Take a look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20080207c.
Although mini-game rules, one can project them onto 4e.
There are some interesting things we will most likely see in 4e.
Chief among them the cleric of pelor's combat healing and aura.
Aside from such a ridiculous ability as combat healing, what bothers me most is the fact that there seems to be many situations or abilities having an effect on other characters(allies and enemies) where one has to remember and keep track of bonuses, ranges, (perhaps duration), etc. I always though that 4e is made to run games smoother and faster.
What they are doing to make the game run faster (such as reducing number of attacks) seems to be nullyfied by things such as the cleric's aura..
Feel free to discuss...
|
Take a look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20080207c.
Although mini-game rules, one can project them onto 4e.
There are some interesting things we will most likely see in 4e.
Chief among them the cleric of pelor's combat healing and aura.
Aside from such a ridiculous ability as combat healing, what bothers me most is the fact that there seems to be many situations or abilities having an effect on other characters(allies and enemies) where one has to remember and keep track of bonuses, ranges, (perhaps duration), etc. I always though that 4e is made to run games smoother and faster.
What they are doing to make the game run faster (such as reducing number of attacks) seems to be nullyfied by things such as the cleric's aura..
Feel free to discuss...
This is my chief concern. It may be easy at the start to remember a handful of ever present effects but you know that they are going to multiply over time. On the other hand it may be less of a problem if they don't have persistent effects that stack or overlap - like prayer, bless, haste, bard song, recitation, etc.
|
I honestly do not think that 4th edition will be "easier" than 3rd.
4th might be more streamlined and intuitive and combats may be faster.
Monsters might be easier to handle.
But managing the various powers of the PCs will certainly not be easier.
I think we can agree that D&D 3rd and 4th (from what I know) are complex games with a who strive to simulate specific actions (fighting, casting spells) through a ruleset.
Now you could simualte above actions with a simple system (like: d6 1-3 you win, 4-6 you die) but to achieve a level of reality simulation where the suspension is disbelief is not strained to the maximum, you have to use more complex rules.
And there we have the tradeoff: simple rules = easy to play but not simulating game-reality well. Complex rules = not as easy to play, but simulating game reality better.
To cut short my ramblings: IMO 4th edition will have the same level of complexity as 3rd. 4th edition will also involve bookeeping. Maybe not as much as 3rd or maybe bookeeping will be simpler.
But I do not think that managing the various resources of the various PCs during an encounter will demand less attention and focus.
|
This is my chief concern. It may be easy at the start to remember a handful of ever present effects but you know that they are going to multiply over time. On the other hand it may be less of a problem if they don't have persistent effects that stack or overlap - like prayer, bless, haste, bard song, recitation, etc.
I have a suspicion that the DI is much more integrative to 4E than we realize. I think we will have a "button" to activate and a UI will remind us when its effect changes.
Then again, it may very well be that so many OTHER things are simplified that keeping track of aura's is the only thing we really keep track of.
|
Aside from such a ridiculous ability as combat healing, what bothers me most is the fact that there seems to be many situations or abilities having an effect on other characters(allies and enemies) where one has to remember and keep track of bonuses, ranges, (perhaps duration), etc. I always though that 4e is made to run games smoother and faster.This is my chief concern. It may be easy at the start to remember a handful of ever present effects but you know that they are going to multiply over time. On the other hand it may be less of a problem if they don't have persistent effects that stack or overlap - like prayer, bless, haste, bard song, recitation, etc.
Hello Guys,
Do you also remember the article where they spoke about the effects of the terrain ?
Nnot that it is a bad idea, but simplicity ....
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Aside from such a ridiculous ability as combat healing,
Remember, 4e is further abstracting hit points. You're not literally healing broken bones and sprained ankles, instead you're getting more vigor and momentum to carry on the fight. The idea of the cleric's aura seems to be that when you make a good attack roll, he shouts out "you go girl" which makes you feel really cool and want to continue the battle.
YMMV depending on whether you can swallow this level of abstraction.
On the complication side, it does sound like a lot. The only point of comparison that might be drawn is that the stacking problem could have been eliminated. That's always been the most complicated part of 3e for me - what bonuses an ability provided and whether they stacked. It'll be really hard to say for sure what the final level of complexity will be like until the rules are released.
|
|
To cut short my ramblings: IMO 4th edition will have the same level of complexity as 3rd. 4th edition will also involve bookeeping. Maybe not as much as 3rd or maybe bookeeping will be simpler.
But I do not think that managing the various resources of the various PCs during an encounter will demand less attention and focus.
You post sparked an AH HA moment ... auras and the like are for the players to manage.
I think we can kinda go back to the old "caller" days in a sense. For those that do not know what a "caller" is - back in the early days of D&D it was suggested that one player act as the communications link between the party and the DM. It did not work too well and very few people actually did this.
But anyway ... I think one player can act as a tracker for the auras and persistent effects generated by PCs for other PCs. That way some of the complexity is shared between the GM and the players.
Thoughts?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You post sparked an AH HA moment ... auras and the like are for the players to manage.I think we can kinda go back to the old "caller" days in a sense. For those that do not know what a "caller" is - back in the early days of D&D it was suggested that one player act as the communications link between the party and the DM. It did not work too well and very few people actually did this.
But anyway ... I think one player can act as a tracker for the auras and persistent effects generated by PCs for other PCs. That way some of the complexity is shared between the GM and the players.
Thoughts?
My thought is that players are horrible at tracking stuff. ;-) It's gotten to the point where after any player announces damage, someone chimes in with "Did you include +1 from the bard song?"
And we don't even have a bard in the party...
