|
I received a copy of Races & Classes today as a gift, so this evening I've been sitting here reading through it. While it is tempting to skip forward to look at the sections on both races and classes, I find myself rereading the beginning section of the book over and over, soaking in some of the design philosophy that is going into the new edition of the game. There is some really good stuff here.
The first "Hell Yeah!" elicited by me was from the following:
The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters.
Woot! This is something I have discussed time and time again on the TLG boards. I have always been an opponent of treating NPC's the same as you would a PC. There is no need for it and it makes for lengthy prep and design times for a DM. I hope this philosophy remains a constant.
The section on Power Sources was particularly interesting as well. As it mentions, the impact it has on design is extremely sweet. A short quote as to what this means:
We no longer have to put every imaginable spell effect into divine and arcane magic, relegating other forms of spellcasting to merely copying existing spells
I'm 100% behind this. Great stuff here. Now, alternate magic using classes do not suffer from the need to "copy & paste" existing spells. Check this out:
Since those classes clearly use magic in a different manner when compared to a wizard, we shelve them under a new power source, build a system of magic that works for their needs, and create spells tuned to them rather than simply use the 3e wizard/sorcerer spell list.
Witches can actually be witches instead of altered wizard or sorcerers. A Master of Runes could be a unique class instead of mimicking wizard abilities with a different look. This thought has a lot of potential.
So far, I have to say this book is succeeding in getting me a little more hyped about 4e.
What you said. :)
Consider your whole post QFT.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The whole foes use different rules thing is a trip right back to the situation in 1st and 2nd edition, pretty much a 180 from how 3rd edition worked. This particular change isn't an advancement, but rather rolling back a change that was arguably misguided (but one that the audience was enthused about).
I'd argue that the psionics rules by themselves prove that in 3rd ed, magic wasn't all arcane, divine, or copies of them...
|
|
This particular change isn't an advancement, but rather rolling back a change that was arguably misguided (but one that the audience was enthused about).
Yes, it is more of a realigning with previous editions, which is cool. Not everything has to be an advancement into something newer and cooler. One of the design tenets for 4e is stated as being "Make the game easy to design for, develop and edit." This most definitely falls in line with that tenet, which in my opinion is a good thing.
I'd argue that the psionics rules by themselves prove that in 3rd ed, magic wasn't all arcane, divine, or copies of them...
True, but the power source ideology allows for more classes seeing variance like the psionics. Again from the book, A class like the wu jen or the hexblade might use a completely new and different type of magic, allowing us to reinvent the ground rules rather than use what has come before. That this is seemingly a core philosophy in magic and class design looks good to me and can make for some interestingly diverse classes.
A lot depends on how the design philosophies are implemented.
The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters.
Some good aspects to this (i.e., quick encounter generation) and some negative (i.e., PCs are automatically super-heroic). How easy it is to alter "stock" monsters and NPCs will be critical, IMO.
We no longer have to put every imaginable spell effect into divine and arcane magic, relegating other forms of spellcasting to merely copying existing spells.
and
Since those classes clearly use magic in a different manner when compared to a wizard, we shelve them under a new power source, build a system of magic that works for their needs, and create spells tuned to them rather than simply use the 3e wizard/sorcerer spell list.
Spellcasters become more specialized, which can provide more RP focus, but make them harder to adapt to different settings based on fiction and myth. Also, the resulting explosion of different magic-using classes forces you to either buy more rulebooks to use more than a couple forms of magic (need the book with the psionic for a character with mind-related magic; need the book with the "summoner" for a character who calls creatures from other planes of existance, need the book with the "shadowcaster" for a character with illusion magic, etc.) or develop your own systems (including creating spell-lists from scratch, since they are not part of the first "core" PHB).
|
|
I only wish they weren't charging us $20 for a look at the psychology behind it - I could see $10-12 MAYBE.
I won't disagree there at all. For $20, it had me reluctant. As a gift? Pretty good reading. =D.
After having it in hand, I can honestly say I'd have gladly paid the price on Amazon for the artwork alone. I'm an art junkie though.
|
|
Spellcasters become more specialized, which can provide more RP focus, but make them harder to adapt to different settings based on fiction and myth.
This is already the case in all previous editions of the game. For example, I'm a fan of playing in quasi-historical campaigns such as the viking era, etc . The wizards and clerics of D&D already aren't particularly suited for that type of game.
Also, the resulting explosion of different magic-using classes forces you to either buy more rulebooks to use more than a couple forms of magic (need the book with the psionic for a character with mind-related magic; need the book with the "summoner" for a character who calls creatures from other planes of existance, need the book with the "shadowcaster" for a character with illusion magic, etc.) or develop your own systems (including creating spell-lists from scratch, since they are not part of the first "core" PHB).
