hmarcbower's page

I see the point why healing MIGHT need an overhaul.

But I will just remind you to use AS SIMPLE Mechanics as possible.

<snip>

If the spells would be revised, so that a CLW would cure a certain amount of HP regardless of level (like 10% or so), the danger would be, that PCs could use their relative unimportant low-level spells for healing large amounts of HP without the real need to use the higher level healing spells.

OK, I can see what is being perceived as needing to be tweaked. I'm not sure I'd like to see it as part of the core rules, but definitely an optional ruling on how healing works would be in order for those who want a less dangerous / higher fantasy version of healing.

Something I might suggest (so as not to have minor healing spells overtake higher level spells) would be the following:

CLW - heals a character to 25% of maximum
CMW - heals a character to 50% of maximum
CSW - heals a character to 75% of maximum

Leaving heal to bring people back to full HP. Or you could even create the 4d version, which heals the character back to full without all of the added benefits of the Heal spell.

That means, of course, that higher level spells have LESS of an effect on lower level characters... so the problem has just been inverted. That could be mitigated by adding the following on to the end of the above descriptions: ", or [20/40/60] HP, whichever is greater."

Then, of course, you're working with fixed healing amounts... which I like. I hate randomly rolled healing. It's a controlled environment with a willing subject... there's no reason that randomness should come into play (as a related sideline, we've always house ruled that a cleric's healing works as "maximized" when cast on himself or if he actually spends a slot on it, rather than swapping it into his spells for the day).

The numbers, of course, would likely need to be tweaked with more thought put into them, but I make the suggestion to be played with if anyone wishes to do so. :)

Forgive me if my question is not appropriate... but why does healing have to be fixed? What if I don't think it's broken? :) The easily available (and sometimes even unnecessary due to personal abilities) healing was something that turned me off of 4e. The point of Pathfinder is to keep the 3.5 feel of D&D, if I recall correctly.

Perhaps you should define the problem you're trying to solve, first, then perhaps your solution would be clearer to me. :)

Did anyone suggest the possibility of reconstituting the 3.5 core wizard class in Pathfinder? One of my players was saying that he wasn't thrilled with the PRPG wizard and the solution we plan on using is that both classes are allowed in the game.

I have pretty much decided I won't be using the Alpha 1.1 replacement for Specialization... I'll stick with the 3.5 material for that. If I want a funky power I can use over and over, I'll give out one free Reserve feat, or something. :) I prefer 3.5 specialization, and I'm not sure it needed to be changed, to be honest. I have to wonder what the point of it was... I know there had to be some reason to change it, but I wonder what issue it was that was being addressed with the change.

There are a few threads on this, though, already, in another forum.

Makes me wonder if there's a well organized "summoned creatures stat" page that one could just print out so we don't have to look up the SRD because the DM is using the monster manual.

Go here and grab MonsterForge. It's great for summoned creatures... you can apply templates, tack on the Augment Summoning feat, etc... and it stats it all out. Great tool for planning ahead, especially since you know your summoning lists ahead of time.

At least someone seems to understand what I am getting at. ;)

Why do people, when others don't immediately say "what a great idea", assume that people don't understand? As though if they did understand they couldn't possibly disagree... :)

Anyway... I think this could be an overly complicated mechanic. The "fluff" around why you get the boost at the beginning of a career (ie. max HP, 4x skill points) is that presumably what you've been doing with your life up until that point has been working toward learning all you need to learn until you're "qualified" as a <insert class here for level 1>. If you separate it out for pre-class skill points... what skills can you take? Are they all considered class skills, or how do you know which ones are class and which are cross-class?

I definitely see what you're trying to get to, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go. If you wanted to you could always say "everyone gets one level of expert for free" and go from there. I like what you're trying to do, but I think it unnecessarily complicates the character creation process.

As for the saves... we, a couple years ago, went with the fractional calculations from Unearthed Arcana. It stops the silliness of the save boosting when you flip into multiple classes with overlapping good saves.

2) I think static XP could be a viable option, but only if they have some rule that creatures who's CR is lessthan the average party level -5 (or some similar number) simply provide no XP, similar to the 3.5 table where at a certain point creatures don't provide XP, since they're not enough of a challenge, no matter how many of them are there.

That even lowly creatures that aren't any challenge provide XP is mitigated by the much greater amount of XP needed to progress through the levels, as compared to stock 3.5. Who cares if you get 40XP for killing something when you need 250000XP to go up your next level?

