Maybe we can keep up to date with this thread.
I found this thread on the WotC site.
some of you may have read it too.
link
If you find some new info on 4th ed. please post here
|
Maybe we can keep up to date with this thread.
If you find some new info on 4th ed. please post here
Here's the newest Design & Development article link. It describes combat with an ancient dragon. The disclaimer is provided that the system is still in flux, but I will comment on what was provided.
The good: Combat sounds similar to what it would be in 3.5 Also, attacks, abilities, etc... seem tied to the type of dragon so they should feel less cookie cutter. Conceptually, I like this alot.
The Bad: I know Wotc stated simplification was a major goal. Yet the dragon took several (three? more?) actions during the party's turn. Immediate actions, triggered powers,attacks of opportunity, etc... The most awkward part of 3.5 for many players was the idea of free/immediate actions and attacks of opportunity. It always seems counter-intuitive to those without 3.5 experience that a creature can act during your turn, and often preempt your own action. It appears that this dynamic will be increased in 4ed, and that strikes me as the opposite of simple.
my 2 cents.
The 'Ling
It describes combat with an ancient dragon.
So, in 1 round, the dragon gets 2 standard actions, a move action, an immediate action, and 2 free actions? Sounds simplified to me! (Or not)
AC…Hit Points…Flanking…this sounds more like 3.666 to me.
It describes combat with an ancient dragon.So, in 1 round, the dragon gets 2 standard actions, a move action, an immediate action, and 2 free actions? Sounds simplified to me! (Or not)
Taken with a grain of salt, the article does say that dragons are the most dynamic monsters in 4E, and this is an ancient dragon with more than 1000 hit points, so I should hope it can do several things per round.
Yuck, yuck, yuck. That's the first peek they want to give us of combat?
Immediate action, free action, standard action, special ability for a second standard, and a move. My players still haven't figured out Full Attack Vs. Standard Action/Move Vs. Double-move.
Cleric hitting the dragon causes the wizard to heal??? Bo9S nonsense. Nothing like one thing happening causing something totally unrelated to happen as well. That streamlines things. And how does that make the game faster? Now the other players wait while the cleric does two different things.
Dropping the dragon below half gave it a free attack? Great, a strange special ability, randomly triggered for the DM to forget. And a special ability that kicks in at 499 hit points but not at 501? Dumb.
|
|
Taken with a grain of salt, the article does say that dragons are the most dynamic monsters in 4E, and this is an ancient dragon with more than 1000 hit points, so I should hope it can do several things per round.
Agreed. But since the designer indicated 4ed was needed because of the overly complex and unwieldy rules of 3.5, perhaps a weaker, more average adversary could have been chosen to demonstrate the streamlining they have been hyping?
I guess this combat example struck me as virtually identical to the current system with a few renamed actions types and a couple of new abilities on both sides. But hey, I just posted the link for others to read.
The 'Ling
Well, to play devil's advocate, in the current system the dragon would have, at that age, a bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail/crush routine, and if the fighter didn't have to move, he would have had four or five separate swings at the thing.
So I think the illustration, taken to its exteme in showing us a high level combat was showing us that, yes, there are still quite a few actions, but fewer than high level play currently. Plus, several of the Dragon's actions are triggered by PC actions, and as such wouldn't have come about unless the PCs do something.
|
|
As with so many other things regarding 4e, the combat link just leaves me with more questions.
1 hit and it takes down half a dragon's hit points? All the different dragon abilities are interesting and I wonder how the progression of dragons is. The cleric does a critical hit against the dragon and the wizard gets healed as a result?
Not trying to criticize, but I am just trying to show that even though this is supposed to give us a little insight, it really doesn't tell us much of anything.
But people are saying that this is more complicated -- than what? A Bite, claw, claw, wing, wing, and tail is simpler? Especially when you combine that with all the dragon feats for meta breath, flying and so on, and add spellcasting and spell-like abilities and fear and spell resistance, and so on -- it seems like it isn't really that much more complicated. Dragons and some outsiders are among the most complicated creatures in D&D to run. It got to do 2 claws, a tail attack and a special ability in one round. I didn't think that sounded too bad. A little different perhaps, but I didn't think that it was all that much more complicated than dragons are now.
Dropping the dragon below half gave it a free attack? Great, a strange special ability, randomly triggered for the DM to forget. And a special ability that kicks in at 499 hit points but not at 501? Dumb.
Sounds like a videogame, once the boss creature losses so much health it gets a power attack! I assume its only for specific creatures.
However, how complicated would a battle between an ancient dragon and a party be in 3.5? This is a little simplier but a terrible example.