Again, this is not unique to 4e. Most every RPG you come across this is true for, otherwise there would be no market for things past the PHB.
Spellcasters become more specialized, which can provide more RP focus, but make them harder to adapt to different settings based on fiction and myth.This is already the case in all previous editions of the game. For example, I'm a fan of playing in quasi-historical campaigns such as the viking era, etc . The wizards and clerics of D&D already aren't particularly suited for that type of game.
But it can be done, by limiting the spellcasting that is already in the 3.x core rules and using some of the options in the SRD. 4e, from what limited information has been released, will be less flexible for playing in different types of campaigns than 3.x. 3.x provided broad spellcaster concepts and the means for playing many different specialized casters, tweaked to your taste. 4e will give you a few already specialized casters in each PHB.
Also, the resulting explosion of different magic-using classes forces you to either buy more rulebooks to use more than a couple forms of magic (need the book with the psionic for a character with mind-related magic; need the book with the "summoner" for a character who calls creatures from other planes of existance, need the book with the "shadowcaster" for a character with illusion magic, etc.) or develop your own systems (including creating spell-lists from scratch, since they are not part of the first "core" PHB).Again, this is not unique to 4e. Most every RPG you come across this is true for, otherwise there would be no market for things past the PHB.
But RPGs seldom remove options from the core rules when they change editions. WotC is trying to sell me a new toolkit one piece at a time, instead of letting me buy it as a complete set.
|
|
But RPGs seldom remove options from the core rules when they change editions. WotC is trying to sell me a new toolkit one piece at a time, instead of letting me buy it as a complete set.
I'm not sure how they are "removing" options though. Yes, they are most definitely swapping options; trading some familiar ones for new options all together but somehow lessening your options?
The swapping of the familiar for something different is understandably an agitator for 4e detractors,but it is not a lessening of option. Nothing I've read so far about 4e screams "less options" to me. In fact, it appears to be a very flexible and option friendly system to me.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm not sure how they are "removing" options though. Yes, they are most definitely swapping options; trading some familiar ones for new options all together but somehow lessening your options?The swapping of the familiar for something different is understandably an agitator for 4e detractors,but it is not a lessening of option. Nothing I've read so far about 4e screams "less options" to me. In fact, it appears to be a very flexible and option friendly system to me.
For starters, getting 8 core classes instead of 11 in the core rulebook is definitely a loss of options. It may be the same number that 2nd used, but 1st had 10. You'll get the missing classes back 1 or 2 at a time when you buy the following volumes of the PH.
The other clear option cut is the restriction of magic in the PH - want to play a summoning cleric? Try a later volume.
To me, this is much like Warner Brothers holding back "the good stuff" in their cartoon anthologys, so that you needed to buy four DVD sets to get the greatest shorts. Good marketing, but kinda cynical.
|
|
For starters, getting 8 core classes instead of 11 in the core rulebook is definitely a loss of options.
In the archetype department, maybe so. But there seems there will be an overall increase of options within the given archetypes. It's the V:tM vs. V:tR argument all over again.
To me, this is much like Warner Brothers holding back "the good stuff" in their cartoon anthologys, so that you needed to buy four DVD sets to get the greatest shorts. Good marketing, but kinda cynical.
But just what is the "good stuff"? It's a highly subjective area. For me, bards and gnomes don't qualify, for others I'm sure it does.
|
|
While I am looking forward to 4e, there are some things that give me pause.
When I first heard that the Dragonborn where going to be a core race in the PHB my eyes rolled so hard that I still have to where an eye patch over my right eye to this day. It is fair to say that I hated the idea and wanted no part of it. C'mon, do we really need dragonmen? Sheesh.
After reading the description in Races & Classes, and it pains me to admit this now, they actually seem kinda cool. They definitely seem like they will be a viable race.
Dammit.
|
|
The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters.
Number one with a bullet, the thing that turns me off the most. 'We've decided to streamline the game by making PCs and NPCs use different rules! It's like two games for the price of one! What could be easier than learning two different and incompatible rules systems, depending on which side of the map the little dude is standing?'
Since those classes clearly use magic in a different manner when compared to a wizard, we shelve them under a new power source, build a system of magic that works for their needs, and create spells tuned to them rather than simply use the 3e wizard/sorcerer spell list.
This *could* rock, or it *could* suck. One thing I got into flamewars constantly with over in the World of Darkness forums was how they had six different systems for how magic worked. Tremere blood Thaumaturgists did it this way, 'true' mages did it another way, Hedge Wizards did it yet another way, Garou Theurges did yet something else, Setite lector-priests yet another thing, Tzimisce koldun still something different. How many redundant systems did the game need? How many different sets of rules does one game need for, 'you can't see me, I'm invisible?'
