Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 08-22-07, 08:43 PM	A friend of mine is saying that 4e is going to borrow a lot of stuff from World of Warcraft and be very similar. I wasn't sure he was sane until I began to see playtesters using words like "sword and board" and "specced". How is everyone going to feel if dnd becomes WoW on paper? Are Wizards just trying to leech off the popularity of WoW? He also predicts that drow will be a player race. That wouldn't surprise me sadly. And by the by, does anyone think I should change my name when the new campaign takes off? What should I do about the LG in my name? :(
Britt 08-22-07, 09:29 PM	'Sword and board' is a term much older than WoW and MMOs. I suspect they are likely taking some inspiration from MMOs and WoW, but I can't fault them for that; that's a highly popular field and a direct competitor to D&D.
RedKnightofKet 08-22-07, 09:33 PM	And by the by, does anyone think I should change my name when the new campaign takes off? What should I do about the LG in my name? :( Well, I for one will probably keep my name as is. I will likely play LR, but in my heart I will always be a Ketite. My first character concept: "Zuoken". "So where are you from, Zuoken?" "I don't remember.....I must be lost...." ;)
bhale187 08-22-07, 09:40 PM	After reading the "race" preview I would be surprised if Drow are NOT a player race. They specifically mentioned how the new system would allow drow to be played without the EL hassles since they would slowly gain more of the special abilities through out their levels.
Arvagor 08-22-07, 09:41 PM	And by the by, does anyone think I should change my name when the new campaign takes off? What should I do about the LG in my name? :(Nothing; you're stuck playing Lawful Good PCs from now on... :tongue:
The_Jester 08-22-07, 09:46 PM	Well, the "roles" seem to be right out of MMORPGs but that doesn't mean alot of good ideas in 3E didn't come from there either. Like "balance".
clannagh 08-22-07, 10:33 PM	A friend of mine is saying that 4e is going to borrow a lot of stuff from World of Warcraft and be very similar. I wasn't sure he was sane until I began to see playtesters using words like "sword and board" and "specced". How is everyone going to feel if dnd becomes WoW on paper? Are Wizards just trying to leech off the popularity of WoW? He also predicts that drow will be a player race. That wouldn't surprise me sadly. And by the by, does anyone think I should change my name when the new campaign takes off? What should I do about the LG in my name? :( Unfortunately its a bit like TV shows being swamped with soap operas and reality shows .. or movies ending up with 10 sequels and 30 clone copies. Many marketing people have an excess of education and a minimum of brains (else they would certianly be doing something more productive with their life) so for them "if something works copy it" is seen as highly original thinking :)
Mithreinmaethor 08-23-07, 06:15 AM	After reading the "race" preview I would be surprised if Drow are NOT a player race. They specifically mentioned how the new system would allow drow to be played without the EL hassles since they would slowly gain more of the special abilities through out their levels. Because its available as a playable race it doesnt mean it will pass the muster for the living campaign.
Madfox11 08-23-07, 07:51 AM	Well, the "roles" seem to be right out of MMORPGs but that doesn't mean alot of good ideas in 3E didn't come from there either. Like "balance". Roles are hardly from MMORPGs. At best that medium was the first locations were they were closely defined, and terms such as healer and tank came into use. In old D&D those roles were already there, it was just the fact that there was not enough flexibility to design a non-fighter tank or non-cleric healer that prevented people from using terms such as tank or healer. Afterall, fighter and cleric were sufficient ;)
bhale187 08-23-07, 09:46 AM	Because its available as a playable race it doesnt mean it will pass the muster for the living campaign. True, I thought LGMoses was referring to 4E in general having drow as a player race. If it does make the core rules as a player race I certainly hope LR will not follow suit.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 10:18 AM	Pasting in my analysis from another thread. Michael ---------- I've seen a couple posts from various folks on different forums who've made this assertion. I haven't seen anything on the WotC site, the 4E forums, or the GenCon reports that seem to support this and I'm curious where this impression stems from. Admittedly I haven't been able to slog through all of the material, but if there is something particularly pointed that indicates this direction in the game, I'd love if you could link to it. (Note: I'm not trying to challenge you on this...I've seen this assertion from several different folks, and I'm trying to decide if folks have a false impression or if they've hit upon something that I simply haven't seen). Rob Rob, Here's why I get that feeling. #1 - The "skill tree" style character development model has been tried by multiple MMORPG's. They have almost universally sucked. The most prominent to use this, and which used it exclusively for its character design, was Turbine's Asheron's Call 2. AC2 has the dubious distinction of being such a disappointment that it actually drove players back into its prequel in such numbers that AC2 was shut down. Interestingly, which studio did the disappointingly bad D&D Online? Yes, Turbine. I almost wonder if a few of Turbine's "game designers" somehow wound up at WotC in some ill-advised move. #2 - The talk of trying to make races uber-specific is also something MMORPG's tend to do. Part of the reason that races in D&D 3.0/3.5 are what they are is that WotC, at that point, was committed to the idea that any race could be any class. It was one of the major points they were making in the original 3.0 announcement. I'm going to guess that that portion's being tossed out the window - if your race is supposed to have major bumps to ensure a "major difference" between them at all times, then inevitably it goes beyond the half-orc +2 STR being "a bit more optimal" for Barbarians and instead it makes certain races almost pointless for certain classes. #3 - One of the rumors I've heard (as of yet unconfirmed, but from multiple sources) is that spell memorization is something they want to kill off, in favor of the spellpoint/mana system they used in DDO. #4 - "New Initiative System." Let's see, they already gutted the original Init system - Weapon Speed was removed, players only roll in once at the start of combat. They won't be re-implementing the rolling of initiative every round, because they're saying they want to "speed up" combat. It's got to be turn-based because this is a pencil-and-paper game, so what's left? That sounds less like a design thing to me and more like a MMO-style marketing point. #5 - Speaking of which, they said they want to "speed up combat." They said the same thing about 3.0/3.5 combat. I for one think that it's pretty speedy already (having played a healthy share of the games on the market since my birth). Combats in the 3.0/3.5 system run about the same amount of time as did 1st/2nd ed combats, as do Shadowrun combats etc. Short of making the game a clickfest or further reducing options in combat to "smash, bash, smash oops you ran out of HP first, you die", there are only two things that really slow down combat: people making decisions, and spells/abilities (web, entangle, summoning) that stick around in combat. Either they have some plan to limit the options people have in combat (which is bad, as it's ROLE-playing and not MMO-playing) or else they have a plan to gut the magic system down to mere blast/buff/heal, either of which is a bad (but very MMO-ish) move. #6 - Their biggest goal is to try to make "D&D Insider" subscriptions big. What this tells me is that 4E is likely being designed in such a way as to make it "fit" their online-play design. NWN, as much fun as people may have with it, is a lousy way to actually run a D&D game. The current online standard is a bit better, but still the rules are designed for people sitting around the same table and occasionally just require people to use their brains and puzzle out the best way to handle a brilliant/creative idea. MMO's, and computer games, simply don't allow for that. A bad DM doesn't allow for it either, but that's another story - it sounds like Wizards is trying to codify this with 4E, to just put the game on MMO/NWN/Baldur's Gate-style hack-and-slash rails. Michael ------- So no actual evidence then. Plenty of evidence: #1 - their own press releases. #2 - their own "design" columns (here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b), here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a), here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a) and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)). #3 - The things they have done in the past ("spellpoints" for D&D Online were presented in the forgettable Unearthed Arcana (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881560000)book and then were dusted off for the MMO because Turbine's un-inventive "designers" were looking for something that was like the pointless, mind-numbing Mana Point system every MMO in existence uses). #4 - In particular, read the latest "design" document on fighting a dragon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a). What things stand out? First thing I notice - "Half" the dragon's HP is now 500. (your standard Ancient Dragon in 3.0/3.5 has around 525). Which means that once again, they've gone and inflated the HP scale in the game. This is a trademark sign of MMO's and Computer RPG's: over successive editions, they inflate the numeric scale to feel more "epic" (instead of having 50 HP and doing 5 points of damage per hit, you have ~5000 and do ~500 per hit). D&D 3.0/3.5 suffered from this as well. The "relative" scale of HP is somewhat constant, but the expansion causes problems. For instance, in 2e your averaget 10th level mage should have an average of 30 HP and a max of 40, and your 10th level Fighter with a CON of 16 will have an average of 70 and a max of 110. Monster HP scaled similarly. With 3.0 (and especially 3.5) the HP started to balloon. "Bonus" hitpoints from high CON are easy to obtain, high CON is easier to obtain, and massive damage (for the fighters at least, especially the Raging 2-Handing Power Attack Beast) is easier to obtain. Monsters have to survive not the wizard, but the Fighter whose full attack does on the order of 200 HP per round easily and who has 200+ HP himself (as opposed to the 18-CON wizard, otherwise known as a 70-HP snack, behind him). So the monster HP is inflated, the damage the monsters can do back is inflated... everything is inflated. What's the difference? A creature that does 4d8 in 1e/2e is to be feared: those 4d8 hurt. In 3.0/3.5, a creature whose damage has been inflated to ridiculous levels in order to "hurt" the AC tanks and HP-sinks like your 28 Constitution Dwarven Barbarian will generally drop anyone else in the party down to unconscious in 1 or 2 swings, and the chance those Full Power Attack swings