As I've said, I think I personally would still prefer a XP-relative-to-character-level system (and I can get on board the "split up levels 1-3 campaign, too), but I can see that for all except my one remaining concern (characters who fall behind) the static system works OK, too.

What's interesting about this is that these two points seems to be at odds with one another. In theory, the flat-XP system does allow for what might be termed "XP farming" (I just invented that term - aren't I clever?), but the Pathfinder XP system strongly rewards facing enemies at or above your own level, thus making farming an inefficient means of gaining XP in a situation where you can't just bot your way through it. Yes, a party of 15th level characters sould theoretically gain a level by killing 875 ogres (which I'm guessing is beyond even most cloudkills, at least for a single casting), but they could also do so by taking on six CR 17 encounters and achieve the same effect, faster and presumably while still participating in a plot of some kind.

(Interesting mathematical quirk - at 9th level, the first point a party will presumably have access to cloudkill, it takes 840 1st level commoners to gain a level. So we're talking "villages" that are closer to "small towns," which strikes me as not the kind of game most people play. If that is the kind of game you want to play, however, I suppose Paizo's got no room to tell you not to do it.)

And this is what is being missed with some of these discussions regarding experience. Sure, the 15th level party still gets experience for squashing rats in a basement... but the amount of XP received is so insignificant that it's not worth their time, unless they're ageless undead or something as it will take stupidly long for them to gain enough rat XP go go up a level. Thanks for doing the math, above, because that's an excellent illustration.

My concern with static XP awards is that it won't compensate for the party member who has fallen behind a level or two and is trying to catch up. Other than that, I don't have an issue with static XP. For my part, though, I would still prefer something mathematically equivalent to 3.5 (which would, then, probably modify the character advancement XP thresholds, as well, back to something similar to 3.5).

I would be in favor of something like this but there is an issue of backwards compatibility. One way to reduce the amount that needs to change would be to give evokers a class ability or access to feats that allow them to take damaging evocation spells in lower level spell slots than other casters. This will hopefully allow an evoker to be more on par with other spell casters of an equal level when using their evocation spells. Giving only evokers access to these changes would also reduce backward compatibility headaches (not an evoker, no change) and would not power up the other non evoker spell casters.

I like this suggestion (that only Evokers are able to access the spells earlier). Makes lots of sense, and addresses the compatibility issue.

I quite like the 3.5 experience point method... I'm not sure what the impetus was to come up with something so different for 3.P. I know it kind of hearkens back to earlier editions, and the table is nice and small, but my concern is what Frank just mentioned: characters catching up. I see what the change has done - instead of basing the amount of experience on the character's level and having nice-looking xp progression through the levels (a la 3.5), every challenge provides some experience to every character, but when you're a higher level, and need a couple hundred thousand XP to make your next level, the 400xp you get from a CR1 is nearly meaningless. I liked the new way of doing xp for 3.5. I know that we can't pull that out as is (non-OGL), but I think it would be better (and solve the catching up issue, which makes a lot of sense) to have something styled after the methodology of 3.5.

Of course, with there being such a wide spread of XP values for each level, being behind in XP by 5000 might not be such a problem. Even on the fast progression chart, by level 10 or 11, a 5000XP discrepancy wouldn't be all that troubling, perhaps.

Hmmm. Even if it doesn't amount to much of a game impact, it would still be nice for those players to be able to "catch up" their character with the rest of the party.

I shall have to ponder it further. :)

(I think the board ate the post... so here it is again)

I quite like the 3.5 experience point method... I'm not sure what the impetus was to come up with something so different for 3.P. I know it kind of hearkens back to earlier editions, and the table is nice and small, but my concern is what Frank just mentioned: characters catching up. I see what the change has done - instead of basing the amount of experience on the character's level and having nice-looking xp progression through the levels (a la 3.5), every challenge provides some experience to every character, but when you're a higher level, and need a couple hundred thousand XP to make your next level, the 400xp you get from a CR1 is nearly meaningless. I liked the new way of doing xp for 3.5. I know that we can't pull that out as is (non-OGL), but I think it would be better (and solve the catching up issue, which makes a lot of sense) to have something styled after the methodology of 3.5.