If they mean that they won't be creating a raft of psionic abilities that are almost exactly like spells, and instead just be making a list of effects and then saying, 'When a wizard does this, he calls it mind-scrying, when a priest does it, he calls it divine interrogation, and when a psionicist does it, it's called telepathy,' then I'm totally behind this design choice.
If they mean to further cut systems up and have psions do one thing and wizards use another mechanic and priests use yet another rules system / effect description to do the same darn thing, then that just sounds tedious and perfectly designed to sell me the same darn 'I throw fire at him' effect three seperate times. (Or, more to the point, *fail* to sell me the same effect three seperate times, as I won't be buying it...)
So, until I see it, I won't know whether this is a good thing (less redundant systems) or a bad thing (*more* redundant systems).
I received a copy of Races & Classes today as a gift, so this evening I've been sitting here reading through it. While it is tempting to skip forward to look at the sections on both races and classes, I find myself rereading the beginning section of the book over and over, soaking in some of the design philosophy that is going into the new edition of the game. There is some really good stuff here.
The first "Hell Yeah!" elicited by me was from the following:
The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters.
While I can understand the appeal of such a design philosophy, I'm afraid I'm in the other camp on this issue. In all my years of gaming, most of which has been on the GM's side of the screen, nothing frustrates me more than this. Regardless of which RPG I'm running or which group of players are playing, nothing has jarred players out of the immersion in the game/story more than the realization that NPCs and/or monsters work with different mechanics or play by different rules.
For example, you have the evil witch or necromancer pursuing forbidden magics - the PCs defeat them and the party wizard decides to study their dark arts (as an example) only to find out they can't because the "spell" that they used in battle is an "attack".
Or my personal GM pet-peeve. The "red shirt" that becomes "recurring cast member". A throw-away NPC develops into an integral part of the story and against all odds of the dice survives. You decide the NPC would make a great recurring villain. Do you leave them as the abbreviated NPC or re-write them as a PC-character/class?
And really, the only reason for going this route is "to reduce prep time". Well I can reduce prep time TODAY by deciding, this NPC is a 3rd-level expert - he'll probably doesn't need a full stat block - so I give him HP, ranks in his most relevant skills, note his saves and I'm pretty much done. If two sessions later he's developing into a recurring character, I can give him a full-blown write-up. I have control over how much to create and when.
Separated mechanics for NPCs and monsters make this more difficult. It's doable, but if it increases the difficulty I don't just have increased prep time, I have increased annoyance as well.
Just my view from the other side of the coin. It's a major reason I won't be going to 4e.
|
|
While I can understand the appeal of such a design philosophy, I'm afraid I'm in the other camp on this issue. In all my years of gaming, most of which has been on the GM's side of the screen, nothing frustrates me more than this.
See, that surprises me.As a DM I've always been in favor of reducing my number crunching in order to be able to focus more on plot and adventure hooks.
For example, you have the evil witch or necromancer pursuing forbidden magics - the PCs defeat them and the party wizard decides to study their dark arts (as an example) only to find out they can't because the "spell" that they used in battle is an "attack".
In my estimation, that is not a fault of the design method, that is fault of the DM. A DM going "Oh, you can't do that." has never been to my liking. I say give them a shot. If a player pursues an area of interest, I'll develop material for that interest. In the above example of the Witch and forbidden magic, in my game it is not like the wizard could auto-decipher the black arts and accursed writings of the witch immediately, it's going to take some work. Then, as the adventure continues I jot a note about it.
When the session is done, I may spend some time developing a few new spells and when the character has some down time to research the witches infernal works, he may pick up a new spell or two. If the player doesn't pursue that area, I didn't have to spend any time developing it, having my time instead spent working on things they are interested in.
Regardless of which RPG I'm running or which group of players are playing, nothing has jarred players out of the immersion in the game/story more than the realization that NPCs and/or monsters work with different mechanics or play by different rules.
True story here--I originally bought 3e just because monsters had ability scores. No kidding. The lack always annoyed the ?!#! out of me in 1e and 2e, and they fixed it, and I saw that it was good. Then when I found out you could add character classes to monsters to customize them, I was in seventh heaven. The idea of giving all that up at this point gripes me more than I can possibly express. So, if this tidbit is true, sadly there will be no 4e for me. No matter how much I like some of the stuff they seem to be doing with feats and talent trees, I just can't go back to monsters and NPCs that operate on a fundamentally different plane of reality from PCs, mechanics-wise. Maybe I can just import the talent trees into 3.5e...
|
|
Then when I found out you could add character classes to monsters to customize them, I was in seventh heaven.