will miss (thanks to ridiculous strength bonuses piled on via size and HD advancement) is generally 1 in a d20... just roll that nat-1. Will inflating the HP scale again make things better? It never has before. But MMO/CRPG designers always make this mistake. Second thing I notice: we have all sorts of preprogrammed "immediate" and "free" actions. Free tail slap WITH knockback, Free Area-of-Effect attack AND full attack action, Immediate tail slap when flanked, Immediate breath weapon when it goes below 1/2 HP (a CLASSIC sign of MMO/CRPG design is monsters that get some desperation attack / template change / etc when they hit X hitpoints). That's classic MMO/CRPG thinking, not D&D. Third thing I noticed: SOMEBODY fed this critter a potion of 3.0 Haste or something, which I thought they already got rid of. In one round it's done: - Full Attack action - Two "Free" attacks (flame burst, tail slap) - Immediate action (breath weapon) - Move action - "Special Ability" to take another standard action Again, this is classic MMO/CRPG design: the monster that can do Everything on its stat block, every round. Fourth thing: "Criticals" that do "extra effects" like the cleric getting to throw curing energy at the Wizard. I believe the WoW/EQ crowd call this a "proc." Fifth thing: the creep of More HP, More Damage, More Attacks makes magic items ever more essential. In 1st/2nd edition, stats for a character stayed mostly constant - sure there was the occasional bump, but most magic items were based on nifty things they did and not "here's another bump to your prime stat." I'm sure we've all noticed that in 3.0/3.5 stat bump items and the like have become mandatory. The standard suite for various characters starts to look a lot like the "Epic Set" from WoW/EQ-type games: every Fighter has a Belt of Strength, Amulet of Con, +X Armor, +X Weapon, etc. Every Wizard has a Headband of Int, Amulet of Con, Cloak of Resistance, every Sorceror has the Vest of Resistance, Cloak of Charisma, every Cleric has the Amulet of Wisdom, Ioun Stone of Con, Vest of Resistance, Cloak of Charisma, Phylactery of Turning... it goes on and on. They haven't done a "design" document for those yet, but I can just see it now - they're moving into the Forgotten Realms. If you thought it was odd you could just walk into any IuzCo Outlet and pick up any +2 stat bump item your heart desired, how's it going to be now in a setting where every shopkeeper has a breath weapon and a cart full of +3 vorpal swords with your choice of elemental damage? The design and progression certainly looks a lot like they're heading into MMORPG silliness to me. Michael
Nuddawan 08-23-07, 02:24 PM	I'm just going to go thru and hit on a few points here...other points I don't have any opinions or enough knowledge to comment on... #2 - The talk of trying to make races uber-specific is also something MMORPG's tend to do. Part of the reason that races in D&D 3.0/3.5 are what they are is that WotC, at that point, was committed to the idea that any race could be any class. It was one of the major points they were making in the original 3.0 announcement. I'm going to guess that that portion's being tossed out the window - if your race is supposed to have major bumps to ensure a "major difference" between them at all times, then inevitably it goes beyond the half-orc +2 STR being "a bit more optimal" for Barbarians and instead it makes certain races almost pointless for certain classes. From what I've seen (mostly in the Saga Ed. Star Wars), I've gotten the impression of there being almost more classes being available to races, than less. I doubt that there will be "racial talent trees" for every class in the PHB, no more than there were racial substitution levels for every class in the 3.5 races books, but at least there will be the built-in flexibility to introduce more later. And if a race wants to play a straight-old fighter (as much as there will be straight ol' fighters in the new systems), they can forego the racial abilities and just focus on the common stuff. #3 - One of the rumors I've heard (as of yet unconfirmed, but from multiple sources) is that spell memorization is something they want to kill off, in favor of the spellpoint/mana system they used in DDO. I've heard that they want to reduce the role of Vancian magic (i.e. spells memorized per day), but I haven't heard anything specific to how they intend to do this. #4 - "New Initiative System." Let's see, they already gutted the original Init system - Weapon Speed was removed, players only roll in once at the start of combat. They won't be re-implementing the rolling of initiative every round, because they're saying they want to "speed up" combat. It's got to be turn-based because this is a pencil-and-paper game, so what's left? That sounds less like a design thing to me and more like a MMO-style marketing point. Actually, listening to the Podcast they released after the annoucement, it sounds like the changes to the initiative system have to do more with people moving around the initiative order due to readied/delayed actions, which can cause a bit of confusion. I think the basic inititive system will remain close to what it is now, but with some streamlining to prevent confusion. #5 - Speaking of which, they said they want to "speed up combat." They said the same thing about 3.0/3.5 combat. I for one think that it's pretty speedy already (having played a healthy share of the games on the market since my birth). Combats in the 3.0/3.5 system run about the same amount of time as did 1st/2nd ed combats, as do Shadowrun combats etc. There are several reasons they want to speed up combat, some of which they mention in the podcast. One is that there are some rules (like grapple) that can cause a game to grind to a halt because folks just don't understand them. Two is that as you increase the level of the combats, they take longer and longer to run, even if you have similar numbers of combatants on each side(i.e. it takes longer to run a 4 player on 4 monster fight at 15th level than it does at 5th level). Their hope (whether they succeed or not, even I'm sceptical of) is that combats should play at roughly the same speed regardless of the level. Short of making the game a clickfest or further reducing options in combat to "smash, bash, smash oops you ran out of HP first, you die", there are only two things that really slow down combat: people making decisions, and spells/abilities (web, entangle, summoning) that stick around in combat. Either they have some plan to limit the options people have in combat (which is bad, as it's ROLE-playing and not MMO-playing) or else they have a plan to gut the magic system down to mere blast/buff/heal, either of which is a bad (but very MMO-ish) move. Yeah, there isn't a darn thing you can do about indecisive players other than "ok you delay, next" (which sadly I have to do on a regular basis with some folks). Your second point, I think is less of an issue. I don't think its necessarily an issue of giving folks less options, just making sure that the options they have are clear and quick to run. Quick example - confusion spell...not a quick spell. Sure, a mage who is going to cast it might have their book set out with the table of results on it, but more often than not, when someone casts confusion the game pauses while someone digs out the table. #3 - The things they have done in the past ("spellpoints" for D&D Online were presented in the forgettable Unearthed Arcana (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881560000)book and then were dusted off for the MMO because Turbine's un-inventive "designers" were looking for something that was like the pointless, mind-numbing Mana Point system every MMO in existence uses). Yeah, but traditional spell memorization would be a complete failure in an MMO. (I'm out of spells...well, I guess I'll log out for a few hours). I have no idea if 4E will use a point based system or not (I actually suspect they'll use a system similar to force use in the new Star Wars, which is skill based), but I don't know that I'd assume the worst case scenario for what they might pick to replace it anyways. Fourth thing: "Criticals" that do "extra effects" like the cleric getting to throw curing energy at the Wizard. I believe the WoW/EQ crowd call this a "proc." I actually think thats brilliant. I am familiar with WoW and know what a proc is :), but the part that I particuarly like about it, is in this case it gives the cleric a chance to do something dynamic (attacking the mob) while still fulfilling his party role (healing the wizard). I mean, honestly, how often have you sat at a table and had a hard time finding a healer for the table? Usually if you have a cleric playing who enjoys their character, its because they have managed to tweak their character so that they are good at a role outside of healing. I don't think I've ever met a player who has said "I'm going to be the best healer, evah!" With changes like this, people may actually enjoy the role a bit more. Fifth thing: the creep of More HP, More Damage, More Attacks makes magic items ever more essential. In 1st/2nd edition, stats for a character stayed mostly constant - sure there was the occasional bump, but most magic items were based on nifty things they did and not "here's another bump to your prime stat." Actually, there are several articles floating around out there from Designers who have specificially said they want to reduce the roles of magic items in the game. Your character is powerful because of what he can do, not because of the fluffy slippers he's wearing. I'm personally hoping for the elimination of the stat boost items, and focusing more on gimmick items (although not too gimmicky...I don't need another "bag of plushies". They haven't done a "design" document for those yet, but I can just see it now - they're moving into the Forgotten Realms. If you thought it was odd you could just walk into any IuzCo Outlet and pick up any +2 stat bump item your heart desired, how's it going to be now in a setting where every shopkeeper has a breath weapon and a cart full of +3 vorpal swords with your choice of elemental damage? Actually, that was more a function of the Living campaigns, rather than a problem within the ruleset. Heck, within the ruleset, most characters wouldn't get have a chance to get their first +2 stat item until level 7-8, +4 til 12-13th, and +6 til 16-17. But authors were almost always including these items in mods, so it finally made sense to just say "look, you get access to these items, authors, put something else in for a change". The design and progression certainly looks a lot like they're heading into MMORPG silliness to me. I'll have to agree to disagree. There is a few areas where it looks like they may have taken cues from MMORPG's, but I don't think any of those areas are points of concern. Time will of course tell, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me terribly worried. Rob Disclaimer: I am a 33 year old gamer, who has played D&D since the original basic game (that was sort of red, but not the "red box"). I am also a MMORPG player, playing World of Warcraft since Feb 2005 and still an active player and raider (currently in Serpentshrine and Tempest Keep). As far as my gaming goes, I do not like my chocolate in my peanut butter, and prefer to keep my tabletop games around the table and my computer games on the computer.