I think it's logic they choose such a complex monster.
Otherwise they would be giving to much away IMHO.
-Snow-
|
My players got the hang of the full round/charge/single action/free action (plus the swift and immediate actions, recently) routine after the third session of 3.x play.
Since then, they've put my DMing skills to test in every combat, fielding some fiendishly cunning tactics to prevent menacing enemies (sometimes just scares, sometimes not) from acting at their maximum. Barring bad luck with dice rolls, no threath was beyond their ability to face and/or react accordingly - that doesn't mean that they didn't face annihilation in more than one occasion.
That said, it's the third time I read that blasted report, and I can't still figure out its logics. Seems that both players actions and their special abilities - not to mention the dragon! - trigger at random times just to make the scene more coreographic. Sometimes even without logic (the cleric crits so the wizard heals? WHAT?).
Blah.
I'd probably make more sense in light of the idea that some elements of Tome of Battle are likely to make it into 4th edition, and maybe not all of them go straight to the fighter (i.e. there are some "Inspiring" attack manuevers for the crusader that give your allies extra hit points if you see your party's paragon of virtue damaging evildoers, for example).
They are trying to highlight the new focus on party roles. The cleric "is supposed to heal", even when fighting, so there's some (still hidden) mechanism by which this happens. That way a cleric can still fight and heal at the same time. I have no way to tell whether this makes sense yet.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Taken with a grain of salt, the article does say that dragons are the most dynamic monsters in 4E, and this is an ancient dragon with more than 1000 hit points, so I should hope it can do several things per round.
Agreed.
In the run up to the launch of 3e, WotC posted stats for Tiamat (or what it Bahamut) which were, needless to say, stupidly powerful. I would guess that's the power level we're talking about and that description of the dragon encounter is no more representative of combat generally than Tiamat/Bahamut were representative of monster power level generally.
I would speculate that an encounter with goblins, though more representative, would not show off all the bells and whistles of the new combat system.
Now, all that being said, it does seem fairly complicated. I hope that typical combats do not involve nearly as much action.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Dropping the dragon below half gave it a free attack? Great, a strange special ability, randomly triggered for the DM to forget. And a special ability that kicks in at 499 hit points but not at 501? Dumb.
You're right. D&D is absolutely not about arbitrary numbers triggering different states. I mean, how stupid would it be if, at 1 hit point, you can fight at full force, but at 0 hit points, taking an action knocks you out, and at -1 hp, you're at risk of dying. That's so dumb.
What's next? Will they start making other systems arbitrary? What if 4e uses a mechanic for spells, where you have to roll a certain number to avoid the effect (or take half damage). How dumb is that? I mean, if I roll a 15, I'm fine, but if I roll a 16, I'm mind controlled?
Also, you may not want to buy pathfinder or any other Paizo adventure. They're full of these arbitrary triggers where monsters run if they get below a certain number of hit points. How dumb is that. The monsters should either run all the time or never ever run.
There is a design and development column on the hit points as trigger thing that could be insightful if you were willing to give it a read with a neutral mind (and, to be fair, if you can find it now that the 3e content is hard to locate). The basic argument put forward is that having a monster change at some point in the combat makes for a more dynamic encounter by mixing up PC expectations. Hit points are a natural trigger for such changes, because the DM is already tracking those closely.
<snip>...description of the dragon encounter is no more representative of combat generally than Tiamat/Bahamut were representative of monster power level generally. ...I hope that typical combats do not involve nearly as much action.
Taken with a grain of salt, the article does say that dragons are the most dynamic monsters in 4E, and this is an ancient dragon with more than 1000 hit points, so I should hope it can do several things per round.
Precisely. I worry that with the upping of the dragon's HP, we'll see the Final Fantasy phenomenon where by 5th level characters have over 200 HP and are dealing 60+ damage with daggers.
Is it just me? Or did WoTC finally drop the Guest account courtesy (despite the page still claiming it)?
I can't read the link.
But from the comments I am seeing, it doesn't inspire me much. I wasn't for the streamlining of combat anyway - but this sounds like combat is going opposite of that.
|
|
In the run up to the launch of 3e, WotC posted stats for Tiamat (or what it Bahamut) which were, needless to say, stupidly powerful. I would guess that's the power level we're talking about and that description of the dragon encounter is no more representative of combat generally than Tiamat/Bahamut were representative of monster power level generally.I would speculate that an encounter with goblins, though more representative, would not show off all the bells and whistles of the new combat system.
I agree. I believe we're just being shown a glimpse of several aspects of the new combat system, not necessarily what we should expect for each and every encounter.
|
1 hit and it takes down half a dragon's hit points? All the different dragon abilities are interesting and I wonder how the progression of dragons is. The cleric does a critical hit against the dragon and the wizard gets healed as a result?