As a side note, did so few people not already do that in previous editions? I know when I needed, lets say a "3rd level orc fighter" I adjusted the orc's THAC0, threw on some extra HP's, gave him weapons specialization in his wicked nasty sword and called it a day.
The idea of giving all that up at this point gripes me more than I can possibly express.
In my opinion, I doubt they'll completely do away with it, just lessen the intensity of it. No need to roll up an entire character to get a "3rdleve orc fighter" along with overly large stat-block just for a simple side encounter.
But RPGs seldom remove options from the core rules when they change editions. WotC is trying to sell me a new toolkit one piece at a time, instead of letting me buy it as a complete set.I'm not sure how they are "removing" options though. Yes, they are most definitely swapping options; trading some familiar ones for new options all together but somehow lessening your options?
What if I want to play a nature magic class (Druid), or an illusion magic class (Illusionist, the oldest core-rules arcane specialist), or a class that focuses of summoning, or a necromancer? All of these are currently options I have in or can readily adapt from the core rules (AD&D/2nd Ed/3.x). I can't do any of that with the first 4e PHB. WotC is taking them away for "further development, to be released later."
When personalizing a system to match the style and tastes of the DM/players, it's easier to restrict or alter what's already in the rules than it is to develop things from scratch.
While I can understand the appeal of such a design philosophy, I'm afraid I'm in the other camp on this issue. In all my years of gaming, most of which has been on the GM's side of the screen, nothing frustrates me more than this.See, that surprises me. As a DM I've always been in favor of reducing my number crunching in order to be able to focus more on plot and adventure hooks.
For example, you have the evil witch or necromancer pursuing forbidden magics - the PCs defeat them and the party wizard decides to study their dark arts (as an example) only to find out they can't because the "spell" that they used in battle is an "attack".In my estimation, that is not a fault of the design method, that is fault of the DM. A DM going "Oh, you can't do that." has never been to my liking. I say give them a shot. If a player pursues an area of interest, I'll develop material for that interest. In the above example of the Witch and forbidden magic, in my game it is not like the wizard could auto-decipher the black arts and accursed writings of the witch immediately, it's going to take some work. Then, as the adventure continues I jot a note about it.
When the session is done, I may spend some time developing a few new spells and when the character has some down time to research the witches infernal works, he may pick up a new spell or two. If the player doesn't pursue that area, I didn't have to spend any time developing it, having my time instead spent working on things they are interested in.
So, you'd rather spend your time designing your own magic systems than making simple changes to the "typical" class write-ups in the 3.x DMG? Do you see the contradiction here? Either the "dark arts" are off limits to PCs to "speed up" encounter prep time or the "dark arts" are a version of magic in the PHB so that you don't have to invent a bunch of rules (remember, 4e spells and classes are tied very closely to the power method). Which do you think will actually take more prep time?
The idea of giving all that up at this point gripes me more than I can possibly express.In my opinion, I doubt they'll completely do away with it, just lessen the intensity of it. No need to roll up an entire character to get a "3rdleve orc fighter" along with overly large stat-block just for a simple side encounter.
Well, you don't need to do that with 3.x, either. The DMG has "typical" 1-20 level NPCs for every PHB class. Add the adjustments for the race and possibly change one or two feats or weapons and you're done.
Published adventures usually use complete stat blocks so the DM has all the relevant information in one place. However, a designation of "orc fighter 3" (perhaps with the DMG page reference, and any changes) is all you need for a standard encounter.
|
|
Which do you think will actually take more prep time?
Creating full stat blocks for every side encounter whether it has something directly relating to the adventure or not, as well as the complete sub-systems for each encounter and referencing the 23 supplemental books in order to assure I'm doing so correctly would definitely take more prep time than designing a single aspect if my players happen to take an interest in it.
No contradiction at all and anyways, it is an aside to BPorter's statement that utilizing monsters and NPC's somehow will stop players from learning spells from their spellbooks and such.
Which do you think will actually take more prep time?Creating full stat blocks for every side encounter whether it has something directly relating to the adventure or not, as well as the complete sub-systems for each encounter and referencing the 23 supplemental books in order to assure I'm doing so correctly
Again, why would you have to do all this for a side encounter instead of using the typical NPCs in the DMG?
it is an aside to BPorter's statement that utilizing monsters and NPC's somehow will stop players from learning spells from their spellbooks and such.
Which is one of the problems of having PCs and NPCs using different rules. In 4e, it has been stated that necromancy will be reserved for NPCs and monsters and not available to PCs (at least initially). So, if the core rules have no system for PCs using necromantic magic, they can't learn from the NPC's notes without the DM creating the rules to do so.