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 05:28 PM	From what I've seen (mostly in the Saga Ed. Star Wars), I've gotten the impression of there being almost more classes being available to races, than less. I doubt that there will be "racial talent trees" for every class in the PHB, no more than there were racial substitution levels for every class in the 3.5 races books, but at least there will be the built-in flexibility to introduce more later. And if a race wants to play a straight-old fighter (as much as there will be straight ol' fighters in the new systems), they can forego the racial abilities and just focus on the common stuff. According to the design column, it's the other way around - racial stuff will be 'forced on' your character as you advance, regardless of which class you picked. I've heard that they want to reduce the role of Vancian magic (i.e. spells memorized per day), but I haven't heard anything specific to how they intend to do this. The rumor I've been seeing is one of two options: either everyone becomes sorcerors (bleh) or it goes to the "Spellpoints" system where every Wizard is a "pick your stuff" sorceror who resets his selection each morning. Frankly, I find Spellpoints as stupid as can be. They're an attempt to set up the "mana" system that's so boring in too many MMO's. The nice difference between Wizards and Sorcerors right now (or at least before Pearls of Power, the D&D equivalent of a godforsaken Mana Potion that wandered out of MMO's and CRPG's, became a dime a dozen) is that Sorcerors try to make up for versatility with quantity and it's a nice contrast. My best idea for design? Leave Wizards and Vancian magic alone, leave "spontaneous" casters around for those who don't want to deal with memorization, and make "Pearls of Power" and other similar junk vanish from the game. Actually, listening to the Podcast they released after the annoucement, it sounds like the changes to the initiative system have to do more with people moving around the initiative order due to readied/delayed actions, which can cause a bit of confusion. I think the basic inititive system will remain close to what it is now, but with some streamlining to prevent confusion. Two words: Index Cards. We've never had any problem with people moving in initiative when using them. The only major issue we've had, which can happen in any system, is when everyone at the table readies an action against a monster (say, a dragon that's having fun dive-bombing us with flyby attacks) and all of a sudden, everyone's on the same "number" for purposes of initiative. There are several reasons they want to speed up combat, some of which they mention in the podcast. One is that there are some rules (like grapple) that can cause a game to grind to a halt because folks just don't understand them. Any rule can cause that kind of trouble if you are still trying to learn it. I'll agree Grapple can be streamlined, but that's an argument to fix Grapple, not fart around on the initiative system. Two is that as you increase the level of the combats, they take longer and longer to run, even if you have similar numbers of combatants on each side(i.e. it takes longer to run a 4 player on 4 monster fight at 15th level than it does at 5th level). Their hope (whether they succeed or not, even I'm sceptical of) is that combats should play at roughly the same speed regardless of the level. And the majority of this, as I said, comes from options. A level 1 Cleric or Wizard has a few spells to choose from. A level 1 Rogue or Fighter has only a couple options. By level 10, the casters are trying to decide between 5 levels of spells (and more available at lower levels too), and the Rogue and Fighter are sitting on at least one or two nifty tricks that they need to make decisions on. And that's before we get to the guys carrying 2-3 magical weapons that they might switch out, or the guys trying to decide whether to activate a magic item / drink a potion / cast a scroll... The point is, the more level you have, the more options and raw stuff you're carrying. Short of ripping options away, there's nothing you can do to help this. And they're even talking about giving the fighters *more* options in combat, which means more choices, which means they're just going to have to take a moment to figure out which one they want to take after the big bad guy picks the mage up by the neck and starts shaking him around. Yeah, there isn't a darn thing you can do about indecisive players other than "ok you delay, next" (which sadly I have to do on a regular basis with some folks). Your second point, I think is less of an issue. I don't think its necessarily an issue of giving folks less options, just making sure that the options they have are clear and quick to run. Maybe. But you still have to decide which you're doing. Quick example - confusion spell...not a quick spell. Sure, a mage who is going to cast it might have their book set out with the table of results on it, but more often than not, when someone casts confusion the game pauses while someone digs out the table. At lower levels, I agree, but at higher levels, everyone I know has every reason (short of a drastically unexpected situation) to get their stuff ready. Most players are on the ball; they have their book open, they know what their stuff does, and they know how their favorite tricks work. Honestly, the worst slowdowns I've ever seen (and I'm guilty of this on occasion) are from the DM going "Are you sure that's how it works?" and having to look it up before giving the go-ahead on something that turns out to be right. Yeah, but traditional spell memorization would be a complete failure in an MMO. (I'm out of spells...well, I guess I'll log out for a few hours). "I'm out of spells... guess it's time to click the Rest Point" (didn't they have those in DDO dungeons?) Whoops, it's not safe to rest here? Guess I'd better get out my crossbow and stay in the back in case something else shows up. Wow. That sounds almost like a D&D game. I have no idea if 4E will use a point based system or not (I actually suspect they'll use a system similar to force use in the new Star Wars, which is skill based), but I don't know that I'd assume the worst case scenario for what they might pick to replace it anyways. I don't mind the idea of a skill-based system (the Slayers D20 magic system is actually pretty fun, using Spellcraft to cast spells and costing either subdual damage or real damage for failure). I don't think it fits D&D properly, though. I actually think thats brilliant. I am familiar with WoW and know what a proc is :), but the part that I particuarly like about it, is in this case it gives the cleric a chance to do something dynamic (attacking the mob) while still fulfilling his party role (healing the wizard). All fine and good, but in this case it didn't to that - the Cleric took the real risk that the "proc" wouldn't happen, and instead of casting healing chose to attack. I mean, honestly, how often have you sat at a table and had a hard time finding a healer for the table? Usually if you have a cleric playing who enjoys their character, its because they have managed to tweak their character so that they are good at a role outside of healing. I don't know what your region is like - I know plenty of people who enjoy playing healing Clerics. Of course, we got Cleric-heavy for a while. Things are cyclical, sometimes you can't find a Cleric, sometimes everyone's playing one. I don't think I've ever met a player who has said "I'm going to be the best healer, evah!" With changes like this, people may actually enjoy the role a bit more. Hmmm. Funny, that's precisely what I made for a home game, and I've met plenty of others who were darned proud of how much healing they could pump out. Actually, there are several articles floating around out there from Designers who have specificially said they want to reduce the roles of magic items in the game. That'd be nice to see. Your character is powerful because of what he can do, not because of the fluffy slippers he's wearing. Ooh... pink lederhosen of speed, anyone? I'm personally hoping for the elimination of the stat boost items, and focusing more on gimmick items (although not too gimmicky...I don't need another "bag of plushies". I'd love to see the stat boost items either disappear, or go to 10x their current cost (face it, if a +1 Manual of Bodily Health is over 20,000GP, a +2 item should be at least 40k). If they followed that idea, 4E would get a definite better start. Actually, that was more a function of the Living campaigns, rather than a problem within the ruleset. Heck, within the ruleset, most characters wouldn't get have a chance to get their first +2 stat item until level 7-8, +4 til 12-13th, and +6 til 16-17. Sorry, but that's not what the wealth-by-level guidelines say, and we're already about 30% below that in LG. But authors were almost always including these items in mods, so it finally made sense to just say "look, you get access to these items, authors, put something else in for a change". Actually authors were always putting them in because mod authors were expecting players to have them by X level. Players griped about the old guys having stuff they couldn't find, mod authors wrote it in... vicious cycle. I'll have to agree to disagree. There is a few areas where it looks like they may have taken cues from MMORPG's, but I don't think any of those areas are points of concern. Time will of course tell, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me terribly worried. I'm sorry but I have to say I'm worried based on the presence of "proc" weapons and the once-again inflation of hitpoint and damage numbers. These two things indicate a very hack-and-slash feel to the game, and I think I'm justified in being worried. Your quote: "Your character is powerful because of what he can do, not because of the fluffy slippers he's wearing." I think this is spot-on but I think you've missed your own point: I'd rather see characters who can do nifty things rather than characters who throw ever-bigger damage numbers just because some lazy designer decided to inflate the hitpoint scale again. Michael
solbergb 08-23-07, 06:04 PM	I don't think I've ever met a player who has said "I'm going to be the best healer, evah!" With changes like this, people may actually enjoy the role a bit more. . Well, actually, I've met several and one of my characters is like that too. But it's like being a good grappler. It can't be the only thing you're good at. (my own character's mission statement is more like "I'm going to be an indestructable healing battery for my party. If nobody needs healing I'll be a third tier melee and slowly win the fight because the party is so indestructable when I'm around they can win a slow fight) Many bards and bard/marshalls are focused primarily on what they do for others, not just themselves. Some folks enjoy that (I do, at least as one character option - for every character, no, but that's true of everything). 4e looks like it will have that kind of character or role. Warlord?
