|
Actually, given the political debates I've heard over the past five years, the persuasive arguments and debates I've seen here are Natural 20s... The art of debate has gone down the crapper. :evilgrin: I blame 3E...
I blame Joss Whedon.
Everybody goes for the snarky comment or scorching put-down these days, but doesn't seem to realize that no matter how awesome the 'burn,' it never made Cordelia right about anything...
I am assuming that in 4E they will do something similar with human flexibility to continue to make them appealing...
Why?
Has WotC indicated that the D&D universe will remain humanocentric?
I'm not arguing, really -- I just thought it was worth noting that both sides continue to assume whatever is necessary to support their position(s).
Including me, no doubt.
Regards, from one curmudgeon to a bunch of others ;)
|
Part of me is amused and bemused by this. I seriously think WotC is lowering the maturity level of play -- last time I needed to have 'super-PC' without any drawbacks, I was about 12 years old.I pick this quote because it is one that echoes the concerns of many I've seen on the web.
One thing I'd like to touch on in this. Let's take a look at a 3e starting elf using the Standard Point Buy method, and lets look at a 4e elf using the same method:
3e:
Str-14
Dex-16
Con-12
Int-10
Wis-11
Cha-10Now 4e:
Str-14
Dex-16
Con-14
Int-10
Wis-13
Cha-10True, the 4e stats are admittedly better. However, "Super-PC?" Nah. I don't see anything here making me go ZOMG! /drool. How big is this difference...
Lets see, my elf (fighter lets say) now has 1 extra HP and is a little better on his perception. Super-elf he is not.
While I'm still not sure if I like or dislike the lack of a penalty, it can't argue that the absence of the penalty made this such a big deal.
I'd be willing to wager that there is a teeming horde of 3e elf PC's out there with better stats than this 4e example guy considering the apparent popularity of the High-Powered (32) Point Buy (which by the way would let you build the so called 4e super-elf and still have a point to spare).
Ah, but shouldn't we apply the new method for getting the bonus' rather than acting like ability scores are the same as before? I mean, bonus' are currently (in 3.5) (X-10)/2 Round down, and in 4.0 they are (x-5)/2 Round down. That makes your new points into:
3e:
Str-14 +2
Dex-16 +3
Con-12 +1
Int-10 +0
Wis-11 +0
Cha-10 +0
Now 4e:
Str-14 +4
Dex-16 +5
Con-14 +4
Int-10 +2
Wis-13 +4
Cha-10 +2
That's a difference in overall bonus of +15. But I've just compared apples to oranges.
Given the fact that wizards has said you can't directly go from 3.5 to 4.0, a comparison of the differences in bonus' should be examined.
Old elf stats used in 4.0
Str-14 +4
Dex-16 +5
Con-12 +3
Int-10 +2
Wis-11 +2
Cha-10 +2
New elf stats used in 4.0
Str-14 +4
Dex-16 +5
Con-14 +4
Int-10 +2
Wis-13 +4
Cha-10 +2
You have a total difference of +3 in stats. Not over the top, and I have to agree with your original statement, but the comparison from 3.5 to 4.0 does seem like the characters are getting higher bonus' from ability scores, and I can understand if a DM who is used to lower bonus' does react unfavorably to the new races getting more bonus'. I personally miss the old minus', since I found Half-Orc wizard's and sorcerer's fun to play.
I blame Joss Whedon.
Everybody goes for the snarky comment or scorching put-down these days, but doesn't seem to realize that no matter how awesome the 'burn,' it never made Cordelia right about anything...
"Down with Joss Whedon!"
"Yea. Lets burn him.""At the Stake!"
"YEA!"
"Hey you, Kids! What do you think you're doing?"
"Nothing, Mister."
"Well, get off my lawn."
"We're gonna get it when we get home now."
I wish that elves were 7' tall or taller...
I wish I was little bit taller
I wish I was a ballerI wish I had a girl who looked good I would call her
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
And a six four impala
Elves dig Skee-lo.
14 is +4 now? Why? Because the number 4 is more rockin than poor old number 2? We aren't talking real numbers here, we're talking ranks in a closed system that only compare to each other, so changing +2 to +4 does precisely nothing. Unless scores of 14 are twice as rare as they were before, which I find hard to believe. It is staggeringly moronic.
I have to stop coming here. It just makes me sad. I'm going to stick to the PbP section...
14 is +4 now? Why?
Whoa! What happened? Who said this, and where?
I know a good deal about statistics, and how the in-game modifiers will affect play. If true, in the d20 system this would be bad -- really bad.
:o
14 is +4 now? Why?Whoa! What happened? Who said this, and where?
