Interesting post from Mearls over at ENWorld. I'm sure most have seen it, but thought I'd repost it for those who might have missed it:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218978
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.
You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats.
The really nice thing is that this structure allows you to better depict many classic D&D settings and fantasy worlds. You can run pre-War of the Lance adventures in Dragonlance without clerics. You could run Conan with just the heroic classes for PCs and NPC spellcasters as villains and allies.
The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap).
It sounds like Mike is pitching the flexibility of 4e game mechanics. We shall see.
This was mentioned by a poster over at Gleemax about taking a role and a power source and just mashing them together and seeing what kind of character you would get. Like, a divine controller, or a psychic leader. Stuff like that. It seems to me that making classes could be very, VERY easy to do now.
Even taking a monster role and applying it to a monster (umber hulk lurker, umber hulk skirmisher, etc) could turn out some interesting material.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218978
You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats.
This is the first thing i've seen that genuinely piques my interest in the new edition.
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.
But this was possible in 3.5. It just hurt without any healing. Can it be done in 4th without healing?
Oh wait... Nevermind. I forgot the Warlord could convince you to run a marathon on two broken legs.
Carry on.
Yes, technically it can be done in 3rd Edition as is...if you spend a lot of money on curing potions, or have someone take max ranks in UMD in addition to having the best possible wand of cure-whatevers. Of course, that means that someone else is running around in combat trying to roll good enough to keep everyone alive.
You can also spend days on end healing naturally, of course, but not many games allow for that kind of schedule.
While possible in the strictest sense, its not really feasible.
Remember, hit points arent just physical trauma. Its always been an abstract mechanic that represents various things, especially since 3rd Edition.
|
Hmm, this is very interesting and this makes 4th interesting for me again.
But, I have to mention this, a grim and gritty low magic campaign is also possible in 3rd edition.
It probably requires some more adjustments than 4th, but it is possible.
For thos who doubt it: Download Sean K. Reynolds excellent "The New Argonauts" (I think you can get it free, look at SKRs homepage). There he uses some very simple adjustments to make a heroic campaign in ancient greece possible and fun.
What are the difficulties for low magic Conan Style Campaigns in D&D?
1) Classes: Only Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue and other stricly Non-spellcasting Classes are viable. Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards are the adversaries. Rangers and Paladins do not fit in. To simulate a Ranger mix Rogue and Fighter Levels and take Track the Feat.
2) Healing. There are some easy and fast solutions I can think of: PCs get more HPs or full HP. Natural Healing is much faster. The adapted Healing skill makes natural Healing even faster.
3) Magic Item dependency. Also relatively easy. For weapons and armor simply call the bonuses varying grades of quality and delete specialities like "flaming. So a +2 weapon will be a +2 weapon, not magic but of exceptional quality. For Stat Booster change the Stat upgrade from every 4th level to every 3rd or 2nd level. For Save booster call the Fetishes or Amuletts or Holy symbols and make them Neck worn. They work only once or twice then burn out. But there are less supernatural threats, so saves are so important.
4) Heavy Armor dependency. Give all Classes a Dodge progression.Classes like Rogue and Barbarian get more Dogdge Bonus than Fighters. Say +1 every 3 levels. Fighters get +1 every 4 levels and the rest get +1 every 5 levels.
That's basically it and you can run a Conan Campaign in 3rd edition.
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.
Ok yea, he has a point. Its really difficult right now to only have the magic systems you want in the world and not those you don't. The magic systems are to intertwined to .... Oh wait....
Third Dawn explores a world without arcane or divine magic, a world where the power of the mind has risen to fill in the gap left by the departure of the magic of the ancient world.
Crap. Well. I guess another WotC employee is touting another aspect of the game that already exists as if its a new innovation.
This does confirm, though, that the Ranger won't have spells in 4E.
Although this presents some interesting potential Mike fails to explain how roles allow you to experiment with power sources. He didn't really talk about either them all that much really. Interesting potential, but not much explanation on how it is accomplished.
Hmm, this is very interesting and this makes 4th interesting for me again.
But, I have to mention this, a grim and gritty low magic campaign is also possible in 3rd edition.
It probably requires some more adjustments than 4th, but it is possible.