Mike Mearls talked about it over at ENWorld:
Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.
(The example combat cannot possibly start on round 1. It's more likely round 4 or 5. Dragons take a LOT more than 2 hits to go down, and no PC will come close to doing 500 hit points of damage to a single target with one attack.)
|
|
Mike Mearls talked about it over at ENWorld:...
Thanks. That helps put things a little bit more in perspective.
|
|
Now, all that being said, it does seem fairly complicated. I hope that typical combats do not involve nearly as much action.
My main issue with the example was just how many of the drake's actions were triggered by the PCs or were voluntary "special abilities". I've found these tend to be the type of thing that the Dm forgets and later curses over. Unless we were shown all of the dragons special abilities in one example, the list must be somewhat extensive.
I, too would like to see a combat with a weaker creature. Maybe a group encounter with something of a middle power level like Ogres?
But people are saying that this is more complicated -- than what? A Bite, claw, claw, wing, wing, and tail is simpler?
For me, it's much simpler. You run down the list, rolling one attack for each attacking part on the list, and when you've gone through the list, you're done. You don't have to say, "Okay, the claws are a standard action and the breath is a free action, but I can also probably take another standard action because I'm a dragon and I feel like it, and still probably get a move action because my 2 standard actions don't really equal a full attack, and that leaves me another free action for some reason (oh, yeah, I'm a dragon and I feel like it) AND an immediate action later on..."
There are two things that have caught my attention with this thread.
The first is that the fight with the ancient dragon sounds overly complex with immediate actions, standard actions, and the like. Now complexity in the game is all about delivery. The grapple rules are not that complex at all. They are just difficult to remember because they are badly written. People like being able to follow clear and concise steps. According to the R&D department on WotC this is just what 4.0 is aiming for. DMs (and players) will have set attack routines that they can rely on that will be easy to follow and make the fights run more smoothly as a result. Unless you have the brain capacity of a 10 year old who really can't tell the difference between swift, immediate, and standard actions? It's not that you can't understand the rules, it's just that you're either too lazy to understand them properly or the rules are poorly written or difficult to find. The second is the one that WotC can fix.
The other thing that people are talking about is stuff like dropping a dragon to half its hit points after a single attack and healing someone with an attack. Some say it sounds stupid, while others are comparing it to WOW. Let me tell you folks something: there aint nothing original in fantasy. Everything is derived from something else. WOW is an evolution of the WOW wargame and roleplaying game, which in turn takes some of its creative licence from early D&D material. Many of the abilities that players can use in WOW are taken in part from what D&D players can do with the 3e rules (which did come out first). The argument that these abilities are stupid or stolen is ridiculous, particularly if you haven't seen the abilities in question.
Unless you have the brain capacity of a 10 year old who really can't tell the difference between swift, immediate, and standard actions?
The problem isn't that we don't understand them. The problem is that the example makes it seem like a dragon gets an arbitrary number of them each round, just sort of whatever you feel like giving it. I'm sure there are rules governing its 2 standard actions + 2 free actions + 1 move action + 1 immediate action, but the point is, that seems like a fair number of additional rules for a supposedly "streamlined" system.
This dragon combat example is about as clear as if a car manufacturer would start introducing a new model by going into the details of its sound system, without even telling a single thing about the engine and its peripherals, not to mention the body of the car. (Beyond "yes it´s a car and has four wheels. Oh, and an engine, too.")
Which is to say, this example totally out of context and not even representing the whole combat, but rather a part of it, tells me next to nothing about the new system. So I ignore it for the time being and wait for more details.
Stefan
So, effectively, this example is invalid? Why post it at all? I thought one of the big sales points was that combat was going to be streamlined. Then, they drop an example of combat that is probably one of the most complicated conceivable just so they can show off all the bells and whistles?
Is it more streamlined or are there more options? The two seem mutually exclusive to me. Unless WotC have found the Holy Grail of elegant design that allows multiple clear, concise and consistent options without slowing down play. If they have, I will take my crow-pie with a glass of milk.
This example leads me to believe combat will be more complicated as players will have to keep track of when and if their special abilities activate. To me, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not one of the 'combat is too lengthy' crowd. Personally, I think combat needs some excitement. And this could be a good omen. However, when I think about 30 'meaningful' levels…I pray that not everyone one of those includes some special ability that may or not be activated during a combat. Even half of that seems like a lot to keep track of in the heat of battle.