I know a good deal about statistics, and how the in-game modifiers will affect play. If true, in the d20 system this would be bad -- really bad.
:o
I personally don't like it if it is true but wouldn't it be relatively even and barely affect play if all creatures get this bonus to their ability checks?
|
|
I personally don't like it if it is true but wouldn't it be relatively even and barely affect play if all creatures get this bonus to their ability checks?
If all the DCs increase by 5-15% to reflect the increased ability it is a nonsensical move made to make people feel better about their characters (insert proper quotes from The Incredibles here).
If the average DC remains the same, it is a move made to make the PCs into super achievers. Each bonus of +1 increases the odds of success on your average roll by 5%. Going from +2 to +4 is adding a 10% increase in abilities. That's not insignificant.
Either way, I don't really like the change, assuming its true. And I'm not going to assume it's true until I see a quotable source.
It some cases it would matter (unadjusted static DCs), but on rolls against another creature the +2 to +3 on each side would have a minor effect however I don't think the difference would be significant*.
I'm not saying I like it (-5 divide by 2 is not easier than -10 divide by 2, I would even say it is slightly harder) but I just don't think it would have dramatic effects on the many parts of the system.
* The one time it would make the difference would be when one side has the +3 bonus and the other side has the +2 and that difference of +1 was the difference between success and failure.
It's been discussed on ENWorld in several places.
I personally don't like it if it is true but wouldn't it be relatively even and barely affect play if all creatures get this bonus to their ability checks?
My problem isn't one of play balance between good and bad guys, but rather a serious imbalance between characters with good scores and those with mediocre scores (or worse).
Consider characters with scores of 12 and 16 in an ability: all things being equal, one has a +2 advantage over the other on skill checks. In the suggested new system, that would increase dramatically to a +4 advantage. That's a BIG change when we're only talking a range of 1-20.
I don't think the 4/e designers are incompetent. This would prove me wrong.
But I don't expect this will turn out to be true.
It's one of those things that has to be seen in context I suppose. I have no idea if it's good or bad, but it's intriguing.
|
|
Part of me is amused and bemused by this. I seriously think WotC is lowering the maturity level of play -- last time I needed to have 'super-PC' without any drawbacks, I was about 12 years old.I pick this quote because it is one that echoes the concerns of many I've seen on the web.
One thing I'd like to touch on in this. Let's take a look at a 3e starting elf using the Standard Point Buy method, and lets look at a 4e elf using the same method:
3e:
Str-14
Dex-16
Con-12
Int-10
Wis-11
Cha-10Now 4e:
Str-14
Dex-16
Con-14
Int-10
Wis-13
Cha-10True, the 4e stats are admittedly better. However, "Super-PC?" Nah. I don't see anything here making me go ZOMG! /drool. How big is this difference...
Lets see, my elf (fighter lets say) now has 1 extra HP and is a little better on his perception. Super-elf he is not.
While I'm still not sure if I like or dislike the lack of a penalty, it can't argue that the absence of the penalty made this such a big deal.
I'd be willing to wager that there is a teeming horde of 3e elf PC's out there with better stats than this 4e example guy considering the apparent popularity of the High-Powered (32) Point Buy (which by the way would let you build the so called 4e super-elf and still have a point to spare).
Yeah, +2 wisdom to a fighter isn't a big deal. But to a cleric? Starting out with wisdom 20 is pretty great. You get an extra 1st level spell and higher dc's. Plus you have high enough stats to cast any level spell in the game.
Of course spellcasting is getting radically changed in 4e, so maybe that doesn't really matter any more.
|
Consider characters with scores of 12 and 16 in an ability: all things being equal, one has a +2 advantage over the other on skill checks. In the suggested new system, that would increase dramatically to a +4 advantage. That's a BIG change when we're only talking a range of 1-20.
That would make a 16 20% better at a d20 roll than a 12.
Under 3E a 16 was 10% better.
Seems to me that they are just making the bonus curve reflect the actual difference in stat values.
|
|
Agreed. If Modera could provide a link to where this info is coming from it would be appreciated. That would indeed be bad.
Specifically I got it from the Miniature cards I got from DnD game day back in November/December. I thought everyone knew this... I'll try and find the link on Enworld. Please wait (not that you have to, I'm going to post it)
I do believe I got the math wrong, and that it is in fact (x-4)/2 Round down. My bad. So, again:
3e:
Str-14 +2
Dex-16 +3
Con-12 +1
Int-10 +0
Wis-11 +0
Cha-10 +0
Now 4e:
Str-14 +5
Dex-16 +6
Con-14 +5
Int-10 +3
Wis-13 +4
Cha-10 +3
So the difference between stats of the elves is +20. But as I said before, this is comparing apples and oranges. Seriously, we don't know how much abilities are being used as before and if anything else is lowering!