Of course, with there being such a wide spread of XP values for each level, being behind in XP by 5000 might not be such a problem. Even on the fast progression chart, by level 10 or 11, a 5000XP discrepancy wouldn't be all that troubling, perhaps.

Hmmm. Even if it doesn't amount to much of a game impact, it would still be nice for those players to be able to "catch up" their character with the rest of the party.

I shall have to ponder it further. :)

And really, this doesn't power down the specialist wizard severely and plenty of people would argue that it doesn't go far enough. I'm not one of them, but head over to the WotC boards and ask them about the wizard...wear a helmet.

I've often found that tinfoil works best when I have the misfortune of visiting those boards. ;)

If one looks hard enough, there is somebody crying about every class, saying how it's broken or unstoppable, or something, compared to all other classes (except maybe bard... I don't think I've ever heard the complaint about the bard...).

To be honest, I never play wizards (except I am playing one now) because I dislike memorizing spells.

As for not powering down the specialist... I disagree (obviously :) ). It was well explained by another poster, but basically these "free" spells you call spontaneous are actually replacing a spell of my own choice. They are also appearing a level later than the actual spell I could learn if I wanted it. They are also using CHA for the DC for the save, if relevant - that's a huge hit for a class that casts all of its other spells based on Int. It's just not interesting, and it's mechanically inferior to Specialization. (Oh, and the Evocation school power is really very lame.)

There sure seems to be alot of anti TOB people around.I own the book and the outrageous brokenness that so many people mention i never managed to find.

I think it was, at best, warmly received... more correctly it was probably mostly ignored by people. The "anti-TOB people" you see (of which I might consider myself one) may relate to the later-revealed role that it played in the publication schedule - as a testbed for 4e stuff for the fighter.

So......fighters that stay useful aren't wanted?

Gee, load your questions much? ;)

Anyway, this shouldn't be a discussion about ToB and whether we liked or didn't like it. I think that it was one of the catalysts for many divisive discussions in the 4e forum before Pathfinder RPG came along. I simply stated why I thought that there existed anti-TOB sentiment.

And, if I'm not mistaken, they say right in the book that you shouldn't use the classes there with the one they are intended to replace... could be misremembering, though. That should indicate it might not be an ideal thing to compare the Pathfinder fighter to if we're looking to keep compatibility within sight.

I'm sorry about that last post.

I've been drinking too much coffee today.

You might want to cut back on the aluminium-tainted whitener ;)

Funny stuff, though.

And what do you do with the 100s of non-PHB OGL spells that don't fit in? Tell people it's not compatible anymore?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the three time you have said that when someone talks of changing spells. You can't use it for every argument :P

I'm not sure I completely agree, but I can really disagree either.

Fizz

Heheh. Some people are better at pointing out problems than presenting solutions... (we all do that sometimes) :)

It's a sort-of valid point, but I would like SirUrza to present some examples to show how they "don't fit in" because that would be helpful for illustrating his point.

This is an interesting idea... while many think that wizards are just as powerful as ever, I'm with you when it comes to the damaging spells not being as effective, relatively speaking, as in previous editions.

There sure seems to be alot of anti TOB people around.I own the book and the outrageous brokenness that so many people mention i never managed to find.

I think it was, at best, warmly received... more correctly it was probably mostly ignored by people. The "anti-TOB people" you see (of which I might consider myself one) may relate to the later-revealed role that it played in the publication schedule - as a testbed for 4e stuff for the fighter.

I think it's important to concentrate on getting the existing classes right before considering doing new core classes (if such is even needed - I would be especially diappointed if space was taken up in the book to flesh out a whole psionic system just to support a single psionic class that, should it ever be included as revised 3P material, should be in a separate book).

I'm with those folks who feel that core classes have enough of a spread at the moment and can be expanded even further with the use of prestige classes if needed or desired.

I think it's also important to note that we are also striving for backward compatibility with 3.5.... too many bizarre changes to the stock fighter and you've lost that.

I, too, like the fighter (now that the chained feats have been resolved) the way they've done it.

A few points I feel are important for the topic:

1) The wizard doesn't really need a boost in strength.

But does it need a reduction in strength? Because that's what this is when compared to Specialization.

2) SLA's are typically CHA based and a change in that is a variation.

See above in several posts where other classes have INT-based SLAs.