For thos who doubt it: Download Sean K. Reynolds excellent "The New Argonauts" (I think you can get it free, look at SKRs homepage). There he uses some very simple adjustments to make a heroic campaign in ancient greece possible and fun.What are the difficulties for low magic Conan Style Campaigns in D&D?
1) Classes: Only Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue and other stricly Non-spellcasting Classes are viable. Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards are the adversaries. Rangers and Paladins do not fit in. To simulate a Ranger mix Rogue and Fighter Levels and take Track the Feat.
2) Healing. There are some easy and fast solutions I can think of: PCs get more HPs or full HP. Natural Healing is much faster. The adapted Healing skill makes natural Healing even faster.
3) Magic Item dependency. Also relatively easy. For weapons and armor simply call the bonuses varying grades of quality and delete specialities like "flaming. So a +2 weapon will be a +2 weapon, not magic but of exceptional quality. For Stat Booster change the Stat upgrade from every 4th level to every 3rd or 2nd level. For Save booster call the Fetishes or Amuletts or Holy symbols and make them Neck worn. They work only once or twice then burn out. But there are less supernatural threats, so saves are so important.
4) Heavy Armor dependency. Give all Classes a Dodge progression.Classes like Rogue and Barbarian get more Dogdge Bonus than Fighters. Say +1 every 3 levels. Fighters get +1 every 4 levels and the rest get +1 every 5 levels.
That's basically it and you can run a Conan Campaign in 3rd edition.
There's also an entire Conan OGL line that does this today without need to houserule 3.x or 4e.
It kicks some serious butt. Just saying.
|
|
There's also an entire Conan OGL line that does this today without need to houserule 3.x or 4e.
It kicks some serious butt. Just saying.
Yes, I know this, but I wanted to show that you can use Core Rules and tweak them a little and be able to run Grim And Gritty low Magic.
There is also the Black Company Campaign Setting byr Green Ronin that uses OGL for the very grim and gritty Setting.
|
Gawds. This supports 100% MY ongoing contention:
4E will be a MEDIOCRE game, primarily because 4E will bear little or no resemblance to anything previously known as Dungeons & Dragons.
I'm not surprised by anything said here, again. WotC is telling me I can now do something I've been doing in 3.5 for 8 years with little or NO effort for me and my players with NO trouble whatsoever. But now apparently I need a whole new system to do it. No THANK you. :-)
-DM Jeff
You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.But this was possible in 3.5. It just hurt without any healing. Can it be done in 4th without healing?
Oh wait... Nevermind. I forgot the Warlord could convince you to run a marathon on two broken legs.
Carry on.
Okay, so assuming that a warlord actually can restore an entire party's hit points effectivly. (That's an assumption at this time, we have not see the class details yet, but we'll go with it cause I like thought expirements. ) He woudl be able to restore hit points, sure, but he wouldn't be able to do the big magic things like raising the dead.
With a warlord that can heal, you could run a very effective low magic, down and dirty campaign. You could make the world gritty and brutal, because the magic healing people have come to rely on is no longer there. The world would be one where death is perminant, poison and diesease are dangerous things, and a whole host of magic animals becomes much more dangerous to the party and to the population as well. The people who can heal are professional soldiers, not normal people. That leaves a lot of role playing oppertunites. Can you imagine a game where the black plague is a real problem for the people of the world? The clerics woudl wipe that kind of thing out easily.
You also won't have to worry about giving the players tons of magic healing potions or wands with healing spells. The warlord can handle that. But if somebody dies? You're in trouble then!
Okay, so assuming that a warlord actually can restore an entire party's hit points effectivly.
Characters can heal themselves. What do we need divine casters for?
Okay, so assuming that a warlord actually can restore an entire party's hit points effectivly.Characters can heal themselves. What do we need divine casters for?
I think Dungeons and Dragons would become a very different game where death is permanent.
I think Dungeons and Dragons would become a very different game where death is permanent.
Point. But from the sounds of it, its going to be rather difficult for a character to get close to where death is a real possibility/fear.
|
Okay, so assuming that a warlord actually can restore an entire party's hit points effectivly.Characters can heal themselves. What do we need divine casters for?
