already broken from the pack.  -snip- Please realize the companies I've mentioned have found niche markets for themselves and are used as examples.  Fantasy Flight Games have Midnight covering dark epic fantasy, Green Ronin has Mutants & Masterminds covering super heroes and True20 which has grown into its own game system but still based on 3.x for the most part, and Mongoose has Conan covering bloody epic fantasy.  I almost forgot Sword & Sorcery has the World of Warcraft RPG put out through White Wolf.




Do not forget that FFG now will produce the Warhammer RPG and Warhammer 40k RPG products.

Green Ronin are currently developing the "A Song of Ice and Fire" Roleplaying Game, which has its own, non D20 engine (plug: and a damn good engine at that. I promise that bthis game will be a big success for GR)
Also GRs Freeport Hardcover products are Fluff only. They also release Crunch for D20 and True20 fo Freeport.

Mongoose also have Runequest and Traveller.

These companies are not dependent on the D20 system and may choose not to produce for 4th edition.
And I do think (from GR I know it) that all tehse companies make most of their cash from non D20 products nowadays.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Mar 9, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> Honestly, the rules aren't that amazingly different that it is entirely possible for a company to write adventures without any stat blocks in the main part of the adventure and just put the stats/combat tactics of the monsters in the back of the mod, in both formats.  By the way 4e looks to be turning out, it would be a simple matter without need of advancing monsters since you can just select from a list of similar ones. Something like, "If using 4e rules, instead of the advanced gibbering monster of legend, use Aberrant Morass, boss monster, page 296 of the 4e MM".




If it was only Monsters it would be cake to convert.
But we have the big Magic Problem.
A lot of spells from 3,5 won't be in 4th and vice versa.
Magic Items work differently and are different.
And encounters work different.

A designer has to take all this into account and the work involved might be too much to try to create an adventure that works with both 3rd and 4th mechanics.

Fluff heavy Stuff like Campaign Settings might be able to accomodate 3rd and 4th rules. Look at GR Freeport Setting. The Book has no rules, only Fluff. But there are Companions available for True20 and D20 that have all the Stats and new Rules for the Setting.
That might be a way to go for some publishers.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 9, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> They seem to be suggesting things just as absurd under the per encounter mechanic.



Assuming that you're referring to the trip power, I'm not so certain.  It seems that most people aren't objecting to the idea that you can only use a power once, but rather they find it absurd that the _result_ of tripping is constrained to once per combat.  Given Massawyrm's statements on the flexibility of the skill system, I'm willing to wait until the rules are published before concluding that it is impossible to trip more than once in an encounter.  If you weren't referring to the trip mechanics I apologize.  Your comment was a little vague so I took some liberty with it.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 9, 2008)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> If it was only Monsters it would be cake to convert.
> But we have the big Magic Problem.
> A lot of spells from 3,5 won't be in 4th and vice versa.
> Magic Items work differently and are different.
> And encounters work different.




How often do you design adventures around specific spells and magic items?
What spells/items don't you expect to see in 4e?  Most of what we've seen so far are combat spells, but we've been told that things like phantom steed and non-combat spells have been moved to Rituals.

Sure, the tacticals of a fight might be different.

But if you need a big reptillian brute to hang about the sewers and ambush the PCs, I'm sure there's an equivalent beast in both editions that will suffice.  Same thing with NPCs.  If the bandit leader is an Arcane Trickster in 3e, why can't he be a Wizard or Rogue in 4e with the appropriate multiclass?

The gist though is that yes, there will be some differences.  But if 50% of the stuff between editions is the same (personalities, story, plot) and 45% of the stuff are mechanics that have equivalents in either system, why get hung up on the 5% of the mechanics that doesn't translate?

Choosing to write adventures that translates to both editions is a lot better than simply ignoring one edition and lose half your customer base.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 10, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Because it's absurd to suggest that a wizard can't try to stab someone with a dagger.




Good one.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 10, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Assuming that you're referring to the trip power, I'm not so certain.  It seems that most people aren't objecting to the idea that you can only use a power once, but rather they find it absurd that the _result_ of tripping is constrained to once per combat.  Given Massawyrm's statements on the flexibility of the skill system, I'm willing to wait until the rules are published before concluding that it is impossible to trip more than once in an encounter.  If you weren't referring to the trip mechanics I apologize.  Your comment was a little vague so I took some liberty with it.




The trip power might be an example, but since I don't know what the trip power does it very well may be something that works as a per encounter power, with some pail imitation available through the basic mechanics of the game.  A rogues twist a knife in the wound power is another example that I find fluff wise just as absurd as saying a mage can't stab someone with a dagger, and it was the one I was thinking of at the time.  Maybe its because i like rogues but that one grates me the wrong way.