3) The key attribute doesn't matter for many of the spells on the lists. Even with the difference in ability, lets not forget that the wizard has the innate ability to jack his CHA an extra 4 with a 2nd level spell for an occasion where it would be crucial to have(unless of course it's of a restricted school, and even then he could carry around a scroll or wand with no penalty).

So you now want the wizard to memorize a second level spell so he can effectively (though likely still not as effectively as if he'd just memorized the spell normally) cast a spell that he could have added to his spellbook one level earlier and has likely been casting at a greater effectiveness for a whole level before the school "bonus" kicks in? For the spells that don't require saves, you're right, it doesn't matter. But for the ones where it does matter it's been made very much weaker than being simply able to cast one spell of my choice from my specialty each day.

4) The ability to cast spontaneously is a feat the wizard couldn't pull previously. This adds versatility to an already versatile class...which is a benefit. I'm not sure the benefit needs to be more than that.

This isn't spontaneous casting... if you compare it to specialization from stock 3.5, basically these rules force a specific use of a spell, one level later, with a lower save (when relevant).

Oh, and I vote for INT

2) Charisma is the rule for spell-like abilities. No reason to change it for one thing.

Except, as someone else noted above, the Rogue SLAs are based off of INT.

Apologies for coming late to this thread, but my group is just getting seriously into considering PRPG changes.

I've read over the School Powers for Wizards, and am finding as many above have... it's an odd mishmash that doesn't really make me want to switch out Specialization for School Powers. Since I'm currently playing an Evocation specialist, I'm especially disappointed as the Evocation school powers seem... worse? I wouldn't consider myself a power gamer, but I do like mechanics. Removing a bonus spell each day of your specialty school, which is cast as normal, seems far superior to having specific spells from the specialty school chosen for me, and lag behind by one level compared to when I would already have the spell available to me.

Specialists have such potential and unfortunately I think it hasn't been tapped yet. I appreciate what Jason is trying to do (build in something similar to a Reserve Feat and provide something a wizard can do without a spellbook handy), but I don't think it's ready for prime time yet. :)

I've seen some suggestions above to handle it similarly to Rogues, and that's an idea I kind of like. While it's important to have flavour, the flavour has to lead to some mechanical element as well - or else you end up with the problems that occurred in 2e with the kits and specialty priests... some were flavourful but useless, while others were mechanically superior and provided a much greater advantage.

Oh, and having CHA as the stat for calculating DC... well, that makes these even less useful, especially for the Evoker where having to use a lower stat for DCs make it even less likely the damage spells will work with any degree of effectiveness.

I'll have to agree with the general concensus on the angular manga style art. It is certainly well done, but I cerntainly don't like it. I'd ditch it entirely and go for something more traditional. No "impressionistic" art(pastels, watercolor effects, blurred pics, whatever) either.

I'm in this boat, as well. The art is nice, just not my preferred style and it doesn't inspire me to show it to the players (not that I hide it, but I really feel it's not realistic enough to show what someone looks like). I would really like to see something more realistic, less angular and stylized. The alternative style that someone posted a link to above would be nice (even though that is still a bit comic-y, at least there are no 90 degree angles anywhere).

And add another "blech" vote for big floppy elf ears. I've already fixed that in my own campaign ;)

I'll agree with those folks who are finding the "fancy" names just a bit offputting. From a purely bookkeeping standpoint, yes, they have to have some kind of name so you don't have to reprint everything that an ability entails when it is referred to. What if "Sneak Attack" was renamed to "Adder's Strike" or something? It's a little too out-of-genre for my tastes (and yes, it's something I didn't like about the WotC designers' ideas, too).

I'm looking forward to the release to get all the info. :)

I would also lend my support to this cause :)

To possibly mitigate the issue with the Weapon Focus / Specialization / etc feats applying to the whole group, you could add another feat into the chain: Weapon Focus as a prerequisite to Weapon Group Focus. From the player perspective, I agree with everyone who has said it makes weapon choice (and being bitter later about the lack of availability of your chosen weapon) more interesting. I have had my misgivings about the feats applying, though. I'd be fine either way, but with every character getting "more" feats, I don't think it would be an issue to follow up the weapon-specific feats with a broader weapon-group-specific feat, either. It also makes a certain amount of sense in that you need to perfect these techniques with a single weapon first, then the knowledge you've gained from that you can apply to style-similar weapons (ie. other weapons in the weapon group).

It's impossible to tell from the picture... but I'm assuming that all of the sides are not the same shape or size...?