solbergb 08-23-07, 06:09 PM	According to the design column, it's the other way around - racial stuff will be 'forced on' your character as you advance, regardless of which class you picked. Michael No, that's not how I read it. It's like the substitution levels. Optional if you want to be a dwarf-flavored fighter, versus a fighter that happens to be a dwarf. If you do the dwarf feats or class abilities, you're different from any other fighter that isn't a dwarf. But you can choose to ignore them and take the standard stuff. I got the impression they wanted to 'mainstream' the racial substitution levels, because they were a successful experiement in 3.x. Only if the substitution is so good that you'd be a fool to play the class without it would we revert to the basic set idea that an elf or dwarf is a character class, not a race. It sounds like you can sort of be a racial paragon as a class if you want to be, or they may require racial substitution choices for what would today be a high LA race. But we will have to wait for actual examples of the mechanics to leak before we can reall talk about it. The fact that you and I came away from the same article with completely different impressions probably says more about us than the text itself. Those articles are far less precise than the typical "grey area rules" that we all come to different conclusions on.
Rerednaw 08-23-07, 06:16 PM	A friend of mine is saying that 4e is going to borrow a lot of stuff from World of Warcraft and be very similar. I wasn't sure he was sane until I began to see playtesters using words like "sword and board" and "specced". How is everyone going to feel if dnd becomes WoW on paper? Are Wizards just trying to leech off the popularity of WoW? He also predicts that drow will be a player race. That wouldn't surprise me sadly. And by the by, does anyone think I should change my name when the new campaign takes off? What should I do about the LG in my name? :( Considering the rabid success of WoW, anything WoTC can do to copy or steal from that MOG, which admittedly was based upon a bunch of other games (including Blizzard's own Diablo 2) sounds like a decent idea. WoW works, why re-invent it? I don't mind if race 'x' becomes a player race. Drow have been around as a player race since Fiend Folio and Unearthed Arcana in first edition. WoW has already tried to go d20 on paper. It has met with limited success. With 4E tweaks it may work better, who knows? One concept that did always bother me was power creep. That and the concept of shiny toys out shining the character. My main is a wizard. Human, non-specialist, no prestige classes. Aside from potions and scrolls, he has the following magic items : 1) Lesser Extend 1/day. (Off of a special). 2) Heward's Handy Haversack And that's it. It makes it harder? Yes. Is he less effective? Heck yes. If he effective enough? Definitely. Do I enjoy playing him, knowing his abilities are what make him shine, and not his toys? Very much so. Am I going to try LFR? Of course. So far we have very little facts and I would like to try it out for myself before making a decision. Just like I stayed with D&D from boxed edition up to and through v3.5 And you do not have to change your name. Unless you want to, in which case I'd reserve LFRMoses before someone else does. :)
solbergb 08-23-07, 06:19 PM	Some things that can streamline combat even with more options available as you level (I agree, nothing can be done about indecisive players) 1. Move as many mechanics to "attack roll vs target number" as possible, rather than multiple things happening in one action (touch attack to trip, trip check, follow up attack to grapple, grapple check...repeat 5 times for a monk flurry) 2. Keep the number of actions a character or creature can take during a round consant as they level. Just make the impact of their actions greater. (consider a druid... he gets a std, move and free action, or he gets a free action and a full attack sequence. his animal gets a full attack sequence. Anything he summoned gets a full attack sequence. The odds that he'll drown everyone else at the table in actions goes up as he levels, as it becomes possible to rapid summon multiple monsters, follow with a quickened spell and then do stuff in wildshape with many attacks, plus his animal has more attacks at later levels a lot of the time). Druids are the worst, but most spellcasters get the swift action eventually routinely, some can do whole chains of effects based on contingencies or triggered spells. All melee characters in 3.x get multiple attacks and are more likely to have access to alternate attack forms that don't use a strict "attack roll vs target #" mechanic. Plus everybody and his dog has rerolls. Instead of a BAB11 guy getting 3 attacks, they might give you two forms of improved attack - one where you spread your damage around on multiple targets, one where you focus the damage on one target. Or they might have some kind of cleave-like bleedover on any attack where if you drop somebody, the rest of the damage goes on another target in reach, if his AC would have been hit by original attack roll. 3. Work from formulas, not tables. What makes confusion slow is the stupid table. (I love the spell, but it works far better in a CRPG than tabletop when the computer can keep track of the effects). The prismatic spells have a similar problem. What is more, work from mechanics that are also used in normal combat, don't invent new ones. (compare evards tentacles to defenestrating sphere. The former, annoying as it is, uses mechanics every GM has to at least somewhat understand. The latter has its own bizzaro mechanics. Another example is TK violent thrust vs whirling blade. The latter works exactly like a melee attack with your int/cha instead of strength, all your feats, etc. The former is a unique attack that is PROBABLY a ranged attack, PROBABLY should use the volley-spell rules from CA and MIGHT use ranged attack feats. ) There are other examples of failed mechanics that slow things down. The ring of counterspells uses a good and a bad mechanic. Good is the counterspell - defined term, we know exactly what happens when it works. Bad is when it is triggered. What does "affect" mean? It could mean targeted, it could mean "hit by a ray" it could mean "in an area" it could be as broad as what invisibility uses to reveal a person who affects an enemy with a spell, even accidently. Who knows what they intended? First time it's used, it will cause a rules discussion, unless the narrowest case happens (targeted).
ankhwearer 08-23-07, 06:33 PM	My best idea for design? Leave Wizards and Vancian magic alone, leave "spontaneous" casters around for those who don't want to deal with memorization, and make "Pearls of Power" and other similar junk vanish from the game. Spell selection is exactly the sort of thing that slows games down. When a party has to have a half hour risk/benefit analysis on what spells the Wizard and Cleric should memorize before going into the dungeon, that's 30 minutes in which I am neither role-playing nor fighting monsters. Spell selection should be done in between play sessions. One option that has been tried already is during character advancement (Psions, Sorcerers, etc.) By the way, Spellpoints, Mana, et el, have been around in D&D in the form of Psionics for quite sometime. One of the goals that the design teams states is important to them is Resource Management. They don't want the adventure to suddenly stop because the spell slots for the day are used up. Not only is this a poor match to fantasy fiction and movies, it's dull for the players that don't run out of abilities after 3-4 encounters (fighters and rogues, for example). The latest example from WotC is Star Wars. Here Force powers get some many uses per encounter, rather than per day. Desperate times and helped by using Force points, which are gained per level, so here the resource management is over a longer time period than the typical one-day cycle. This uses neither mana, nor spell slots, and seems to scale well with level.
ankhwearer 08-23-07, 06:39 PM	Also, I still don't understand what Michael has against hp and damage scaling upward as the characters level up, and thus, the monsters they face are harder. Is he suggesting that we go back to first edition where a longsword always did 1d8? Shouldn't a level 7 spell do more damage than a level 1 spell? How are monsters going to be any challenge at all if their hit points don't move up to match? How are fighters going to be interesting to play if they have no means of doing increased damage as well as levels go up? I really wish: Michael would post core rules discussion on the core rules pages, instead of the Living Greyhawk forums. That topics were posted one-by-one for discussion, instead of a shotgun blast of issues that cannot be fully discussed without tackling one item at a time (as I did in the posting above and in this posting).
ankhwearer 08-23-07, 06:54 PM	In the example from the design notes, keep in mind that this is a Dragon. They are quite clear in the write-up that this is the hardest, most prepared, and hardiest monster around. Yeah, so the Ancient has 1000 hp. This is the worst monster ever, remember? Yeah, so the Ancient gets tons of free/quick/immediate actions. He has to fight and entire party of PCs that get four standard actions, four immediate actions, etc. I don't think this design is about mimicking MMORPG. It's not likely the designers have a lot of time to play them anyway, what with eight hours a day of writing, followed by running/playing 2-3 D&D games a week. I think it's about finding effective and fair challenges for the party. Remember the old design notes (MM5, I think) about how a monster lives, on average, three rounds. How memorable are a monster's special powers when it only gets to three standard actions before it dies? Yes, stacking up abilities means that the monster is more unique, able to do damage to the whole party. High level monsters are really a problem for DMs. If you do the damage output of the wizard, three rounds in a row, on just the frontline fighter; that fighter is dead. Stacking abilities that do less damage, with special abilities, and setting them up to be used around the party, instead of a full-attack on the guy in front is more memorable, more fun and the way the new design should go. But, as I read Michael's postings, he wants to regress D&D to second or first edition. Probably an exaggeration, but I honestly don't feel that good suggestions are being made here. In fact, most "suggestions" are don't do this and don't do that, with few actual design recommendations that can be followed through on. Frankly, I find Spellpoints as stupid as can be. And they're even talking about giving the fighters *more* options in combat, which means more choices, which means they're just going to have to take a moment to figure out which one they want to take after the big bad guy picks the mage up by the neck and starts shaking him around. "I'm out of spells... guess it's time to click the Rest Point" (didn't they have those in DDO dungeons?) Whoops, it's not safe to rest here? Guess I'd better get out my crossbow and stay in the back in case something else shows up. Wow. That sounds almost like a D&D game. The "skill tree" style character development model has been tried by multiple MMORPG's. They have almost universally sucked.
ankhwearer 08-23-07, 06:57 PM	One of the rumors I've heard (as of yet unconfirmed, but from multiple sources) You know, the only rumors I'v been hearing on this board are from MichealAhlf.