----------



## Filcher (Mar 10, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> The comment about it being impossible to die seemed a bit wierd....I know of quite a few characters who died in DDE, including a number of TPKs.




My character died. And the rest of the party got swallowed up by a cube.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 10, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> My character died. And the rest of the party got swallowed up by a cube.




The dang Borg are assimilating everything, now it's D&D.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 10, 2008)

"Resistance 15 (fire) is futile?"


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 10, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> The trip power might be an example, but since I don't know what the trip power does it very well may be something that works as a per encounter power, with some pail imitation available through the basic mechanics of the game.  A rogues twist a knife in the wound power is another example that I find fluff wise just as absurd as saying a mage can't stab someone with a dagger, and it was the one I was thinking of at the time.  Maybe its because i like rogues but that one grates me the wrong way.




I suspect that the way to justify "Per-Encounter" martial abilities is that they require precise timing or certain favorable conditions before they can be used. Want to twist a knife in the wound? Well, that only works once per encounter before you have to hit a pretty exposed piece of flesh. If you just slip the blade in between several armor plates, there just isn't room to twist it.

It's certainly more abstracted, and somewhat diminishes the fun for players who enjoy _setting up_ a killer blow as much as actually _timing_ the killer blow to land at the right time.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 10, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> I suspect that the way to justify "Per-Encounter" martial abilities is that they require precise timing or certain favorable conditions before they can be used. Want to twist a knife in the wound? Well, that only works once per encounter before you have to hit a pretty exposed piece of flesh. If you just slip the blade in between several armor plates, there just isn't room to twist it.
> 
> It's certainly more abstracted, and somewhat diminishes the fun for players who enjoy _setting up_ a killer blow as much as actually _timing_ the killer blow to land at the right time.




Yeah I've heard this argument, and it just doesn't work for me.  For those who this does work, hey great maybe the 4e per encounter system will be a lot of fun for you. I'll be wincing on the inside every time I use it if I switch.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 10, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Yeah I've heard this argument, and it just doesn't work for me.  For those who this does work, hey great maybe the 4e per encounter system will be a lot of fun for you. I'll be wincing on the inside every time I use it if I switch.




I'm not saying it's a better system though. I did note its pitfalls - namely it's very abstract and takes away the skill of the setup.

In short, I also share your pain. I'm just saying it in a pretty neutral fashion.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 10, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> It never did make much sense to me why a god of death or entropy would grant healing...




From _Terminator 2:  Judgement Day_:

John Connor (watching The Terminator patching up his mother's wounds): "You know what you're doing?"
The Terminator: "I have detailed files on human anatomy."
Sarah Connor: "Makes you a more efficient killer, right?"
The Terminator: "Correct."


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 10, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> From _Terminator 2:  Judgement Day_:
> 
> John Connor (watching The Terminator patching up his mother's wounds): "You know what you're doing?"
> The Terminator: "I have detailed files on human anatomy."
> ...




That is another logical way to look at it.  Personally I saw it more as you are healing people who will bring more people to the death gods embrace.  If you worship Mr. X the god of death chances are you are not healing Mother Teressa, no you are healing psychotics, murderers, adventurers, the kind of people who in the long run will bring more souls into the death god embrace than just the one measly soul they get from the adventurer.


----------



## hong (Mar 10, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> That is another logical way to look at it.  Personally I saw it more as you are healing people who will bring more people to the death gods embrace.  If you worship Mr. X the god of death chances are you are not healing Mother Teressa, no you are healing psychotics, murderers, adventurers, the kind of people who in the long run will bring more souls into the death god embrace than just the one measly soul they get from the adventurer.



 See? If you were able to wrap your head around that, then per-encounter trip should be easy!


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> See? If you were able to wrap your head around that, then per-encounter trip should be easy!





Unfortunately the death god one makes sense, the per encounter trip depending on its description may not.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 10, 2008)

The way I did it was to say that every life has its ending point. The God of Death knows when this is and his clerics are there to help those whose time has not yet arrived, ease those who are suffering while dying, and bring those who would subvert the natural order of death to the judgment of the God of Death.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 10, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the death god one makes sense, the per encounter trip depending on its description may not.




Piece of advice: It's better for your sanity and your permanent record (the one the mods keep) to ignore Hong.


----------



## hong (Mar 10, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the death god one makes sense, the per encounter trip depending on its description may not.



 The death god one makes sense because you've had 10 years for cognitive dissonance to do its work. The trip thing just needs a little time.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 10, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> And apparently more than a few parties were able to overcome the dragon, which attests to their toughtness as well.




Or possibly speaks to the alluded difficulty in killing PCs.


----------