Again, why would you have to do all this for a side encounter instead of using the typical NPCs in the DMG?That removes options. Remember? You're all about the options. ;D
If I want a unique encounter, yes, I'll build the NPC from scratch, but I don't have to, which is what you've been implying that 3.x requires. I have the option of using the typical NPC to reduce my prep time, which is what you're all about.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
DD,
Let me take the one critter we have stats on, the spined devil.
The party kills a few of them and the Tiefling Wizard says "Cool, I want to develop a spell like their spined rain."
My stats on the spined devil seem to indicate it's an 'at will' ability, since it's under attacks. What level do I make it? What should I use for casting time? material components?
Now in 3.x I have a creature with the same problem, the rust monster. But I can kludge and just allow the character to research rusting grasp
With SLAs in 3.x I reference back to the original spell, with 4.x effects, I can't.
That's my concern about the return of 'different rules for different folks'. That's on top of the problems others mention.
"Wow, that <WotC intellectual property> really had us on the ropes when he dominated the fighter, I want to research a power like that."
3.x: Gives the player the PHB or XPH "Here, look up dominate person."
4.x: "Um, you'll have to wait a year for the PC mind control spells to come out."
Which do you think will actually take more prep time?Creating full stat blocks for every side encounter whether it has something directly relating to the adventure or not, as well as the complete sub-systems for each encounter and referencing the 23 supplemental books in order to assure I'm doing so correctly would definitely take more prep time than designing a single aspect if my players happen to take an interest in it.
No contradiction at all and anyways, it is an aside to BPorter's statement that utilizing monsters and NPC's somehow will stop players from learning spells from their spellbooks and such.
But if you already subscribe to the philosophy that NPCs and monsters shouldn't have the same level of detail and mechanics vs. those of the PCs, who's forcing you to create full stat blocks?
I'd much rather go light on a single encounter write up rather than write mechanics and subsystems for PCs that will see play every single session. If I screw up an NPC write up, it's soon forgotten. If I screw up my player's PC with inferior or superior mechanics it can have a big impact on the game.
|
|
My 3.0 and 3.5 NPCs and monsters are statted up on Monster Cards from the Game Mechanics, and I've got a bunch pre-made of 'generic' monsters that I use a lot, and then fancier stuff like templated beasties for summoning spells or augmented summons or whatever.
The rules *allow* me to give them full skill points and all that pesky stuff (and the rules are there for when I actually need them), but they've never *required* me to do so. If you feel it necessary to do this, I don't think 4E is going to save you from this compulsion to stat out unnecessary detail...
In 4E, you'll still have whatever problem is making 3.0 monster statting difficult for you *and* will have to master two seperate systems, one for monsters / NPCs and one for PCs! It's a lose-lose situation, for those who want 'easier' *and* for those who want 'consistent' (and, as someone who finds one set of rules 'easier' to learn than two sets of conflicting rules on the same game-map, I think 'consistent' *is* 'easier') as it will be harder and inconsistent!
|
|
See, my two favorite systems are AD&D and C&C, both of which don't have huge stat blocks for critters and have them operating in a way different from standard PC creation. I don't find the difference to be cumbersome, difficult or anything like that. I like the quick and easy method of it, it works for me and has for years.
Yes, I understand that nothing requires you to make a full stat block in 3e. But I've always been of the mind that a rule that you ignore a majority of the time doesn't need to be a rule in the first place. My biggest dislike with the 3e stat-blocks is look at published adventures. They are going to put the whole thing in and it gets ridiculous.
Take Price of Courage for example. It is a high level mega module for Dragonlance. I'm not knocking it either as I find it to be one of the greatest modules ever for any edition of the game. But, it has roughly 80 pages devoted to stat-blocks! 80 pages! Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that is crazy.
WotC seems to have realize that. One of the design tenets they put in the Races & Classes books is:
3.0/3.5 is a monster to design for, from stat blocks to encounter balance. Let's fix that this time out and make it easier for us to create products in the future.
It is true too. The critter methodology for 3e makes it rough. If you don't think it effects production, you are wrong. Check out part of the reason as to why there are no high level GameMastery modules planned:
We don't have any high-level adventures coming up in the immediately future. In general, it's extremely difficult to produce a quality high-level adventure in the 32-page module format, mainly to do the length of high level encounters.
It is something that needs changed. If 4e does it, more power to them.
Yes, these mega-blocks can be cool for a DM to use if he wants to, but they cause problems overall for the game when publishers are letting a stat block effect what they will or will not do.
|
|
I'm not sure if this applies to Price of Courage, mentioned above as an example of out-of-control stat-block bloat, but this has been complained about since MM4, if I recall correctly.