Mithreinmaethor 08-23-07, 07:08 PM	If he is who I think he is I have never seen anything but a negative post from him and others in his gaming group either here or on the BK yahoo groups. So why keep feeding his/their need to gripe and moan by engaging him/them in a conversation here. If its not him/them then I will apologize now. He can reference the private note of his that I responded to to figure out who I think he might be.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 08:24 PM	Spell selection is exactly the sort of thing that slows games down. When a party has to have a half hour risk/benefit analysis on what spells the Wizard and Cleric should memorize before going into the dungeon, that's 30 minutes in which I am neither role-playing nor fighting monsters. Not if you know what you're doing. Most spellcasters I know have a standard set and only switch out for one or two if they think situation will call for it. Spell selection should be done in between play sessions. One option that has been tried already is during character advancement (Psions, Sorcerers, etc.) By the way, Spellpoints, Mana, et el, have been around in D&D in the form of Psionics for quite sometime. I don't use Psionics in my home games. Greyhawk doesn't use Psionics. There's a reason for this: Psionics are Psilly. One of the goals that the design teams states is important to them is Resource Management. They don't want the adventure to suddenly stop because the spell slots for the day are used up. Not only is this a poor match to fantasy fiction and movies, it's dull for the players that don't run out of abilities after 3-4 encounters (fighters and rogues, for example). Then teach your casters not to blow their wad every encounter. My casters cast appropriately to the situation, not blowing out their top-tier spells every time. The latest example from WotC is Star Wars. Here Force powers get some many uses per encounter, rather than per day. Desperate times and helped by using Force points, which are gained per level, so here the resource management is over a longer time period than the typical one-day cycle. This uses neither mana, nor spell slots, and seems to scale well with level. Great for Star Wars. Lousy for D&D.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 08:25 PM	If he is who I think he is I have never seen anything but a negative post from him and others in his gaming group either here or on the BK yahoo groups. So why keep feeding his/their need to gripe and moan by engaging him/them in a conversation here. If its not him/them then I will apologize now. He can reference the private note of his that I responded to to figure out who I think he might be. Congratulations on being wrong.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 09:04 PM	Also, I still don't understand what Michael has against hp and damage scaling upward as the characters level up, and thus, the monsters they face are harder. Is he suggesting that we go back to first edition where a longsword always did 1d8? A longsword still does just 1d8. The rest comes from Strength (same as in 2nd ed), Magic bonus (same as in 2nd ed), Feats like Weapon Specialization (the equivalent of going Specialist/Master in 2nd ed), Elemental damage on the weapon such as fire or shock (again the same as 2nd ed), crit range (which gets a bit silly in 3rd ed) and... 2-handed Power Attack. Shouldn't a level 7 spell do more damage than a level 1 spell? Or more interesting effects, yes. How are monsters going to be any challenge at all if their hit points don't move up to match? Monster HP isn't intended to be static. You seem incapable of understanding the fact that the scale is the problem I am referring to. How are fighters going to be interesting to play if they have no means of doing increased damage as well as levels go up? Let's see: -Interesting combat maneuvers, if it weren't for the fact that disarm / trip / bullrush and such don't work at high levels. -A reasonable increase in damage: if monster HP increased linearly rather than exponentially, then fighter and mage damage wouldn't need to travel so exponentially either. I really wish: I really wish you would actually read the posts. Remember the old design notes (MM5, I think) about how a monster lives, on average, three rounds. How memorable are a monster's special powers when it only gets to three standard actions before it dies? Funny thing that: Monsters tend to last, on average, three rounds because the arms race says they shall. A monster with 200+ HP, at CR 12, is beset by a party with a level 9 or 10 fighter who's doling out 30-40 damage per hit and the rest of the arsenal (rogue, casters) to add in the rest. First round, the fighter spends getting there and maybe takes a single attack. Second round, full attack. Third round, full attack, and the monster dies to someone's attack. What is the "fix" here? You seem to think that dumping more HP in, and allowing damage to just run upwards and upwards unchecked, is fine. But what you fail to consider is that the HP and Fighter damage scale have been moving exponentially instead of linearly, while other scales in the game move quite linearly. Look at what the fighter looks like for an example. We'll assume some reasonable guesses that this fighter has: Power Attack at 1st level, 2-handing his Longsword, and Strength of 16. Level 1: 1d8 + 3 (Str) + 2 (Power Attack): 1d8+5 Level 5: 1d8 + 4 (Str plus Item+2) + 10 (Power Attack): 1d8 + 14 Level 6: 1d8 + 4 (Str plus Item+2) + 12 (Power Attack) + 2 (Weapon Spec): 1d8 + 18 Level 10: 1d8 + 5(Str 18 or Item+4 by this point) + 20 (Power Attack) + 2 (Weapon Spec): 1d8 + 27 Level 15: 1d8 + 7 (Str 18, definitely item +6) + 30 (power attack) + 2 (weapon spec): 1d8 + 37 Note that I haven't even factored in magic weapon power yet, which will likely be +1 by level 4 and will likely be either +3 or have extra elemental damage, or keen (either on weapon or through fighter feat Improved Critical) or the probability of a side level of Barbarian or Rogue. The damage is more likely to be at least +30 and more dice added in from other sources. Plus, starting at 5th level the Fighter is commanding the Wizard to cast Haste on him every combat, which means another attack in the Full Attack every round. And that's not even considering the damage put out by some of the mounted-combat folks, who regularly exceed 200 damage on a single hit. In 3.0? Not so bad. Power Attack was only 1-for-1. Haste had its issues, but it at least was single-target. Who else can keep up with the fighter classes as it continues to go up like this? Nobody. Caster classes can maybe throw one or two spells that hope to be somewhere near if you roll really well; maybe a TWF Rogue with 7 or 8 d6'es per sneak attack if they can stay in flank and the enemy isn't immune to sneak (as far too many critters and templates are). Look at spells. They do either dice per level, or dice per 1/2 level. They have definitive caps (1st level spells cap at 5 dice, 3rd at 10, etc). They have a "brake" put on their damage either by requiring an attack roll (which ought to be regular attack instead of Touch, since Touch is just too easy) or by requiring a saving throw to negate some or all of the damage. Compare the damage output of a wizard compared to a fighter. Even when the wizard is lobbing quickened spells, you're talking a 10d6 spell (avg 35 points, save for half) plus a quickened 1st-level (avg 17 points) per round, and it can't run indefinitely. Meanwhile, the wizard is also supposed to be casting buffs like Haste or Displacement on the party or the fighter. It's very simple. Damage and hitpoints should definitely go up per level, but they should go linearly, not exponentially. The game mechanics will work better, monsters will last a few more rounds and be more memorable, and the game will do better for it.
