The latest WotC podcast (#18) has been posted in the last few days. In this episode, various designers desribe similarities of existing rule-sets already widely used (Complete Mage, Nine-Swords, Star Wars Saga, Magic Items Compendium) that has influenced the development of 4e.
The news I found most interesting is that there will be a fundamental change to many magic items (and perhaps spell-effects in general) that change base ability scores. They mention in particular Gauntlets of Ogre Power. In short, the equipment will have the feel of the original, but will work very different mechanicly.
Sae in point, they mention that the many types of enhancements and penalties a character can currently undergo in the course of an encounter simply slow the game down: "Let's see, I have an 18 strnegth, but I have gauntlets of ogre power, so now its a 20, but I was hit with a ray of enfeeblement..."
I read into this that the gauntlets of ogre power will no longer provide a bonus to Strength, but may instead simply provide a bonus to hit and/or damage. I could be wrong, but this is how I interpreted their indirect explanation. Further, I think that other 3.0/3.5 sacred cows were killed such as poison efects. Instead of inflicting ability damage, they may go back to a 2e system of simply dealing damage. They didn't say "2e", but they do allude to it in saying that the game, in certain aspects, will be going back to a design form that veteran players will find familiar.
well, it took 39 minutes for the server to post this message, so a bump is in order.
Eh some of the changes sound interesting. The attribute modifying magic items and being changed might not be a bad thing. The combat manuevers things I'm still undecided on. I have a Warblade in one of my games but he is only 3rd level so it difficult to determine if I like it or not yet. Combinding feats isn't a bad idea either.
The thing that really bothered me and probably for no really good reason was the use of the terms like defender and blaster. It just feels too much like a MMO. It makes me feel like every group will need just the right make up and while putting combat encounters together might be easy as picking a controller 4 and a defnder 2 it just feels really like it less about story and more about being able to quickly make the numbers balance.
Hmm. I feel it is more about story, and thus they are making encounters easier to put together their are less restrictions on making an exciting encounter.
Faster game play=what? Instead of me and my players taking three months of Saturdays(8-12 hour sessions 96- 144hours) to sack the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, we'll now be able to do on a Monday night from 4pm-8pm...;)
Hmm. I feel it is more about story, and thus they are making encounters easier to put together their are less restrictions on making an exciting encounter.
I see the idea of roles as VASTLY more restrictive. I see it as MMO thinking. Here's why. I ALWAYS make atypical characters. I prefer dex based fighters, reach feat based necromancers, orc double axe wielding rangers, savage bards and the like. By saying that X class is a "Defender" or a "controller," you just told me what I CAN'T do with the class.
Why can't I make a wizard a "defender"? Choose the right feats, the right spells, maybe even a little multiclassing and waala. A Defender Wizard. Why do I have to be told how I am going to play my wizard?
EDIT: Yes, I will agree that the class is not OPTIMIZED to be a defender. But I am a role player, not a video gamer. I care about the story and the fun, not what I can hack and slash.
Hmm. I feel it is more about story, and thus they are making encounters easier to put together their are less restrictions on making an exciting encounter.
Yeah I understand that may be the case. Based on previous podcasts though it seemed like their encounter construction was more about making sure each encounter had a controller and a brute and a whatever in it. We'll all see when it comes out.
|
When I heard that they weren't going to modify attribute scores I was like ok.. just more modifiers that get altered.. then I realize that the descriptions for magic items just got a lot longer.. gauntlets of orger power effect you climb, run, heck.. even your lift. Now all the information has to be in the item description.
Maybe it's time they just got rid of attribute scores and just had modifiers as your score. Instead of an 18 strength, you have a +4 strength.
Maybe it's time they just got rid of attribute scores and just had modifiers as your score. Instead of an 18 strength, you have a +4 strength.
That would be True20.
Maybe it's time they just got rid of attribute scores and just had modifiers as your score. Instead of an 18 strength, you have a +4 strength.
THEY CAN'T DO THAT! 3-18 Abilities are sacred to D&D. ... Uh ohhhh
*looks at all the WotC employees chowing down on steaks* *watches little kid run past and yell, "Hey! We missed a sacred cow. Its over here."*
Yes, I will agree that the class is not OPTIMIZED to be a defender. But I am a role player, not a video gamer. I care about the story and the fun, not what I can hack and slash.
By that reasoning then it's irrelevant what the label is, yes?
there will be a fundamental change to many magic items (and perhaps spell-effects in general) that change base ability scores.
Specifically, that ability scores won't ping pong during combat.
I'm all for it.
It's a chore to stop the game to recalculate so many things because so many things are interdependent--and none are more tied to everything than ability scores.
Hmm. I feel it is more about story, and thus they are making encounters easier to put together their are less restrictions on making an exciting encounter.I see the idea of roles as VASTLY more restrictive. I see it as MMO thinking. Here's why. I ALWAYS make atypical characters. I prefer dex based fighters, reach feat based necromancers, orc double axe wielding rangers, savage bards and the like. By saying that X class is a "Defender" or a "controller," you just told me what I CAN'T do with the class.
Why can't I make a wizard a "defender"? Choose the right feats, the right spells, maybe even a little multiclassing and waala. A Defender Wizard. Why do I have to be told how I am going to play my wizard?
EDIT: Yes, I will agree that the class is not OPTIMIZED to be a defender. But I am a role player, not a video gamer. I care about the story and the fun, not what I can hack and slash.
Which seems to presume that by making atypical choices that you are a better RPer, or that people who choose to emphasize what the class does are bad RPers.
But, its been said that you wont be confined to a given role "no-matter-what", and that its entirely possible to build a character that creeps into another role, or is built to accomplish a different role.
But, its been said that you wont be confined to a given role "no-matter-what", and that its entirely possible to build a character that creeps into another role, or is built to accomplish a different role.
Exactly. The notion of "roles" is merely presented as a way to help inexperienced players and DMs craft effective parties/encounters. It in no way is meant to inhibit the choices of more experienced gamers.