The new page-long bloated-to-heck-and-back stat blocks are *insane* and not at all required. WotC has been criticized and accused of deliberately padding these stat-blocks to full pages simply to sell more pages with less content, and while I wouldn't go quite that far, I do maintain that there is *no excuse* for such enormous and redundant stat-blocks / monster write-ups, invariably with a lot of wasted 'dead space' for paragraph headers and the like.
I've seen more and more of this in recent 3.X product, but it's *not* required. Check earlier stuff, particularly 3.0 adventures and products, and you'll see that the insane full-page stat blocks / breakdowns are utterly unnecessary.
4.0, even if the monster stats could be printed on my thumbnail, are not going to do a darn thing to stop incontinent writers from splattering out a single beastie write-up over an entire page. It's nothing to do with the rules-set, it's the lack of tight writing, IMO.
I can fit all of the encounter-relevant stats onto a small space, and I know that earlier writers could do this as well. It's no flaw in the system that has created stat bloat. I do not need to know that the BBEG's assistant has Profession (architect) and Craft (bookbinding), and it's not the fault of the game that someone decided to write that down during an encounter where I only need to know his Spot / Listen / Sense Motive and then his Armor Class / Attributes / Attacks / Defenses / Hit Points and Saving Throws.
Entirely too many awesome aspects of the game are based around effects, such as Ability Damage, that could not have been applied in 2nd Edition, with one set of rules for characters and another for 'monsters.'
Just using Ability Damage as an example; How is a Rogue supposed to use poison? What does Ray of Enfeeblement do? Do Troglodytes and Shadows still cause Str damage, and if so, what happens when the Cleric Rebukes a Shadow and sends it after a monster? Suddenly the ability-damage-causing 'monster' is attempting to do ability damage to another monster, and the game crashes to a halt, because 'monsters don't need stats' and therefore the monster has no Strength score! Or does the Shadow magically change to a PC-type monster temporarily while under PC control (or attackign another monster for various other reasons, such as having been manipulated into doing so by a skill-monkey, or feinted into doing so by a clever use of tactical movement) and now use PC rules, meaning that Ability Damage turns into something else, like raw damage?
Let's say the monsters *do* have attributes, and this specific argument is moot. What don't they have? Skills? Feats? Racial abilities? Does this mean that a Human could hire an elven archer, hoping to gain the advantage of the elves superior archery skills (or sensory advantages), only to discover that the sleeker streamlined NPC Elves aren't any better at archery (or have better senses) than human commoners?
I'm just fine with *some* mechanics that are PC only, such as Action Points, but the idea that PC Elves get special powerz that NPC Elves don't get is just bizarre.
You say above that if there's a rule that I don't need on the monster stat block, then it doesn't need to be a rule. This would also mean if there is any mechanic that monsters 'don't need,' then the PCs sure as heck 'don't need' them either, and they are just extra rules that only count some of the time anyway!
I'm kind of excited too to see if the game turns out awesome, some of the changes do sound pretty cool. I just wish I didn't have to buy another set of books. :(
That's commerce!
|
|
I do not need to know that the BBEG's assistant has Profession (architect) and Craft (bookbinding), and it's not the fault of the game that someone decided to write that down during an encounter where I only need to know his Spot / Listen / Sense Motive and then his Armor Class / Attributes / Attacks / Defenses / Hit Points and Saving Throws.
Yes, but to remain internally consistent with the rules of monster/class you still need to develop those "unnecessary parts" otherwise you are already utilizing a different method for PC's and NPC's. It is just a matter of degree. After reading through Races & Classes I think that the changes between NPC's and PC's will be more along those lines and not some radically different system like some fear. Also, I seriously do not believe that they will be nixing critter attributes, given what I've read thus far.
Also, it is a moot point whether or not WotC or another company *could* use smaller blocks or not; because for the most part, none of them are. And the large stat-blocks admittedly do effect their production decisions.
|
|
I just wish I didn't have to buy another set of books. :(
That's commerce!
I feel your pain! I'm a system junkie and think the same thing every time I see a new game system that I find interesting.
My wife dreads me reading about a new system because it means before long, the books start arriving. I currently have more systems than I'll ever use...but will still buy more any ways. =(
As far as I can tell Monsters will still have the same basic interface as PCs. They'll have hit points, defenses, special abilities, ability scores, feats, and skills just as they do in 3rd edition. 4e retains a similar interface for monsters and PCs. The primary difference between 3e and 4e seems to be that monsters will be assigned the feats, skills, and such according to design criteria rather than hit die progression.
|
As far as I can tell Monsters will still have the same basic interface as PCs. They'll have hit points, defenses, special abilities, ability scores, feats, and skills just as they do in 3rd edition. 4e retains a similar interface for monsters and PCs. The primary difference between 3e and 4e seems to be that monsters will be assigned the feats, skills, and such according to design criteria rather than hit die progression.