solbergb 08-23-07, 09:34 PM	Who else can keep up with the fighter classes as it continues to go up like this? Nobody. You do realize that in 3.5 melee classes are considered irrelevant by those who theorize? Nobody (on the boards at least) values the fact that the role of high level fighters is to destroy anything they're placed next to in a full attack. Recognize that the only way a fighter-type is going to get a full attack in 3.5 high level is to have dumb monsters or teamwork from the party designed to put monsters in full attack range (eg, dim door, baleful transposition, battlefield control, anti-teleporting tricks from readied actions to dim lock). That teamwork will only happen if putting the fighter into position results in an outcome more powerful than your own action plus whatever the fighter could do without assistance. If everyone who had potent ranged stuff could keep up with fighters, there would be pretty much no reason to have fighters. SOMEBODY has to do the most damage. In D&D, it's the melee classes and monsters, because they have the hardest time actually doing their damage reliably. (actually the rogues are highest, because they have all the problems of melee with additional limitations on when their damage multiplier works) In 4.x, it's looking like the "strikers" who will usually do the most damage, with others doing "meaningful" damage in a pinch, but not being able to directly compete with a "Striker" class any more than anybody can compete with a well designed cleric/favored soul in the medic/support role or anyone can directly compete with a battlefield-control+mobilty arcanist in those roles in 3.5. What makes it not an MMORPG is we don't fight monsters that will regen faster than you can hurt them if you don't have at least 6 "damage per second" guys beating on it, with 6 "healers" to keep the tank alive and some "tanks" to draw the attention so the healers and damage/time folks don't instantly die. While we may call the roles similar things, in D&D, a party with no "Strikers" will eventually kill the bad guy, it just may take long enough that they'll need to be better tanks and healers. A party with no healers will usually kill the other guy before it is killed and heal out of combat. A party with no tanks can use battlefield control and skirmish tactics instead. Because every difficult fight isn't a "you need a perfectly coordinated army" situation, no matter how they define the roles, most parties will succeed regardles of actual mix if the play to their strengths and cover their weaknesses. That's certainly true in 3.x. If the party is lame at damage dealing, it's got to be better at control, healing and passive defenses like AC and saves. If the party is a bunch of glass cannons, they'll destroy the opposition most of the time, but they're far more vulnerable to a string of bad die rolls, especially initiative rolls. A balanced party will usually have fewer disasters but also fewer blowouts than the glass cannon party. The mostly-defensive party will have an easier time with large numbers of weak monsters, but may struggle with the single tough monster. One thing about bigger numbers is it allows for a broader range of what is "meaningful". In 1st edition D&D, things did less damage (except wizards) and had fewer hitpoints. However, saves were absolute (everything saved on a "2" at high levels) and armor class could actualy become unhittable. In terms we used in Champions, everybody was "Crunchy"....either you did nothing meaningful or you killed them, with very little inbetween. High hitpoints as an option can create a monster anybody can hurt, but it takes work to kill. In 3.5, that's things like advanced dire animals....advancement puts their saves out of reach of save/die spells, and nobody will kill them in one hit via huge hitpoint reserve, but their AC remains low and they can be nickled and dimed by anybody - even town militia with crossbows. You want your system to have glass cannons (eg, orc warrior - low ac, hp, saves, dies in one swing, but his attack mod and damage are very respectable, blaster arcane). You want hard-to-kill but low damage output monsters (eg, Lemures vs party without silver, or quasits). You want hard-to-affect but die-quick-if-you-can-hurt-them monsters (eg iron golem). You want easy-to-hurt but durable monsters (eg Rhino, oozes). Having a broader hitpoint range as you level makes these distinctions easier, as long as the progression scales properly on both sides of the fence. 3.5 was a bit uneven in this respect, but it did a better job than 1st and 2nd edition. (A 20th level wizard had 9 more hitpoints than an 11th level wizard. This can make scaling very difficult)
Timlagor 08-24-07, 07:25 AM	'Sword and board' is a term much older than WoW and MMOs. I suspect they are likely taking some inspiration from MMOs and WoW, but I can't fault them for that; that's a highly popular field and a direct competitor to D&D. I hope they don't see it that way cos there ain't no way they can compete on the same turf. Sure they're competing for the leisure time and money ..and even from many of the same people. The only way D&D can win that fight is to emphasise that you have people face to face and a GM who can do interesting and original things responding to intersting and original ideas from the players in an imaginative fashion. I find the "roles" comments most disturbing myself but I'll wait and see what the actual rules look like before making any decision. The last thing I want them to do is 'slim down' ('dumb down')the game so that it's simpler and options are more limitted. I don't agree that creatures should have severely limitted options just because they aren't going to get to use all their options. (though perhaps in a homegame where you know your players' standard tactics this isn't much of an isssue ..but then it already isn't; is it really better to have 4 creatures with different abilities rather than 1 with more options?)
UMiskatonic 08-24-07, 10:05 AM	I think this arms race analogy is ridiculous. In 1e and 2e, players got con bonuses and str bonuses, but monsters did not. So, the character with gauntlets of ogre strength got +3 to hit, and +6 damage, a benefit that ogres did NOT get. I'm glad that loophole has been closed, it's better game balance. This is just one of MANY, MANY logical loopholes that makes 1e and 2e a tough game to play. 3e was the first game to actually be a system, and I wouldn't want to give that up for the privilege of playing a game that looks like a bunch of random tables all got together for a party under a stapler. However, one of the things I -do- miss is the emphasis on 'if you don't like it, change it.' Now organized play can't do that, but in a home game, you can easily roll initiative every round, outlaw stat bump items, and whatever else you think to be a good idea. One of my campaigns eliminated good and evil as game concepts. Worked fine.
MichaelAhlf 08-24-07, 12:41 PM	I think this arms race analogy is ridiculous. In 1e and 2e, players got con bonuses and str bonuses, but monsters did not. So, the character with gauntlets of ogre strength got +3 to hit, and +6 damage, a benefit that ogres did NOT get. I'm glad that loophole has been closed, it's better game balance. No, instead, monsters got more dice of damage. That Ogre didn't have dice+X, he had X Dice. Further, the bonuses didn't start as absurdly early. To get a Con bonus, you had to have at least 16 Con to get even 1 bonus HP per level. For damage and to-hit bonuses, the scale was just as hard. On the flipside, PC's didn't absolutely have to have the +stat items to be effective and fun. This is just one of MANY, MANY logical loopholes that makes 1e and 2e a tough game to play. 3e was the first game to actually be a system, and I wouldn't want to give that up for the privilege of playing a game that looks like a bunch of random tables all got together for a party under a stapler. I'll thank you to stop accusing me of wanting the game to be 2e. I appreciate having a system, but I appreciate that game design works better when the scales for things move linearly rather than exponentially. That is the point I have been making: the current setup of 3.5, and of any system that tries to ape MMO design, falls into this trap. Look at an MMO. A character generally spends their first 10-15 levels (some MMO designers even admit that their first 10 or so levels are the actual character creation process) running around solo in the game. After that point, solo play runs into trouble, and by the "highest" levels you have parties of 40-50 people needed to take the high-end stuff because damage, hitpoints, armor, etc. have all grown exponentially. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in an MMO given that the target hardcore audience can be expected to gather parties of 40-50 people (or more!) just to do this in the first place. Now, look at D&D. From first level, you're expected to travel in a party. Party size is not expected to grow larger as you are higher level. The rest of the faulty logic surrounding MMO design, which encourages the exponential growth of numeric values for the sake of immature people who like seeing big numbers on the screen, does not and should not need to apply here. However, one of the things I -do- miss is the emphasis on 'if you don't like it, change it.' Now organized play can't do that, but in a home game, you can easily roll initiative every round, outlaw stat bump items, and whatever else you think to be a good idea. One of my campaigns eliminated good and evil as game concepts. Worked fine. One of the home games I'm in made limitations to the Power Attack feat; it only allowed you to go up to 5 points traded in, and you needed Improved Power Attack to go higher (just like Combat Expertise). It does wonders for fixing some serious game-balance issues. However, Living campaigns aren't allowed to "house rule" the game like this. The extent of what the Circle is allowed to say is whether it is Open, NONC, or Closed But Available To NPC's, or Just Plain Closed. Therefore, the more design flaws and faulty logic are eliminated from 4th ed, the better - it means the Circle has to do a lot less work closing off the broken nonsense. And I say that the first bit of faulty logic that should go is that the solution for monsters not lasting so long in combat is to simply give them more and more and more HP. It's far easier (and better long-term, given that D&D 3.5 breaks at about 14th-15th level in the current model) to put the damage output of PC's on a reasonable scale, and let the monsters have reasonable hitpoint values.
solbergb 08-24-07, 01:04 PM	so...actually...talking of 1st edition. There was no difference in the vast majority of play between a stat of 8 and a stat of 14. Combat bonuses and penalties for the most part started at 7 and 15, and then got absurdly larger as you exceeded 18. There were minor flavor stuff on most stats, and intelligence mattered for wizards, wisdom less so for divine casters. Mostly though, you needed a 16 in your primary attribute(s) or you lost xp. That's a pretty dumb way to do attributes. The smooth progression in D&D 3.x made a whole lot more sense. You may not have needed stat items, but if you didn't have a girdle of giant strength, a fighter needed to be enlarged (or perhaps use expansion if you rolled your 2% chance of being psionic) to be relevant. getting +6 to hit and +12 damage when your weapon does 1d8+3 is just insane. (+3 to hit, +6 damage for gaunts of ogre power wasn't shabby either) What is more if you COULD get your hands on the str boost items or size increase effects, it didn't matter if you were a 90 lb weakling or Conan, they all did the same damage. This means most fighters could get by with a 16 strength, for the xp bonus, knowing they'd eventually get either a size increase or a strength item. Enhancement bonuses rather than replacement was a huge improvement. Ogres and giants were weird, because you could use their club at their normal values or equip them with weapons that did a small amount of damage plus a large amount of bonuses. They were mechanically odd.