Of course you can have something that is streamlined and complex at the same time. D&D is already filled with an unusual amount of complexity. The problem I have found is not that the players don't know their abilities, but rather they have to spend too much time looking up rules. If the designers fix this fundamental problem then the game can be as complex as it wants to be. Again, I consider it a mark of laziness or carelessness if you can't keep track of all your abilities if the rules for them are clearly stated and easy to locate. Where WotC will fall down is if they can't do this effectively.
|
|
Of course you can have something that is streamlined and complex at the same time. D&D is already filled with an unusual amount of complexity. The problem I have found is not that the players don't know their abilities, but rather they have to spend too much time looking up rules. If the designers fix this fundamental problem then the game can be as complex as it wants to be. Again, I consider it a mark of laziness or carelessness if you can't keep track of all your abilities if the rules for them are clearly stated and easy to locate. Where WotC will fall down is if they can't do this effectively.
Phil, do you run games or play? Yes, most players should be ashamed if they don't know most or all of their own abilities. But DM's may need to know orders of magnitude more abilities, often with interactions between multiple abilities, for the creatures he uses in a given adventure. And that doesn't even consider summoned/called creatures. While the majority of D&D creatures are pretty straight forward, many are not. If you forget their special rules in the heat of combat (and running a game) you do the encounter a disservice.
Contrary to your (somewhat snarky) post above, many people with far greater intellects than a 10 year old, have forgotten abilities or rules during D&D games. I believe that most of the posters here (including myself) were simply pointing out the discontinuity between Wizards stated goal of simplification and the example shown.
I run games more than play. Sorry for being somewhat snarky (I think I'm channeling Sebastion a bit), but I just hate what I consider reactionary statements about developments in D&D and the general closemindedness of some people regarding 4e. People forget rules constantly and that happens with 3.5 all the time (which is funny since people seem to be defending its brilliance). 4e won't change that, but it might make the abilities easier to understand or make combats more dynamic. Again, people seem to think that the R&D people of WotC are idiots that can't come up with a workable rules system. They seem to forget that the same people were largely responsible for 3.0 and 3.5.
Agreed. But since the designer indicated 4ed was needed because of the overly complex and unwieldy rules of 3.5, perhaps a weaker, more average adversary could have been chosen to demonstrate the streamlining they have been hyping?
This particular article says nothing about the combat system being streamlined or simple, nor does it say that 3.5 was overly complex or unwieldy. We're bringing in context from other articles, seminars, and word of mouth.
This particular article says that dragons are the most dynamic monsters in 4e, and is showing us an extreme example of combat against one. Extrapolating anything about an ordinary combat from that is awkward, to say the least.
Your response was no where near as snarky as Sebastion and I fully confess to being a troll.
Personally, I enjoy some complexity to combat provided it maintains the illusion of some consistency and allows interesting and exciting options. In that regard, I am curious to see what 4e offers. However, telling me that it will have all these cool/nifty/neato options and be streamlined all in the same breath leaves me rather dubious.
I apologize for not clearly identifying myself as a non-3.5 fanboy. I do not find 3.5 brilliant nor do I defend it. Yes, players forget options in every system. I am not calling the R&D people idiots. I do, however, question their ability to come up with what I believe is a workable system. Please note this is my opinion and should be heavily colored by the fact I fail to see 3.5 as a workable system.
As I admitted, I am a troll. Flame away as you see fit.
I think Wizards didn't do a very good job with the example they chose to post. Based on that example alone, I wouldn't buy 4th edition as it sounds just a different variation of most of the things in 3.5. The fact that they announced the release for May, but are still working out the bugs has me concerned that a 4.5 update will follow 4.0 within a year or two...after the gaming community has done the real playtest.
I might wait until 2009 or 2010 to convert--that'll give the bugs some time to get worked out and give our gaming group a chance to properly finish Age of Worms (which we haven't even started yet).
I might wait until 2009 or 2010 to convert--that'll give the bugs some time to get worked out and give our gaming group a chance to properly finish Age of Worms (which we haven't even started yet).
And give them time to do a second print run with all the errata included. As with Microsoft, wait for the first service pak.
You're right. D&D is absolutely not about arbitrary numbers triggering different states. I mean, how stupid would it be if, at 1 hit point, you can fight at full force, but at 0 hit points, taking an action knocks you out, and at -1 hp, you're at risk of dying. That's so dumb.
Dropping the dragon below half gave it a free attack? Great, a strange special ability, randomly triggered for the DM to forget. And a special ability that kicks in at 499 hit points but not at 501? Dumb.