Could you provide a link to somewhere that outlines this? I wouldn't mind reading about it. :)
As far as I can tell Monsters will still have the same basic interface as PCs. They'll have hit points, defenses, special abilities, ability scores, feats, and skills just as they do in 3rd edition. 4e retains a similar interface for monsters and PCs. The primary difference between 3e and 4e seems to be that monsters will be assigned the feats, skills, and such according to design criteria rather than hit die progression.
I hope that this is the case, because I am another who can't stand it when monsters/NPCs follow a different ruleset from the PCs.
SWSE handles this with the "nonheroic" and "beast" classes, which operate on the same basic principles as player character classes but simply have different numbers, and that works reasonably well. If that's all they're doing, I've got no problem with it. But I never want to go back to the days when monsters didn't have ability scores.
-The Gneech
|
|
The Races and Classes book also makes mention of "Exception Based rules". Essentially, the mechanics are universal, and things like feats racial abilities, powers, spells, etc are all "exceptions" to the rules.
In this context, and elves "Elven Accuracy" is an exception that an elf can use 1/encounter to the normal mechanic of rolling a ranged attack.
More than likely, dwarves will not gain access to THIS exception, for example.
In a similar way, monsters are likely to be a collection of base stats, like everyone else, with "exceptions" that Players do not have access to. You dwarf will never be able to get "Elven Accuracy" nor will he be able to get the minotaurs "gore" ability or the trolls "rend" ability.
I think at some level, it has always been there. Thats why Polymorph et. al. were so problematic. The truth is that there ARE monster only abilities, but there is an exception that allows PCs to gain them and it throws the game off.
4E had to pick one side or the other to avoid such issues. Had they chose "monsters use the same exceptions" I think they would have had to make the PC races all use the same exceptions. By allowing that exceptions can be exclusive, they can use it to work to the PCs advantage, such as the Elven Accuracy example.
This thread on EN World has a lot of interesting discussion on the subject. Mike Mearls addressed most of my concerns in the post quoted below.
A few points:1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.
2. Though monsters don't necessarily use spell-like abilities, monster abilities remain within the same basic realm of utility. A sixty foot cone of fire works just like any other sixty foot cone. The staggering majority of abilities are pretty much spell-like in mechanics, it's just that those mechanics appear in the stat block rather than refer to a spell.
3. Many monster abilities are re-used and templated. On top of that, monster abilities are kept simple and easy to use, as we know that a DM has to handle several monsters at once. Really complex monsters are a special case.
4. The new system allows for more flavorful monsters and a greater sense of mystery and wonder. Your players will know a lot less about specific monster abilities unless they read the MM and pay a lot of attention. Fighting gnolls is going to feel a lot different compared to fighting hobgoblins. Fighting a new creature is going to be scary. I loved springing new critters on people in my playtests.
5. I really can't wait until we do in-depth previews of the MM. The playtest DMs were pretty happy with how monsters work now. I'm curious to see how gamers in general will react. In my blog, I talked about how playing 4e felt like playing D&D for the first time again. The monsters played a big role in that.
6. There's a forum set up specifically for commenting on the blogs over on the WotC boards:
http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisp...aysprune=&f=685
That's a good place to directly address stuff we post. Anywhere else is a bit hit or miss, depending on work schedules and stuff. We're trying to hit the WotC boards, here, and elsewhere, but there's a ton of talk and it's hard to keep up.
I hope that this is the case, because I am another who can't stand it when monsters/NPCs follow a different ruleset from the PCs.
By different ruleset, where a creature or NPC that launches a "Fireball" spell which behaves completely different from whenever a PC launches one, then we agree. However, at the same time, if there's a power or ability a creature possesses that has no player character equivalent within the spell or psionic lists, I'm okay with that too.
Just by virtue of a creature possessing a mythical or mystical power should not automatically grant a similar power to every character in the game. That's how you get those "WTF was that?" moments. Now, this isn't to say that said mage, priest, or psionicist couldn't investigate a way to duplicate said power if they feel like it, I'm all for that, but I don't think every power in the game necessarily needs to be unilaterally included. I like the idea of unique creatures and NPCs casting unique, never-before-seen spells and powers at characters. That a small taste of what makes the game great imo. :-)
|
|
As far as I can tell Monsters will still have the same basic interface as PCs. They'll have hit points, defenses, special abilities, ability scores, feats, and skills just as they do in 3rd edition. 4e retains a similar interface for monsters and PCs. The primary difference between 3e and 4e seems to be that monsters will be assigned the feats, skills, and such according to design criteria rather than hit die progression.Could you provide a link to somewhere that outlines this? I wouldn't mind reading about it. :)
I'm pretty sure they said that monsters wouldn't have feats in their Monster Manual podcast. They also don't have hit dice.