If the Singin' Sheet were a ninja, it could totally flip out and kill everyone.

Except Chuck Norris, of course.

That said, we were just talking this evening at our weekly gaming session about a character creator program. I personally use a highly configurable Excel spreadsheet program by someone I can't remember at the moment... :) It's excellent, though.

If you do have plans for this, Paizo, please, for the love of all that is holy, don't make it some kind of bulky java silliness... java was developed so your toaster could talk to your refrigerator... not for making characters. :)

This is easily the best news I've had all week. And as promised I will trundle off to the store (next week after I get paid) and immediately subscribe to something. :)

The group I game with is just finishing up the Skinsaw chapter of Rise of the Runelords, so we will definitely be participating in the open alpha/beta and providing our feedback to mingle with the genius of hundreds of other playtesters. I haven't been this enthused about anything in the RPG world since 3.0 was announced. :)

Thanks, Paizo... and how the HELL did you not let any indication of this leak out at all? That is truly incredible. :)

I'm the kind of player who prefers to control my own character rather than have someone else do it for me (even if its just movement). From this reading, I can say that I wouldn't want to play in a group that has a Warlord. So, it looks like I'm edging one step closer towards remaining in the 3.5 Camp.

Same here. My players tend to be furiously independent, by this I mean they each have their own style and ideas that make it hard for another player to guess what would be good for another, not independent as in against teamwork. I know if another player tried to decided what would be a good placement for another’s character (even if he was just trying to help) it would lead bad places.

Also can you shift an unwilling player? I think I can see bad thing happening here to if the answer if yes.

I suspect that it will end up being more along the lines of...

Rogue: "OK, I move [shift/planeshift/whatever] as far as I can. Warlord! Gimme a push!"
Warlord: "I'm busy trying to do something over here."
Rogue: "Come on, this is what you do. Just get me to the other side of the bad guy."
Warlord: "I can't, I already did something that betters my own position on the battlemat and can't also push you."
Rogue: "Useless! Why don't you just play a fighter?"

etc.

Kind of like the healing batteries that were clerics in 2e and previous. When a character's cool powers all revolve around doing things for/to other characters in the party (and I don't know if the Warlord's all do, but that seems to be the point of it), those other characters are going to come to count them as their own abilities that just happen to originate from the warlord.

It stems from the general trend in this country (the US) that each person is (to paraphrase a movie line) "an individual snowflake, beautiful and unique".

Teamwork

Brought to you by despair.com. :)

You will ENJOY 4th edition or else, Comrade.... GLEEMAX says so....

And what the HECK is a GLEEMAX anyways?

Gleeeeeemax..... snicker.

I think Gleemax is a swahili word that, roughly translated, means "our webmaster thinks he can write software, but he can't". Worst forums/blogs I have ever seen. Spending 20 minutes setting up a Wordpress site would have served them better, I think. ::shudder::

Yes. The point of that original post was to say - quit sniping at people and talk to each other. If you don't get what someone writes then ask a question before going into attack mode. If you see someone go into attack mode then ask them to stop - or better yet - make sure what you think you are reading actually is an attack.

Heh... and this is something you do well, too - change the meaning of what you've previously written later on in the thread.

If what you state above is what you truly meant to say with your original post, then you did it poorly. To me (and obviously to many other people) it said "These are the 4e forums... only talk nicely about 4e!". And, of course, I expect that, if you even address my post, you will say it's my fault for not understanding you and carefully asking you exactly what you mean. Horsepucky. If you say it, we assume you have intentionally said it and shouldn't be expected to come back with "are you really saying x? or is it y? or z? or something that we can't possibly understand since we're so much scum on your shoe?"

Gimme a break.. .you know exactly what you were saying, and so do we. Don't backpedal on it now - either own up to it and stand up for it, or say (gasp!) you were wrong for suggesting it.

In another thread...

Don't care! Have a look at this thread and what's come of it instead of deflecting and showing how hard done by you are.

The bickering does need to subside if any meaningful discussion is to take place.

That's true. From everyone, though.

But I cannot sit on the sideline while you take pot shots at me rather than the substance of my posts.

And nobody should be expected to - although it seems strange that you have to face this so often... maybe that's something you should consider.