Bogjob 08-24-07, 01:05 PM	I don't think I've ever met a player who has said "I'm going to be the best healer, evah!" We have a guy like this. God we love him :D On the race thing I am hoping no races more then level +1 types make it i.e. Aasimar, Tieflings etc. I'll wait and see, however I may lose my PC if a Drow PC comes near me though (especially if he has two scimitars). Too many memories from Vault of the Drow onwards ;) I hope the game doesn't become a WoW clone as I stopped playing it due to the fact if character didn't have 'x' ability progression and 'x' armour, weapons etc no one wanted to game with you as you weren't uber enough for them. Sod that nonsense, every PC should at least try to be different for fun if nothing else.
jtrain9801 08-25-07, 09:51 AM	For the record I hate WOW. That is not 'role' playing that is 'roll' playing. It is nothing but a game of grinding and stroking your ego. Plus I refuse to pay real money for 'virtual' items that I can't touch. Unfortunately, I see 4.0 drifting towards the 'roll' and not 'role' playing myself with the plugging of the minis and the D&D insider tools. Heck, 3.5 is 'Roll' playing for the most part for if you look at most of the feats they are for tactical combats enhancements. Now onto the new system of tech trees. I think it is different and a interesting idea to try. Now I would like to see that the tech trees have some sort of synergy with other parts of the tree so that you just don't sit there and max out on one item or feat. It would help the lower feats to take the higher feats.
RedKnightofKet 08-25-07, 10:04 AM	To me, role-playing is what you make it. Of course the system is designed for "roll-playing". Why wouldn't it be? I don't want the system I'm playing in to decide how I am supposed to play my character. Let me make my character's personality, and play out the interaction with others, and let the system decide how he functions in combat. "Roll-playing" and role-playing are only exclusive if you make it so. Playing an effective combat character does not make you a bad role-player, nor does playing a sub-optimal character make you a good role-player. I for one am curious to see the new system when it comes out. The best example of a flaw in 3.5 is the need for Power Attack for a melee fighter. With very few exceptions, a fighter needs Power Attack (and, likely, a two-handed weapon) to be remotely effective at higher levels. Hopefully we can have a system where there isn't such a be-all-and-end-all feat for combat.
MatteBlack 08-25-07, 11:02 AM	Well, the "roles" seem to be right out of MMORPGs but that doesn't mean alot of good ideas in 3E didn't come from there either. Like "balance". I did my stint in MMOs but, the time became too much of a requirement. WoW specifically has a lot too teach when it comes to balancing classes against one another. The shear amount of playtime, actions taken in that time and hot forge of PvP equate to more balance testing than has been even considered by D&D. That being said, most of it's roles were initially borrowed from D&D so translating them back wouldn't be such a stretch. From what I have been able to see of the new online enhancements, they seem to be adding features that MMO players might be attracted to that really don't effect how D&D must be played. I am suspect of the attention paid to MMOs in this update but, it seems like they are making good choices that will correct current flaws and also open up the game's appeal.
RanielK 08-25-07, 11:57 AM	I don't use Psionics in my home games. Greyhawk doesn't use Psionics. There's a reason for this: Psionics are Psilly. Actually, I think he was referring to 2nd ed. There was at least one supplement for 2ed Ed regarding the magic system used for the Realms which was a spell point system. As the copyright for it was 1995, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that spellpoint system came out before WoW. Personally, I prefer White Wolf's system for Mage. They magic system for Changeling was ok. You know certain truths (Time, space, mind) and how well you know those truths and how they interact when you mix/match them determines how well you can pull off certain effects. It is however great for off the cuff magic (i.e. no preset spells) but much slower. Especially as the limiting factors were who was watching to trigger paradox and what may happen when you fail. I'm definitely not pro-Vancian. When most wizards in fiction aren't worrying about whether they have the right spell memorized to day or running out of slots (though fatigue from constant use is mentioned in most stories), I don't see why the RPG meant to recreate such exploits has you knowing How to do something but not being Able because you memorized the wrong doohickey today.
RanielK 08-25-07, 12:04 PM	To me, role-playing is what you make it. Of course the system is designed for "roll-playing". Why wouldn't it be? I don't want the system I'm playing in to decide how I am supposed to play my character. Let me make my character's personality, and play out the interaction with others, and let the system decide how he functions in combat. "Roll-playing" and role-playing are only exclusive if you make it so. Playing an effective combat character does not make you a bad role-player, nor does playing a sub-optimal character make you a good role-player. I for one am curious to see the new system when it comes out. The best example of a flaw in 3.5 is the need for Power Attack for a melee fighter. With very few exceptions, a fighter needs Power Attack (and, likely, a two-handed weapon) to be remotely effective at higher levels. Hopefully we can have a system where there isn't such a be-all-and-end-all feat for combat. Yeah, I'd definitely agree with this. Tell me how my character interacts with the physical game world. I'll decide how he deals with the mental (except for psychic combat), social and political of the game world. If I have x strength and y weapon, tell me what z damage is. But if I choose to play as a honey tongued devil or a barbarian who only communicates in growls, flexed muscles and intimidating stares, the dm should respond in kind, not go to a table and say roll the dice. Skills play a big part (can I climb that? Can I really steal his pants? Am I just too darn ugly and untutored to fit in to high society?), but roleplaying comes from what I say, how I describe my actions, and what the DM will let me get away with. It doesn't come from a rule set.
Bold 08-26-07, 10:45 AM	Level 15: 1d8 + 7 (Str 18, definitely item +6) + 30 (power attack) + 2 (weapon spec): 1d8 + 37 But a fighter Power Attacking for full will likely miss a substantial amount of the time, unless he's fighting an ooze with an AC of 3. Statistically, the optimal level of Power Attack for the average fighter is very small, usually around 2 or 3. Why? Because it's better to hit more often and for slightly less damage than to hit rarely but for huge damage. Remember, those iterative attacks are at -5, -10, etc. In fact, if you crunch the numbers, the more damage a fighter does per hit, the lower his/her optimal level of Power Attack will be. Obviously there are always exceptions, aside from the aforementioned unusually-low AC critters. Feats which allow you to convert the PA attack penalty to an AC penalty, or situations in which you make only a single attack will likely lead to a fighter using a higher level of Power Attack. But then they're not getting four attacks in a round, are they? The other exception is if you don't do much damage in the first place but you have a sky-high attack bonus (think: light finesse fighter with a weapon allowing the use of both Weapon Finesse and Power Attack). But for that type of build, they're only getting a 1-to-1 return on PA, and not doing much damage in the first place. Power Attack is a terrific feat--probably even a required feat for most melee builds--but it's not nearly as powerful as some people think. There are always exceptions, like the full-PA 4X crit with a scythe, but the statistically optimal use of Power Attack will provide a bonus of around 4-6 points of damage per hit against a monster with an AC which has scaled with its CR.
Drezden 08-26-07, 02:09 PM	In practice at high levels there are so many buffs and the attack bonuses are so high that Power Attacking for a lot or full is very common and makes sense. Also, most LG opponents have ACs in the mid-20s to low 30s so PA for a lot is called for. To give you an example, our 15th level BDF in my group during our last mod had an attack bonus of +40. So even when he flurried (Sp. Chain fighter) and PA for full he was +23/+23/+23/+18/+13. His damage output was 2d6+60. Sure maybe he should have PA for 10 if the opponent was AC 30 for 2d6+50. That would mean he only failed to hit an AC30 on a 1. Daren But a fighter Power Attacking for full will likely miss a substantial amount of the time, unless he's fighting an ooze with an AC of 3. Statistically, the optimal level of Power Attack for the average fighter is very small, usually around 2 or 3. Why? Because it's better to hit more often and for slightly less damage than to hit rarely but for huge damage. Remember, those iterative attacks are at -5, -10, etc. In fact, if you crunch the numbers, the more damage a fighter does per hit, the lower his/her optimal level of Power Attack will be. Obviously there are always exceptions, aside from the aforementioned unusually-low AC critters. Feats which allow you to convert the PA attack penalty to an AC penalty, or situations in which you make only a single attack will likely lead to a fighter using a higher level of Power Attack. But then they're not getting four attacks in a round, are they? The other exception is if you don't do much damage in the first place but you have a sky-high attack bonus (think: light finesse fighter with a weapon allowing the use of both Weapon Finesse and Power Attack). But for that type of build, they're only getting a 1-to-1 return on PA, and not doing much damage in the first place. Power Attack is a terrific feat--probably even a required feat for most melee builds--but it's not nearly as powerful as some people think. There are always exceptions, like the full-PA 4X crit with a scythe, but the statistically optimal use of Power Attack will provide a bonus of around 4-6 points of damage per hit against a monster with an AC which has scaled with its CR.
The_Jester 08-26-07, 03:45 PM	I did my stint in MMOs but, the time became too much of a requirement. WoW specifically has a lot too teach when it comes to balancing classes against one another. The shear amount of playtime, actions taken in that time and hot forge of PvP equate to more balance testing than has been even considered by D&D. That being said, most of it's roles were initially borrowed from D&D so translating them back wouldn't be such a stretch. From what I have been able to see of the new online enhancements, they seem to be adding features that MMO players might be attracted to that really don't effect how D&D must be played. I am suspect of the attention paid to MMOs in this update but, it seems like they are making good choices that will correct current flaws and also open up the game's appeal. Perfect balance is impossible but the ideal all classes/races should be roughly equal seem to stem out of early MMORPGs and the newer PnP RPGs. There was nothing even remotely balanced about 2nd Edition AD&D. There's also an emphasis on group roles in MMORPGs that 3E developed but never stressed; the ideal party of where everyone had a role to play.