Mt sense is that the "healing" done by anyone other than a cleric is just enough to buy a round or two. It will still take a cleric to lay down the real heals.
I think Dungeons and Dragons would become a very different game where death is permanent.Point. But from the sounds of it, its going to be rather difficult for a character to get close to where death is a real possibility/fear.
Which is scarier, knowing death can happen at any moment but knowing that life is just a 5,000gp diamond away? Or knowing that it's far, but that if it comes it's permanent?
Maybe the first is more scarier overall, but when you start dropping hit points, option 2 is going get really scary, very quickly.
I'm not sure that either is substantially better than the other. I guess it depends on what type of game you want to play.
Greg
2) 4E will bear little or no resemblance to anything previously known as Dungeons & Dragons.
Oh come on. I heard the same complaint about 3 edition.
Which is scarier, knowing death can happen at any moment but knowing that life is just a 5,000gp diamond away? Or knowing that it's far, but that if it comes it's permanent?
Does it matter? In 4E you are tough to kill (from what we know) and its not permanent.
|
|
Which is scarier, knowing death can happen at any moment but knowing that life is just a 5,000gp diamond away? Or knowing that it's far, but that if it comes it's permanent?Does it matter? In 4E you are tough to kill (from what we know) and its not permanent.
I dunno about the tough to kill part. Tougher - maybe. But I recall some of the insiders here talking about PCs going splat during play test.
|
|
Which is scarier, knowing death can happen at any moment but knowing that life is just a 5,000gp diamond away? Or knowing that it's far, but that if it comes it's permanent?
Maybe the first is more scarier overall, but when you start dropping hit points, option 2 is going get really scary, very quickly.
I'm not sure that either is substantially better than the other. I guess it depends on what type of game you want to play.
Greg
Option 1 can be easily remedied in if you a) do not allow resurrection magic at all or b) only allow to resurrect a PC one or twice or c) make resurrection more costly (in GP donations) or more risky for the resurrected(Fort Save if PC can live through the resurrection shock) or the one who resurrects (like permanent not healable Con damage)
|
|
Option 1 can be easily remedied in if you a) do not allow resurrection magic at all or b) only allow to resurrect a PC one or twice or c) make resurrection more costly (in GP donations) or more risky for the resurrected(Fort Save if PC can live through the resurrection shock) or the one who resurrects (like permanent not healable Con damage)
I would prefer some kind of insanity mechanic. Every resurrection should bring the character closer to losing touch with reality. The line between life and death blurs and they just go nuts.
Contributor
|
I don't like long-term penalties for resurrection. They just screw up game balance. Mind you, I don't like over-use of resurrection so sometimes I penalize it just to encourage players to take their lumps and make up a new PC.
My favorite mechanic so far has been what I use for my Eberron campaign. To resurrect someone, someone has to travel to Doluhr and find their soul and bring it back. And the priest you pay at the temple to cast the spell? He's not the one going to Doluhr. You are.
I dunno about the tough to kill part. Tougher - maybe. But I recall some of the insiders here talking about PCs going splat during play test.
Dying is unfun. But that's what playtest is for. To strike the right balance.
It was true then and is even truer now - at least for me.2) 4E will bear little or no resemblance to anything previously known as Dungeons & Dragons.Oh come on. I heard the same complaint about 3 edition.
Good point.
|
|
This is a new rules set organized around different principles.
4.0 is not D&D in the way 1.0->2.0->3.0 are in that it does not have the same evolutionary through line from AD&D.
I see this more as D&D 2.0 in that it evolves the principles deployed in the creation of Basic D&D back in the day. It is organized around attracting new players and around being simpler and easier, in much the same way Basic, Expert, etc. D&D sets were built. Then as now, it was about penetrating the market.
Alot of the heat I am hearing now, is the same sort of stuff I heard in High School as the D&D and AD&D people argued over their game. We just don't throw as many literal punches now.
Corny as all hell. I like my Rangers with magic. And with the Druid class not presented, I can't even give the Ranger some Druid magic...
Way to go, WotC, you just killed yet another awesome class's concept. Rangers should have spellcasting by default, done. If people want them not to have spellcasting, then give them the options to make a non-spellcasting one.
Don't take away our spellcasting Ranger and then not give us options to make one.