All of that said, prior to this thread cropping up I thought that you'd definitely tempered your writing to these boards to the point where I could actually read your posts again. I appreciate your (generally) logical approach to things, even with a 4e slant (and we all have our particular slant when we post, so that's to be expected). But you need to take responsibility for what you say and how you say it (or you'll be called on it... as we've seen).

I am uncertain that the full game will be quicker; these were 'bare bones' rules pulled together (for first level characters, remember) to give a much called for basic demonstration to the waiting public.

Very true. I guess I would add that the play testers that have posted reviews have said it is faster so I am considering that as well.

My recollection was of a report that the combat took no less time. And that it took something like 40 rounds for one combat. And that after people figured out what their characters could do, they singled out what seemed to be the best option and just did that over and over and over. Despite all the "options" available to them.

Any interesting-sounding reports that were supposed to be showcasing the new system actually seemed to come down to a DM who was weaving a fine tale, but not actually using or testing the rules.

Of the reports from D&DX that I've seen (and I obviously haven't seen them all) the reviews were kind of ... bleh.

The only beer I'm dying for is Guinness! :)

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, Guinness........mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

How can you not love a beer that you can really sink your teeth into? ;) St. Patty's Day is nigh! Prepare the green dye!

Since some folks seem to be missing my point let me ask you a question:

Is it okay with you to have a large vocal group post to the d20/OGL board to tell everyone that they are ignorant cavemen for playing an older edition?

No, it's not, and that's why we have such a problem with the WotC marketing thus far. ;)

So are you the pot or the kettle, anyway, in this scenario?

Maybe their "8-10 year" lifespan of 4.0 started when they claim to have first started developing it - 2 to 3 years ago... that would mean a new edition five years after launch. Hmmm... when is a set of rules first considered a set of rules... at conception, or at launch? ;)

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

No. And I can cast such a vote for at least four other people in the group I game with.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

That's like asking how much GURPS 4e material I would buy if I plan to continue playing D&D 3.5 ... that would be none. :)

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

We have one person (the current DM) who has a Pathfinder subscription, and he's planning to renew it. We are waiting to see which side of the fence the company comes down on, but if it's this side (not converting to 4.0) then I expect we will also subscribe to GameMastery and buy other items on a one-off. We're thoroughly enjoying the bit of Golarion we've seen so far and eagerly awaiting the gazetteer and other campaign supporting material. That is only of use to us if there is continued 3.5 support for the adventure paths and modules.

Good luck with your decision. :)

I definitely agree with those who have posted that it doesn't seem like they are actually playtesting... just sitting around and chatting and telling a story. What 4e mechanic was used for them to be able to splat the monsters on their shields? Which rules define how tough it is to jump a mine cart over a break in the tracks?

All through the article, all I could think was "Who hid Chris' ritalin and how long has he been off it?"

If you're trying to sell 3.5 fans on the new edition, then talk to us in the language we're used to hearing.

I'd also quite like to hear the details of some of these deaths - including mechanics involved.

The article reinforced the idea that 4e isn't for me. They are definitely refining their polarization of the market.

While feedback would be nice, it would be hard to tell anything at this point until I see the material for myself. I'm sure there will be "haters" who report that the whole thing is designed to cause cancer in babies and there will be "fanbois" who claim it will cure cancer and we'll never grow old and never die. :)

That said, though, I am still looking forward to the reports that come back from DDX (or whatever fancy short form they use for this event).

Oh, and I'm not going, to answer your question I guess. :)

Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?

Sharkmen and lasers are not part of the game. You may have some ill-tempered sea bass, though.

Hah! Bet you can't do *that* in Hero. ;)

Were-Sharks are from Dragonlance, and were updated to 3.5 in one of Dragon's Campaign Classics issues, IIRC.

Lasers were introduced ages ago in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and were added/updated by WOTC using D20 Modern rules when they did their Return to the Barrier Peaks.

Like it or not, they are a part of D&D, maybe not 4e though. YET.

What are you, the straight man? I was playing off his Austin Powers reference... :)

The thing I really like is that they seem to be extracting the concept of class even further from the game world, and making almost a purely meta game concept. So no one in the game world will know (or care) that you are a Fighter / Warlord / Ranger / Wizard (or whatever), just that you are a well rounded adventurer. If you want to call yourself a Warlord, or a swordmage, or whatever, as long as you have the in game ability to back it up, they won't care.

I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but it is one of the (admittedly many) things that has me excited about 4th Edition.