MadVlad 08-26-07, 05:04 PM	In practice at high levels there are so many buffs and the attack bonuses are so high that Power Attacking for a lot or full is very common and makes sense. Also, most LG opponents have ACs in the mid-20s to low 30s so PA for a lot is called for. To give you an example, our 15th level BDF in my group during our last mod had an attack bonus of +40. So even when he flurried (Sp. Chain fighter) and PA for full he was +23/+23/+23/+18/+13. His damage output was 2d6+60. Sure maybe he should have PA for 10 if the opponent was AC 30 for 2d6+50. That would mean he only failed to hit an AC30 on a 1. Daren How about just limiting Power Attack to +5 like Combat Expertise.....
JamesMaissen 08-26-07, 08:59 PM	The best example of a flaw in 3.5 is the need for Power Attack for a melee fighter. With very few exceptions, a fighter needs Power Attack (and, likely, a two-handed weapon) to be remotely effective at higher levels. Hopefully we can have a system where there isn't such a be-all-and-end-all feat for combat. There's an easy fix to this.. make some 'feats' just 'options' for everyone instead. Specifically Weapon Finesse, Power Attack and Combat Expertise come quickly to mind. Power Attack seems so important, because at high levels for LG that's where monsters are suffering from the AC gap that PCs suffered at earlier levels. Most of their ACs don't compete with optimized attack rolls of dedicated melee fighters. The problem there is that the numbers start to swing too much.. and if things aren't designed too carefully you get to the place where the d20 swing isn't enough and bonuses count for too much. -James
clannagh 08-27-07, 10:48 PM	There's an easy fix to this.. make some 'feats' just 'options' for everyone instead. Specifically Weapon Finesse, Power Attack and Combat Expertise come quickly to mind. Power Attack seems so important, because at high levels for LG that's where monsters are suffering from the AC gap that PCs suffered at earlier levels. Most of their ACs don't compete with optimized attack rolls of dedicated melee fighters. The problem there is that the numbers start to swing too much.. and if things aren't designed too carefully you get to the place where the d20 swing isn't enough and bonuses count for too much. -James A power attack point for every two points of BAB sacrificed would tone that down.
JamesMaissen 08-27-07, 11:58 PM	A power attack point for every two points of BAB sacrificed would tone that down. Simply making it the same as the multiplier on the STR mod would probably be best. -James
Vamroc 08-28-07, 12:15 AM	I think any race should be able to become any class they want. Where the mistake was made was at the racial level. An Orc born in the upper westside of New York City would tend to have a higher Intellect than an Orc born in Texas. I think bonuses should be class oriented Orc's get x bonus to there stats for this class. Dwarves can take the same class but get different bonuses this way reincarnation has real charactor impact. Did any see LOTR the Elves had Constitutions that are off the charts they are way more versitile than humans. Add to the fact they are immortal and certainly appeared every bit as strong as the humans they saved. Once again Fighters, Druids, Rangers all Elves why can't other races get this kind of love Gnome Paladins thats all I ask. :cool:
jhorred 08-28-07, 01:35 AM	<snip> Recognize that the only way a fighter-type is going to get a full attack in 3.5 high level is to have dumb monsters or teamwork from the party designed to put monsters in full attack range (eg, dim door, baleful transposition, battlefield control, anti-teleporting tricks from readied actions to dim lock). That teamwork will only happen if putting the fighter into position results in an outcome more powerful than your own action plus whatever the fighter could do without assistance. <snip> Javelins..... Lots of Javelins....
clannagh 08-28-07, 02:02 AM	But a fighter Power Attacking for full will likely miss a substantial amount of the time, unless he's fighting an ooze with an AC of 3. Statistically, the optimal level of Power Attack for the average fighter is very small, usually around 2 or 3. Why? Because it's better to hit more often and for slightly less damage than to hit rarely but for huge damage. Remember, those iterative attacks are at -5, -10, etc. In fact, if you crunch the numbers, the more damage a fighter does per hit, the lower his/her optimal level of Power Attack will be. Nah .. forget the iteratives ride by attack, spirited charge, powerattack, improved bullrush and shocktrooper Assuming a mounted level 15 strength 22 fighter with a +1 lance (very conservative figures) that build is going to net you 3d8+120 each ride-by-attack hitting at d20+23 (critting for 5d8 + 240 if wearing riding boots). Add 45 damage (75 for a crit)to that if its a paladin smiting evil.
UMiskatonic 08-28-07, 10:06 PM	But if I choose to play as a honey tongued devil or a barbarian who only communicates in growls, flexed muscles and intimidating stares, the dm should respond in kind, not go to a table and say roll the dice. Skills play a big part (can I climb that? Can I really steal his pants? Am I just too darn ugly and untutored to fit in to high society?), but roleplaying comes from what I say, how I describe my actions, and what the DM will let me get away with. It doesn't come from a rule set. And how would the DM know what to let you get away with? I think it's very interesting that there is a LOT of pages dedicated to fighting and combat, and almost none dedicated to out-of combat negotiation. I'd like to see game mechanics that actually support communication and negotiation in a way that makes sense. Say, low level commoners are easier to bluff than the evil King of Trolls. And I don't mean "You can never convince anyone, unless you're a bard, in which case you always succeed."
Hariman 08-30-07, 11:18 AM	I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet but: D&D 3.5 was technically already a 30 level system. (Core 20 levels plus epic.) But almost nobody played epic because it was a headache to run, even more complex than normal play, and sometimes broken. D&D 4.0 makes epic a part of the standard ruleset. I'm hoping that D&D 4.0 includes Psionics in with everything else in the core three books. That way, psionics would actually get USED in LFR instead of "Doesn't existed" into home game use only.
clik_ml 08-30-07, 01:33 PM	I'm hoping that D&D 4.0 includes Psionics in with everything else in the core three books. That way, psionics would actually get USED in LFR instead of "Doesn't existed" into home game use only. I believe the plan is that psionics will be core, but it won't in the first core books. I believe I read this in the FAQ thread over on the 4e boards, since that's about the only thread I've plumbed. (checking... argh, everything has been moved to a new forum, thankfully my link still works) From the FAQ thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910164 In response to: 1) Will Psionic powers be availble in PH1? A few things: 1) First, even if psionic power isn't in PH1, that doesn't mean it won't be core. All the PHs will be "core," and psionics will be in a PH. It seems strongly intimated that psionics will be core, and in a player's handbook... but just not the first player's handbook.
catsclaw 08-30-07, 11:08 PM	It seems strongly intimated that psionics will be core, and in a player's handbook... but just not the first player's handbook.Which, if they stick to the release schedule they hinted at (one PH, MM and DMG a year) means it'll be another year before the psionic rules are released. I assume they'll show up earlier than that, if only for the sake of the Eberron players.
RanielK 08-31-07, 07:50 AM	Which, if they stick to the release schedule they hinted at (one PH, MM and DMG a year) means it'll be another year before the psionic rules are released. I assume they'll show up earlier than that, if only for the sake of the Eberron players. Ah, but they also said they were releasing one converted campaign setting per year. We can be farily certain Forgotten Realms will be the first such setting. I'll bet you dollars to donuts, Eberron will be the second and with the second PHB containing psionics, it'll be one neat package.
catsclaw 08-31-07, 12:09 PM	I'll bet you dollars to donuts, Eberron will be the second and with the second PHB containing psionics, it'll be one neat package.Maybe. I know the Eberron folks aren't going to take too kindly to waiting a year for their updated setting -- they're expecting at least some web enhancements to allow them to shift over more-or-less immediately.
Hariman 09-01-07, 10:06 PM	It seems strongly intimated that psionics will be core, and in a player's handbook... but just not the first player's handbook. If it's in a core book, that would be great. If it's in the FIRST core book, that would be even better. But that might be too much to hope for. But having Psionics that is in one of the core books makes it much less likely to be brushed off by pain in the butt DMs.
KarmaInferno 09-04-07, 07:47 PM	If he is who I think he is I have never seen anything but a negative post from him and others in his gaming group either here or on the BK yahoo groups. So why keep feeding his/their need to gripe and moan by engaging him/them in a conversation here. Personally, I've put him on ignore. His relentless negativity is just annoying and sad. Also, he apparently thinks that "it sucks" to be a valid argument. -karma
RanielK 09-05-07, 08:59 PM	Maybe. I know the Eberron folks aren't going to take too kindly to waiting a year for their updated setting -- they're expecting at least some web enhancements to allow them to shift over more-or-less immediately. True, but consider that the Realms is the premier campaign setting. I'd be floored if the first year's campaign setting was Eberron and the RPGA's Living Campaign had to wait a year just to get the setting they are based in. R&D promised one a year. It's an almost no brainer which that will be.