The first "Hell Yeah!" elicited by me was from the following:
While I can understand the appeal of such a design philosophy, I'm afraid I'm in the other camp on this issue. In all my years of gaming, most of which has been on the GM's side of the screen, nothing frustrates me more than this. Regardless of which RPG I'm running or which group of players are playing, nothing has jarred players out of the immersion in the game/story more than the realization that NPCs and/or monsters work with different mechanics or play by different rules.
Absolutely. This is without a doubt the thing that is most likely to cause me to simply pass on 4e. It remains to be seen exactly how "monsters" and NPCs will be treated differently from PCs in 4e, but if this marks a return to the Bad Old Days of 1e/2e, I will definitely not be on board. Monsters and PCs using the same stats, rules, etc. was the single greatest improvement in the game made by 3e, IMO.
A few points:*cut for length*
I think people have touched on this before, but I think Mr. Mearl's is hinting at a system similar to the Villian Classes from his earlier d20 project, Iron Heroes. If so, I'm totally behind that. The NPC only classes were a great idea for making villians easy and fast to make up, while allowing for variance between the two different villians of the same class. This allowed more time to spent on the fluffy goodness, rather than eating up time in the crunch.
However if it is more like the standardized battle tables from basic/1st/2nd then it isn't so cool. Variance is the spice of life. Or something like that.
Actually, a lot of what I'm hearing about 4E sound vary similar to a watered down, and less interesing, Iron Heroes. The feat mastery from Iron Heroes sounds like tree based stuff form 4E. And the simplified skill system potentially could turn out like the skill groups from Iron Heroes.
Iron Heroes was and still is good. Watered down Iron Heroes doesn't sound good.
I do not need to know that the BBEG's assistant has Profession (architect) and Craft (bookbinding), and it's not the fault of the game that someone decided to write that down during an encounter where I only need to know his Spot / Listen / Sense Motive and then his Armor Class / Attributes / Attacks / Defenses / Hit Points and Saving Throws.
Yes, but to remain internally consistent with the rules of monster/class you still need to develop those "unnecessary parts" otherwise you are already utilizing a different method for PC's and NPC's. It is just a matter of degree.
That's absolutely true. But one system (3e) allows the DM to choose whether (and to what degree) he is going to utilize a different method for "monsters" and NPCs, and the other (4e?) does not.
|
|
But one system (3e) allows the DM to choose whether (and to what degree) he is going to utilize a different method for "monsters" and NPCs, and the other (4e?) does not.
I disagree.
AD&D, BECM D&D, 2nd Edition and now C&C are all system which I have played that do not provide monster stats. However, in each and every one of those games, when I felt the need to, I created full NPC write ups for unique critters, stat blocks and all. Each of those systems allowed me to.
Part of my dislike for the 3e method is that such treatment has become the rule, not the exception, and has grown into a bit of a monster from a design perspective.
|
|
Part of my dislike for the 3e method is that such treatment has become the rule, not the exception, and has grown into a bit of a monster from a design perspective.
And yet it doesn't have to be a 'monster.' 3.0 didn't have this problem, only the decision to have each monster write up take up a full page with the 'new stat blocks' late in 3.5 brought this into play, and it's not a rule problem, it's a deliberate design decision to fill up an entire page with unnecessary clutter.
I would rather that a new edition *added* options, which I can use or not use, at my leisure, rather than *take options away and make the game smaller* because someone somewhere couldn't figure out how much information was needed to run a 20 minute encounter.
Throw in a sentence explaining to the DMs who haven't figured out that they can use the smaller 3.0 style stat-blocks and that they don't *have* to use the late-3.5-style full-page (or worse, multi-page) stat-bloats.
|
|
And yet it doesn't have to be a 'monster.' 3.0 didn't have this problem, only the decision to have each monster write up take up a full page with the 'new stat blocks' late in 3.5 brought this into play, and it's not a rule problem, it's a deliberate design decision to fill up an entire page with unnecessary clutter.
I'd find that argument more compelling if almost every company and their dog didn't use the mega-stat-blocks.
I would rather that a new edition *added* options, which I can use or not use, at my leisure, rather than *take options away and make the game smaller* because someone somewhere couldn't figure out how much information was needed to run a 20 minute encounter.
I prefer a slimmer system that I can easily add to or subtract from as per my likes. I don't need a rule spelling out everything to give me "options", I'm pretty good at giving my game and my players options on my own.