So, again, here's the old elf and the new elf in 4th edition.
Old elf stats used in 4.0
Str-14 +5
Dex-16 +6
Con-12 +4
Int-10 +3
Wis-11 +3
Cha-10 +3
New elf stats used in 4.0
Str-14 +5
Dex-16 +6
Con-14 +5
Int-10 +3
Wis-13 +4
Cha-10 +3
Which gives us a difference of +2. Not that much of a difference, really. Granted, yet again, we don't know how this will affect the game, but it can freak out people who see the old and then see the new since it's a big difference.
I do believe I got the math wrong, and that it is in fact (x-4)/2 Round down... Granted, yet again, we don't know how this will affect the game, but it can freak out people who see the old and then see the new since it's a big difference.
Thanks for the info.
This doesn't worry me -- adjusting bonuses upward slightly isn't going to change the structure of the game.
It does, however, support the accusation that they're trying to cater to the sort of players that are discouraged by any penalties. The old system is well-justified -- scores of 10 and 11 were average, and provided no bonus. There's a sensibility and realism to that.
I've played with a couple of people in the past that just had to have bonuses on every roll -- and the evidence is mounting that those sorts of players are an important target market.
I still hope these fears (instilled by WotC themselves) won't be realized.
|
|
Ouch. If that is the case, it is a hit that will be hard for me to swallow. The overall shift to "big numbers' as someone in another thread pointed out about 4e, began in 3e and is one of my dislikes for the game.
While I'm sure the adjustments to the system will take things like this into account, I just dislike the growing bonuses over what now appears to be the past two editions. I even b#*#% about it in a game that I love, C&C.
Thanks for the info though Modera. Your post was the first I had heard of this.
While I cannot find the source now (it may have been on EN World), I did see a comment that all class will use the same BAB, modified by the individual class.
I would not be surprise if this amounts to using the wizard BAB with bonuses from feats and class abilites.
The Star Wars Saga Rules already does something like this with for the Defense scores.
Consider characters with scores of 12 and 16 in an ability: all things being equal, one has a +2 advantage over the other on skill checks. In the suggested new system, that would increase dramatically to a +4 advantage. That's a BIG change when we're only talking a range of 1-20.
I am a little confused now.
Using the previous formula ( ABILITY SCORE - 5 )/2
(12-5)/2 = 7/2 = 3.5
(16-5)/2 = 11/2 = 5.5
Where did you get the +4 advantage from?
While I cannot find the source now (it may have been on EN World), I did see a comment that all class will use the same BAB, modified by the individual class.
I would not be surprise if this amounts to using the wizard BAB with bonuses from feats and class abilites.
The Star Wars Saga Rules already does something like this with for the Defense scores.
This is true - all classes will have the same BAB.
|
|
I vaguely recall reading that magic item dependency will be backed away from in the new edition.
Increasing the effects of ability scores from the outset, and then taking a weed-whacker to the preponderance of 'gloves of dexterity' and 'headbands of intellect' that *every single* high level character *must* have might be a step in this direction. If everyone's attributes are more effective from the outset, then the character will still be balanced and effective despite the lack of uber-gear at the mid to high levels boosting their attributes into ridiculously superhuman territories. Ironically, this could be a step *away* from the currently MMOG-ish style of play, where a 20th level Sorcerer is expected to have a Charisma of 30ish, which, one would think, would be enough to start his own worldwide cult of personality...
Being an M&M player and a GURPS player, I've often been struck by the difference between a linear roll (1d20) and a curved one (3d6). Higher attribute bonuses from the outset might help to balance out some of the 'all or nothing' factor that comes from rolling a big linear d20 with a 5% chance of every possible outcome and no 'sweet spots.'
The removal of 'save or dies' such as Slay Living or Hold Person tends to suggest that the 'all or nothing' effect *is* indeed being backed away from, and the higher attribute bonuses, in an attempt to 'curve' that linear 1d20 roll, might be another aspect of that design philosophy.