Damn 4rons.
From what I've seen so far, I suspect the Warlord will keep pace with the Cleric on healing, as it's a Leader role thing.
Based upon World and Monsters, death will have a different feeling at different tiers: at the epic tier (21-30) it is little more than a speed bump, at paragon tier (11-20) death is a significant problem and in the heroic tier (1-10) when you die you make a new character.
As far as not seeing many literal punches thrown, I think that stems from the people on these forums not meeting in person!
|
|
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.But this was possible in 3.5. It just hurt without any healing. Can it be done in 4th without healing?
Oh wait... Nevermind. I forgot the Warlord could convince you to run a marathon on two broken legs.
Carry on.
That's exactly why non-magical healing totally breaks suspension of disbelief for me. I'm unconscious and possibly dying from multiple serious injuries, and I jump up like nothing's wrong if some guys he calls himself a warlord tells me too. How can that be possible without magic? I know hp can be more than physical health, but if you are in the negatives hp-wise, you have some serious physical injury.
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.But this was possible in 3.5. It just hurt without any healing. Can it be done in 4th without healing?
Oh wait... Nevermind. I forgot the Warlord could convince you to run a marathon on two broken legs.
Carry on.
That's exactly why non-magical healing totally breaks suspension of disbelief for me. I'm unconscious and possibly dying from multiple serious injuries, and I jump up like nothing's wrong if some guys he calls himself a warlord tells me too. How can that be possible without magic? I know hp can be more than physical health, but if you are in the negatives hp-wise, you have some serious physical injury.
A lot of people have good points, but I don't buy that one. If your suspension of disbelief is still going strong when you're pretending to be a fictional person in a land of magic, elves, and dragons, dying on the ground while, in reality, you sip Mountain Dew and munch on some chips at a comfortable table with your friends, it's not going to be broken, suddenly, when the Warlord yells at you (or does whatever it is that he does) to get up and you manage to fight on, ignoring some of your wounds. It's different to what we are all used to, but it's no worse than anything else we imagine every day while playing an PnP RPG.
|
|
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.But this was possible in 3.5. It just hurt without any healing. Can it be done in 4th without healing?
Oh wait... Nevermind. I forgot the Warlord could convince you to run a marathon on two broken legs.
Carry on.
Yeah, it is possible. it's called A Game of Thrones, from the sadly-defunct Guardians of Order.
Grab It if you still can.
Best D&D combat system ! Players afraid of 1st level rogues !
Nothing like the pansy combat system of 4e where nobody ever dies.
|
|
A lot of people have good points, but I don't buy that one. If your suspension of disbelief is still going strong when you're pretending to be a fictional person in a land of magic, elves, and dragons, dying on the ground while, in reality, you sip Mountain Dew and munch on some chips at a comfortable table with your friends, it's not going to be broken, suddenly, when the Warlord yells at you (or does whatever it is that he does) to get up and you manage to fight on, ignoring some of your wounds. It's different to what we are all used to, but it's no worse than anything else we imagine every day while playing an PnP RPG.
Well, you know, yes it might : it's really a matter of habit and personal taste.
The warlord is certainly not the worse of 4e given all the rest.
A lot of people have good points, but I don't buy that one. If your suspension of disbelief is still going strong when you're pretending to be a fictional person in a land of magic, elves, and dragons, dying on the ground while, in reality, you sip Mountain Dew and munch on some chips at a comfortable table with your friends, it's not going to be broken, suddenly, when the Warlord yells at you (or does whatever it is that he does) to get up and you manage to fight on, ignoring some of your wounds. It's different to what we are all used to, but it's no worse than anything else we imagine every day while playing an PnP RPG.Well, you know, yes it might : it's really a matter of habit and personal taste.
The warlord is certainly not the worse of 4e given all the rest.
It is a matter of taste. I would argue, though, that it's more a matter of HABIT. We already imagine many fantastic things that non-roleplayers could only shake their heads at. The Warlord is a new concept to DnD, but no more fantastic than anything else.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A lot of people have good points, but I don't buy that one. If your suspension of disbelief is still going strong when you're pretending to be a fictional person in a land of magic, elves, and dragons, dying on the ground while, in reality, you sip Mountain Dew and munch on some chips at a comfortable table with your friends, it's not going to be broken, suddenly, when the Warlord yells at you (or does whatever it is that he does) to get up and you manage to fight on, ignoring some of your wounds. It's different to what we are all used to, but it's no worse than anything else we imagine every day while playing an PnP RPG.