I won't play 4e, but this does sound very cool. It may well be the single best thing I've heard about 4e since it was announced (considering the rest of what I've heard I haven't liked at all, that isn't saying much... or maybe it is :) ). It's definitely something I will read up on when the books come out (at the bookstore or at the Library... no money involved for me).

Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?

Sharkmen and lasers are not part of the game. You may have some ill-tempered sea bass, though.

Hah! Bet you can't do *that* in Hero. ;)

NOTE: expert opinion carries no weight in the formulation of a subjective opinion unless you personally defer to experts in the formation of that opinion.

I think my point has been made. Thank you for this discussion.

Yes indeed... point made and verified. :)

No need to get miffed because people don't respond to you. Of course, that might just be a wordy "BUMP!" :)

Anyway, your question was somewhat answered a few days ago in the "Mearls..." thread.

You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats.

At least I think that sort of answers you. It might not. Either way, if you haven't you might want to read through that thread or read the original entry on ENWorld.

Umm, I know you're trying to make an example here, but it's just not working for me. In the closing shootout of Taxi Driver, most people take a significant amount of punishment before falling, and the "hero" takes like 9 bullets and then fails to kill himself. Chinatown, I'm not really sure, but the closest I can think to your point is Faye Dunaway's character, and she's both a low-hp commoner and offed by DM's Fiat anyway.

Unfortunately (or not, depending on your take on things of course) the D&D hit points have always been too simplified to model this kind of thing. I certainly don't think the 4e model as presented solves the issues I have, but perhaps the Bloodied state does (I don't recall seeing a rules-effect definition of it, though, so I can't be sure). When the system (and I think almost all systems do this, so it's not limited to D&D) has a HP pool, which you can fully deplete without any effect on your character's abilities, mobility, or anything else, that's an issue. Even in 4e you are just as capable at 193 HP as you are at 1HP (unknonwn Bloodied rules may change this statement), and then suddenly WHAM you're down.

Even in protracted gun battles or other combat scenes in movies, the very first drawn blood usually causes some impairment to the person who suffers it. Sure the hero or the BBEG can continue to fight on with 8 bullets in his belly, but even the first one probably made him fall over and bleed, unable to react for several seconds.

I can see what they're going for in 4e with this ability to almost never be really dead, and have a reasonable chance of coming back into the fray, but I don't think the way they've done it makes any more sense. It addresses one of the things they felt needed to be addressed but doesn't bring it any closer to "reality" (which I'm sure wasn't a concern anyway, understandably, since, as you noted, realistic HP models are very deadly and 4e was going for just the opposite).

Note to self: ask DM about a tactical feat that uses the Picard Maneuver.

It's probably something a 4e Rogue or Fighter can do already... some kind of blink/mirror image/dimension door combo that ends up with the bad guy swinging where the character used to be as it teleports to the opposite side of the opponent. It'll be called "Super Dragon Switch" or something else that involves the word Dragon.

It'll be sick, and kewl, and it may even r0xx0rz, though we can't be sure of it's level of hellagoodness yet.

Seems unlikely. The new edition is set up to maximize profits yes, but also to maximize the sales of subsequent publications. Remember that they are putting "iconic" materials into the PHB 2 and MM 2. The Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Assassin, Illusionist, Bard, and Druid are all missing from the PHB 1. The Frost and Fire Giants aren't in the same Monster Manual.

To continue on in my unfounded yet plausible theory, it's set up to maximize *immediate* profits. The sales of subsequent publications also seems like something they are setting themselves up for (mainly by simply not putting what some people consider essential to the game into the initial offerings, as you point out). This keeps people interested and hungry for the future books (note I did say that it may stick around for a year or two before selling it off) if they're interested in 4e at all.

None of that says they are planning for a more protracted sales plan for 4e. There will be the initial glut of spending on the core books (even if they suck - most people won't be able to determine if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread or reek of failure until they have them in their hands), and then it will die off for a little bit (though they have some other books planned for the year between core books). They dump the second batch of core books onto the market, take in another glut of money (probably smaller than the initial glut), then they put D&D up on the auction block.

Yes, the races in the PHB 1 are the Alliance + 1/2 Elves and Blood Elves. And that is supposed to pull in new, younger players. And they've already mentioned playable Minotaurs for later so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that we'll see the Horde races in the PHB 2. But there is a scheduled PHB 2. They sincerely intend to keep putting out books that they can sell for at least 3 years.