It will be interesting to see if they can organize this information to be more easily tracked. I definitely think getting rid of the Baskin-Robbins level of flavored bonuses will go a long way in that regard.
|
|
To cut short my ramblings: IMO 4th edition will have the same level of complexity as 3rd. 4th edition will also involve bookeeping. Maybe not as much as 3rd or maybe bookeeping will be simpler.
But I do not think that managing the various resources of the various PCs during an encounter will demand less attention and focus.You post sparked an AH HA moment ... auras and the like are for the players to manage.
I think we can kinda go back to the old "caller" days in a sense. For those that do not know what a "caller" is - back in the early days of D&D it was suggested that one player act as the communications link between the party and the DM. It did not work too well and very few people actually did this.
But anyway ... I think one player can act as a tracker for the auras and persistent effects generated by PCs for other PCs. That way some of the complexity is shared between the GM and the players.
Thoughts?
You said it best. It didn't work in the old days, it probably won't work now.
I am not so sure it will persistent round to round but rather be a one-shot that happens (as a free action, or after use of an action point, after a successful hit, etc) only when the player calls it. I think we are all assuming Dragon Shaman mechanics.
To use video game lingo, I don't think we'll see "auras" or "buffs" so much as we'll see "PROC's" (programmable random occurrences) that "go off" under specific (but easy) conditions. Buffs will probably be round-to-round as well.
I move (move action)
I attack (Attack action) which crits triggering a choice of:
Healing Free Action
Buff Free Action
Extra Damage Free Action
Then I spend an action point to move away.
Or something very similar. It will be self-contained in a single players turn. We won't be worrying about what another player has done (except for tactical reasons, of course: "OH NOES! The tank is down!").
This is just speculation, but I am pretty sure this is one of the design goals.
My thought is that players are horrible at tracking stuff. ;-)
Oh, so very true.
Not all of them mind you, but enough to throw a wrench in the gears.
|
|
You post sparked an AH HA moment ... auras and the like are for the players to manage.I think we can kinda go back to the old "caller" days in a sense. For those that do not know what a "caller" is - back in the early days of D&D it was suggested that one player act as the communications link between the party and the DM. It did not work too well and very few people actually did this.
But anyway ... I think one player can act as a tracker for the auras and persistent effects generated by PCs for other PCs. That way some of the complexity is shared between the GM and the players.
Thoughts?
My thought is that players are horrible at tracking stuff. ;-) It's gotten to the point where after any player announces damage, someone chimes in with "Did you include +1 from the bard song?"
And we don't even have a bard in the party...
It will be interesting to see if they can organize this information to be more easily tracked. I definitely think getting rid of the Baskin-Robbins level of flavored bonuses will go a long way in that regard.
I agree that that's one of the more annoying aspects of 3rd edition, especially at higher levels. Okay, I've got bardsong, rage, prayer, haste, bite of the weretiger, etc going; what's my to hit bonus? And remembering all of the modifiers from round to round depending on their different durations. If they can simplify that, it would be a very good thing. I don't know if they're trying to make it worse though, as the elf preview seemed to show.
|
|
Be! Agressive! B! E! Aggressive!I'm going to be picturing Jozan with pom-poms yelling that out.
You mean like this cheerleader
What they are doing to make the game run faster (such as reducing number of attacks) seems to be nullyfied by things such as the cleric's aura..
Feel free to discuss...
Doesn't surprise me at all. Thats exactly what WotC did to Star Wars Saga.
I agree that that's one of the more annoying aspects of 3rd edition, especially at higher levels. Okay, I've got bardsong, rage, prayer, haste, bite of the weretiger, etc going; what's my to hit bonus? And remembering all of the modifiers from round to round depending on their different durations. If they can simplify that, it would be a very good thing. I don't know if they're trying to make it worse though, as the elf preview seemed to show.
I found that just having a piece of scrap paper with attack, damage, AC and saves on it that I just keep adding each of gthe bonuses to it. When it's my turn I just look at the paper for what I roll.
|
|
I agree that that's one of the more annoying aspects of 3rd edition, especially at higher levels. Okay, I've got bardsong, rage, prayer, haste, bite of the weretiger, etc going; what's my to hit bonus? And remembering all of the modifiers from round to round depending on their different durations. If they can simplify that, it would be a very good thing. I don't know if they're trying to make it worse though, as the elf preview seemed to show.
We put out large note cards in front ofthe DM screen that state whats happening(bard song, prayer) so players can keep track...and other players constantly remind each other of the bonueses.
Be! Agressive! B! E! Aggressive!Thanks Heathy. You have just ruined 4e for me. Every time one of those wacky combat healings go off, I'm going to be picturing Jozan with pom-poms yelling that out.
Maybe picturing Jozan slurring his speech on stage like Mike Patton would have, with his shirt open of course, is a better image? Perhaps?
(The Be aggressive I think his is referring to is from the album Angel Dust by Faith no More)
It will be interesting to see if they can organize this information to be more easily tracked. I definitely think getting rid of the Baskin-Robbins level of flavored bonuses will go a long way in that regard.
True, that was one of the more annoying things about 3.x (on the other hand, it cut down a bit on the power creep from 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D where almost everything stacked). Keeping track of which bonuses were divine, enhancement, insight, morale, special, etc. was somewhat of a hassle.
|
|
We put out large note cards in front ofthe DM screen that state whats happening(bard song, prayer) so players can keep track...and other players constantly remind each other of the bonueses.
It'd be a lot easier if they didn't do this, since IMO, a player often gets the calculation right, only to have someone butt in, and start a debate, whereupon the original player forgot what he rolled...
2nd Edition used to have a strange effect, when some players would use their bonuses to reduce their base THAC0 score, then roll the dice, and duplicate the bonus by adding it again, to their roll. How I enjoyed having to repeatedly correct such a stupid mistake....