Hit points are a measure of your health. Determining your health status based on your hits points (1=up, 0=Disable, -1=Dieing) makes perfect sense. It's not arbitrary. Using hit points to measure morale, not arbitrary. Using the save system, which reflects your mental toughness, to say if you make or fail a mind control? Not arbitrary.
Dragons acquiring new powers when their hit points change? Totally arbitrary.
if you were willing to give it a read with a neutral mind
Golly, if only I could learn from your example.
The basic argument put forward is that having a monster change at some point in the combat makes for a more dynamic encounter by mixing up PC expectations. Hit points are a natural trigger for such changes, because the DM is already tracking those closely.
Oh, I get it now. You know what they should do? When a dragon gets to half hit points, it should change into a TROLL!!!!! That would really be dynamic and mix up PC expectations. And make as much sense.
I run games more than play. Sorry for being somewhat snarky (I think I'm channeling Sebastion a bit), but I just hate what I consider reactionary statements about developments in D&D and the general closemindedness of some people regarding 4e. People forget rules constantly and that happens with 3.5 all the time (which is funny since people seem to be defending its brilliance). 4e won't change that, but it might make the abilities easier to understand or make combats more dynamic. Again, people seem to think that the R&D people of WotC are idiots that can't come up with a workable rules system. They seem to forget that the same people were largely responsible for 3.0 and 3.5.
1) I think gamers tend to be reactionary to begin with and thats a lot of this. However, Wizards pretty much denied 4th edition earlier this year implying it would take years to develop and they werent at that phase yet. Now we find out they've been at work for a while on it as in for a few years. Then they tell us to trust them from little snippets of info.
2) The 3.0 and 3.5 books have a number of names Im not seeing in 4th edition. Then again even if they were all there that more proves its a problem. When will 4.5 be out or 5th edition? Of all the complaints I think that is the most valid. Does DD need to have a new edition and core books every 4 years?
Having said that Im curious and a little excited to see what they do. Ill even get the core books. However Im not going to ask my group to swtich (some have only played for a year or two) till we let some time go by and sense if 4.5 is coming.
Dragons acquiring new powers when their hit points change? Totally arbitrary.
Oh, I get it now. You know what they should do? When a dragon gets to half hit points, it should change into a TROLL!!!!! That would really be dynamic and mix up PC expectations. And make as much sense.
Um . . . from a non-rules standpoint its not too hard to envision a creature that is seriously injured having an adrenaline burst and getting enough energy from that burst to do something really quickly . . . not to fan the flames or anything.
|
Um . . . from a non-rules standpoint its not too hard to envision a creature that is seriously injured having an adrenaline burst and getting enough energy from that burst to do something really quickly . . . not to fan the flames or anything.
There it starts! Sebastians prophecy of everyone buying 4E in the end. The first seed is planted...
Can I go on record that we will hear the same outrage in 2010 when 4.5 comes out dying down into a mutter as everyone eventually gives in and buys those as well?
WotC errate madness
WotC erratic madness? sure bet! ;-)
SCNR
Stefan
2) The 3.0 and 3.5 books have a number of names I'm not seeing in 4th edition.
I agree with that, and additionally a lot of the names I *am* seeing don't give me much optimism, particularly Bill S. and Andy Collins. I like a lot of Andy's work, but his "Sage Advice" columns have been riddled with errors, oversight, and IMO some plain bad calls. Check out his Vorpal flip-flopping for a prime example.
Uhh, yes, should've read erratA-madness!
Corrected it!What does SCNR mean?
Sarcastic Crotchety Naysayers Rule!
But people are saying that this is more complicated -- than what? A Bite, claw, claw, wing, wing, and tail is simpler?For me, it's much simpler. You run down the list, rolling one attack for each attacking part on the list, and when you've gone through the list, you're done. You don't have to say, "Okay, the claws are a standard action and the breath is a free action, but I can also probably take another standard action because I'm a dragon and I feel like it, and still probably get a move action because my 2 standard actions don't really equal a full attack, and that leaves me another free action for some reason (oh, yeah, I'm a dragon and I feel like it) AND an immediate action later on..."
simpler and boring. I like the idea of a change in attack rutine after a certain condition. I think this just a natural take on game play. WHen I have a complicated encounter like a dragon, I try to figure how I can use all of the special bells and whistles that come with such an encounter. That threshold idea seems a great way to help DMS make a complicated encounter like a dragon more than just bite/ claw/claw/ wing/ wing/ tail and occasional breathe weapon every 1d4 rounds.
The new rules for weapon specialization seem really cool. I also like the idea that they will be giving the same treatment with concerns to rogues and skills. I just think the ideas should make the game cooler.
If they work and WotC does a good job.
I have faith in these guys. They did pretty good with D&D 3.x