(I woulda preferred just using 2d10 instead of 1d20, to add some curve to that die roll, but when your whole IP is based around the 'd20' trademark, ditching the d20 becomes less sellable around the marketing table, leaving the designers looking for ways to soften the impact of the linear d20 roll, with larger attribute bonuses from the outset being a kludgey sort of 'fix'...}
|
|
Increasing the effects of ability scores from the outset, and then taking a weed-whacker to the preponderance of 'gloves of dexterity' and 'headbands of intellect' that *every single* high level character *must* have might be a step in this direction. If everyone's attributes are more effective from the outset, then the character will still be balanced and effective despite the lack of uber-gear at the mid to high levels boosting their attributes into ridiculously superhuman territories. Ironically, this could be a step *away* from the currently MMOG-ish style of play, where a 20th level Sorcerer is expected to have a Charisma of 30ish, which, one would think, would be enough to start his own worldwide cult of personality...
Interesting. If that is indeed the case, I can see how the increase of bonuses could help. I'm still not sure it would help sell the idea to me on a whole, because I dislike "big numbers", but I can see how it might help curb the MMO attitude.
I believe that they are getting away from stat-boosting items to reduce the "christmas tree effect".
Sorry... I didn't realise that I had... I was just saying that it was somthing I'd read as well a while ago.
"christmas tree effect" is a pretty common term on message boards for the 3e gear=character syndrome. Sorry if I committed an unwitting faux pas.
:/
Contributor
|
Being an M&M player and a GURPS player, I've often been struck by the difference between a linear roll (1d20) and a curved one (3d6). Higher attribute bonuses from the outset might help to balance out some of the 'all or nothing' factor that comes from rolling a big linear d20 with a 5% chance of every possible outcome and no 'sweet spots.'
[snip]
(I woulda preferred just using 2d10 instead of 1d20, to add some curve to that die roll, but when your whole IP is based around the 'd20' trademark, ditching the d20 becomes less sellable around the marketing table, leaving the designers looking for ways to soften the impact of the linear d20 roll, with larger attribute bonuses from the outset being a kludgey sort of 'fix'...}
I ran a 3.5 campaign using 2d10 instead of a d20, hoping to add some curve and encourage more strategic thinking. Mostly I wanted the stat to be more important than the roll It worked really well up to about level five, but then it broke due to the rules already being built around that straight line roll effect. Mostly, low level challenges became even more insignificant, and the party more quickly split into those who would always succeeed and those who would never succeed in any given situation.
My hope (and suspicion) of what they mean when they say that the 'sweet spot' will be from level 1 to 30 is that progression will be mostly linear. Right now a typical 1st level fighter has a +4 attack modifier and a wizard has a +0. By 20th level, the fighter is going to be batting +40, and the wizard +15. The difference increases by about 20. If they fight a monster with an AC of 40, the fighter only misses on a 1 and the wizard only hits on a 20.
Now of course, the wizard is outside his element, but the encounters become more specialized that way too. But I'm going off my point.
I do think the fighter should get more better (and I mean more better) at fighting over time than than the wizard, just not as much more. A difference of 4 points at first becomes 7 at tenth and 10 at 20th.
If they do this in 4th, it will be an improvement as is, and IMO an even bigger improvement if coupled with switching to 2d10.
|
|
By 20th level, the fighter is going to be batting +40, and the wizard +15. The difference increases by about 20. If they fight a monster with an AC of 40, the fighter only misses on a 1 and the wizard only hits on a 20.
Now of course, the wizard is outside his element, but the encounters become more specialized that way too. But I'm going off my point.
Interesting to hear about your 2d10 experiment, thanks for sharing that!
As for the Fighter vs. Wizard attack bonus disparity, it sounds like the classes will all have the same BAB now, with the Wizard simply using that BAB most effectively for spell attack rolls (since his melee weapon damage will probably stink on ice), while the Fighter uses it to power his various cool melee attacks / weapon maneuvers.
I'm just hopin' and prayin' that these 'cool weapon maneuvers' are 'rend armor' or 'knock prone' or 'apply condition' (blinding strike by opening a gash on the forehead or hamper movement by piercing a leg / foot or nauseating via morningstar to the junk) and not anime / book of 9 swords style maneuvers like 'spinning slashing that sets everyone on fire!' or 'invigorating strike that heals my allies!' More Fighter-y hack and slash and bludgeon and less Thrashing Lightning Whirlwind of Steel!
|
|
By 20th level, the fighter is going to be batting +40, and the wizard +15. The difference increases by about 20. If they fight a monster with an AC of 40, the fighter only misses on a 1 and the wizard only hits on a 20.
Now of course, the wizard is outside his element, but the encounters become more specialized that way too. But I'm going off my point.
Interesting to hear about your 2d10 experiment, thanks for sharing that!
As for the Fighter vs. Wizard attack bonus disparity, it sounds like the classes will all have the same BAB now, with the Wizard simply using that BAB most effectively for spell attack rolls (since his melee weapon damage will probably stink on ice), while the Fighter uses it to power his various cool melee attacks / weapon maneuvers.