I know that us old folk are supposed to have disdain for the younger generation, but there has to be something to the stereotype. The people WotC is courting as customers are not generally going to be long-term, loyal customers. They don't care because it's not going to be their problem in a couple of years.

Just because they have books scheduled it is a pretty extravagant leap to assume that they are anything close to "sincere" about their intentions. (Of course it's probably less extravagant a leap than my theory proposes. ;) ) I trust Hasbro and WotC very much - to be businesses whose bottom line means more to them than anything else. They are legally bound, as I understand it, to do so as public companies (or in WotC case, I think, owned by a public company). Trusting their word is not something I'm prepared to do unless their word is that they are trying to make as much money as they can as quickly as possible. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that, as a business, but it's disingenuous to pretend you're doing otherwise.

So, does this qualify as a definition of irony:

Anti-4e: Why buy 4.0 when you already have all these 3.5 options?
Pro-4e: Why buy new 3.5 options when you already have 4.0 coming out?

Because Monte's costs 9 bucks. If it sucks, I'm out 9 bucks and I'm OK with that. 4e will cost (most likely) in the area of $100-$130 just for the core three books.

Anti-4e: If I go 4.0, I'm going to have to restat the NPC's in my old stuff.

Pro-4e: If I go 3.75, I'm going to have to restat the NPC's in my old stuff.

Restatting my 3.5 to 3.75 will take two minutes. Restatting (which isn't possible... you must "recreate the essence" since there is no direct translation) to 4e involves creating a brand new npc.

Anti-4e: For all you know, Monte's stuff is ten times better than 4.0.

Pro-4e: For all you know, 4.0 is ten times better than Monte's stuff.

Two words: Nine Bucks.

Anti-4e: WotC is just releasing 4.0 in an effort to milk money from the market.

Pro-4e: Monte is just releasing 3.75 in an effort to milk money from the market.

WotC $130 at a time, Monte.... nine bucks.

Anti-4e: I already spent big bucks on 3.5, so why buy into 4.0?

Pro-4e: I already spent big bucks preordering 4.0, so why buy into a 3.5 fix?

That's a good point. If you've already committed to 4e then it would be stupid to buy anything for 3.5 anymore. As to the wisdom of having committed to spending the money without seeing the product... well, the wisdom of that decision is questionable. At least those who have committed to NOT buying the books aren't out anything at all.

Anti-4e: WotC is already planning dozens of splat books to ruin 4.0, so why switch?

Pro-4e: WotC has already released dozens of splat books to ruin 3.5, so why stay?

I can pick and choose between my 3.5 splat books... I can allow all, none, or anything in between and play any number of variations and options for my characters. Understandably 4e will lag behind the options available in 3.5 for several years.

Anti-4e: WotC's just doing all the same stuff Monte is.

Pro-4e: Monte's just doing all the same stuff WotC is.

Monte is publishing his first, and seems to have publicly posted notes and hints about a lot of it before on his blog and elsewhere. I once again put forth the idea that I think he's doing it because it looks as though the "designers" of 4e may have ripped off his stuff. He wants his cut first... at NINE BUCKS a pop.

NINE BUCKS.

:)

To the point of the OP (more or less), I didn't see a real value in the $5k initially anyway. Would the sales made at GenCon really compensate for that initial outlay of money? As others have pointed out it is most likely that people will only be buying core books for the first few months anyway... it's hard to know what 3rd party books you might want if you don't even know what you have in your hands yet with your new core 4e books. :)

But I do agree that any value it was seen to have had at the end of January drastically decreases toward 0 - that value being reached on the cutoff date of the time required to begin work on a quality product for an August release.

My understanding is that we've already passed that date with Paizo, but that they are being very careful and designing a "ruleless" product in case the situation exists where they can actually use the 4e rules to model the story they want to tell with the Pathfinders. Such writing acrobatics also have a cutoff date, but at least they've given themselves more time... enough? Maybe, maybe not.

Personally I'm fine if WotC never releases the GSL or lets third party vendors into the 4e rules.... that means those companies are likely to continue on happily producing OGL or d20 compatible products for a couple years at least. :)

I took the easy way out and just tried to drop it. Now you want to give me a hard time for just doing that. I'm afraid you might have to just deal. :)

Oh no, you aren't getting away that easily!

(Hope you're feeling better :) )