I think if you frame healing magic as repairing physical injury, non-magical healing creates a suspension of disbelief problem. That being said, 4e is not framing healing magic as being about repairing physical injury. 4e hit points appear to be so far abstracted away from wounds and healing that they should almost abandon the terms wounds and healing.
4e's healing system is an entirely different level of abstraction from any prior edition. Any argument that proceeds from the assumption that healing and hit points mean the same thing between editions is flawed from the get go. If you don't want more abstract combat, you won't like 4e because the various "healing" abilities are not actually healing anything. However, with that in mind, it's not really a fair criticism of 4e to frame healing in 3e terms and then complain that 4e is doing something absurd (e.g., causing your broken arm to heal because your friend shouts out "you rock!" during combat) when it operates completely differently in game terms (e.g., you are exhausted and find it difficult to continue fighting and your friend shouts out "you rock!" and you decide to press on because he has inspired you). 4e healing makes sense in the context of 4e damage.
It's funny because the same strawman would frequently come up in people's complaints about 2e round lengths. Each round lasted a minute because the abstraction in that system was that in any given minute of combat, you would have maybe one or two opportunities to land an attack. The attack roll in 2e was not the only attack made during that minute of combat.
Of course, where you get all sorts of legitimate criticism is where the level of abstraction breaks down and the models are not internally consistent. A good example is in 2e where fighting with an additional weapon gives an additional attack. It's not clear why this should be true given that the attack roll does not represent the ability to strike with the weapon but the success of an offensive flurry. Why would you suddenly get to make two offensive flurries because you have two weapons?
If 4e has attacks that cause gaping head wounds and lets the Warlord heal said gaping head wounds with really inspirational words that will be a problem for my suspension of disbelief. I'm not even entirely sure that this new level of abstraction is my ideal level of abstraction (it's probably not), but I'm willing to give it a try to see if the increased fun exceeds the decreased simulationism.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That last post of mine is way too long, so I'll be stupid and do one more.
I think the statement that you could run Conan with 4e is a narrow way of framing what it means to run a Conan-like game. I defer to the Conan fans on the boards, but I think part of what makes Conan Conan is the grittiness of the setting. 4e does not look like a rules set for the grim and gritty crowd. Sure, you can remove the "magic" using classes, but that doesn't make the magic-esque martial abilities easier to swallow. It doesn't give you a good way to frame second-wind style healing as a non-magical event. If you remove things like the second-wind or the Warlord's healing, that's going to create game balance issues (though probably no more so than removing magic from 3e, which apparently many believe to be a very easy thing to do).
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.Ok yea, he has a point. Its really difficult right now to only have the magic systems you want in the world and not those you don't. The magic systems are to intertwined to .... Oh wait....
Third Dawn explores a world without arcane or divine magic, a world where the power of the mind has risen to fill in the gap left by the departure of the magic of the ancient world.Crap. Well. I guess another WotC employee is touting another aspect of the game that already exists as if its a new innovation.
Likely by simply expanding on psionic powers as healing. So its not really different at all: its just magic by another name.
We just don't throw as many literal punches now.
HA! Thank you. That brought up some satisfying mental images. But on a more serious note, I am fairly certain a lot of the "heated debate" would wind down fast if we could throw punches. Of that I am certain.
My first thought when I read Mearls' post was "cool."
My first thought when I read Mearls' post was "cool."
Do you mean "cool," in the "I'm really digging where this is going" kind of way?
Or do you mean "cool," as in WotC's "All other editions are crap, and 4th Edition is the s#~!" kind of way?
|
|
One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game. You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but it is possible to create a martial one.
This does sound nice.
The D&D game has never really been like the EverQuest/Warcraft model of 'must have tank, healer, enchanter or we can't go,' but I know that the whole 'power source / role' hoopla has sounded very much like D&D was going that way.
It's reassuring to hear that these roles won't be 'must-haves.'