I'm just hopin' and prayin' that these 'cool weapon maneuvers' are 'rend armor' or 'knock prone' or 'apply condition' (blinding strike by opening a gash on the forehead or hamper movement by piercing a leg / foot or nauseating via morningstar to the junk) and not anime / book of 9 swords style maneuvers like 'spinning slashing that sets everyone on fire!' or 'invigorating strike that heals my allies!' More Fighter-y hack and slash and bludgeon and less Thrashing Lightning Whirlwind of Steel!
I'd say that that is pretty wishful thinking considering the popularity of BONS. "Realistic" fighter maneuvers are probably pretty low on their list of priorities, especially since his maneuvers have to be as potent and cool as spells of the same level.
I am a little confused now... Where did you get the +4 advantage from?
From an earler (and now corrected) interpretation of 4/e rules. Just ignore it now :)
Some other traits are being emphasized as well aside from adaptability. Namely, determination and endurance. Humans are supposed to be able to heal damage faster, perhaps use the "second wind" ability more than once per day (and maybe get more out of it), and also recover from persistent conditions faster.
From where do you get the idea humans are "supposed to" any of that?
If they do this in 4th, it will be an improvement as is, and IMO an even bigger improvement if coupled with switching to 2d10.
For what it's worth, I seriously doubt WotC will do this.
First, it sort of messes up the 'd20' gimmick (as someone else suggested).
More importantly, they are going for more streamlined play. Most people would be surprised how much time adding up die rolls amounts to -- it'll measureably slow down play.
So I'd be shocked if WotC changes this, and I would never change it if it were my decision. I'd remind people that limiting most rolls in 3.x to d20 was a significant simplification and improvement.
|
|
I believe that they are getting away from stat-boosting items to reduce the "christmas tree effect".
I don't wish to get TOO far off topic (being the elf and how the changes and why the changes) but the idea of reducing treasure baffles my mind.
Part of the fun, from what I've seen over the past 20 years, of Pen and Paper RPGs and MMORPGs (heck, all Rpgs) is the treasure hoards and the sheer amount of difference in them. Granted, they are getting rid of needing certain types of magical items, but it still seems odd to me to be reducing a problem like greed.
EDIT: Again, sorry for going off topic. I think we've flogged everything about the elves to death, and this got brought up in reference to how ability scores are being used and why they have been changed (which is pure conjecture but at least it's intelligent).
I am a little confused now... Where did you get the +4 advantage from?From an earler (and now corrected) interpretation of 4/e rules. Just ignore it now :)
Ok. :)
Races & Classes, the section on Humans... Was a pretty good read.
I second that.
It gives a much better picture of why WotC is changing what they are, and how much careful thought and work has gone into 4/e. The art is pretty good, too.
IMO they really should have put a lower price tag on the book -- it's almost the only bit of good PR 4/e has gotten, but few people will fork out $20 for a game supplement that doesn't supplement any game :/
|
|
IMO they really should have put a lower price tag on the book -- it's almost the only bit of good PR 4/e has gotten, but few people will fork out $20 for a game supplement that doesn't supplement any game :/
I agree. I received the first one as a gift, because I didn't plan on spending $20 on it.
After reading it though, I'll buy the next one myself. Probably on amazon where the price is more palatable to me.
IMO they really should have put a lower price tag on the book -- it's almost the only bit of good PR 4/e has gotten, but few people will fork out $20 for a game supplement that doesn't supplement any game :/I agree. I received the first one as a gift, because I didn't plan on spending $20 on it.
After reading it though, I'll buy the next one myself. Probably on amazon where the price is more palatable to me.
I think that the information in those books should be the information they publish on their site and trying to make people pay for it seems a little slimy to me. D&D fans are craving information on the new system. How many times have people asked for the whys and hows of 4E changes? I think putting this information on their site for free would have helped to coax a lot of players back. I'll just read the synopsis of the books on EnWorld.
Santa's not gonna bring you any presents if you talk like that, Sebastian.
I suspect he's used to coal by now.
Races & Classes, the section on Humans.
Was a pretty good read.
Since I'm not buying an advertisement (for anything -- no slam on wotc there, and more power to them if it sell well), I have to ask:
From what you said, I would expect humans to heal faster than dwarves. Is that what you came away with, or just a bad interpretation based on a very limited amount of information?
The notion I got is that they will recover hit points faster than "other races" (by which I take to mean other races in the PH) and also recover from persistent conditions faster.
This is not to mean that the average human will have more hit points than a dwarf, or have a better Fort Defense, but will just heal more quickly.