|
Rodney,
Thanks for coming by to answer questions -- it's very much appreciated.
My question -- with the changes to death and dying, critical hits, negative levels, and magical healing, it seems at first impression that the game is a lot less deadly, or more specifically, there are fewer penalties for players who are not 'skilled', be it at tactical combat, resource management, or teamwork, which concerns me. Can you share an example of how 'game mastery', or skill at playing, has been kept in the game, and is rewarded?
Thanks!
How far in development were the rules last August?I'm not sure exactly how to answer this one, to be honest. It'd been through playtesting and was in development, but it's such a fluid process I couldn't really get more specific. If you have a more specific way of phrasing the question, though, I'll be more than happy to take a crack at it.
Cool, thanks Rodney.
My question had some negativity to it, but if you give me this chance, I'll turn it around into a straight forward one instead.
Here is some context. I don't believe that the distribution of the rules has been delayed by lawyers, or disconcerned Hasbro executives (as both have been suggested).. I believe they've been delayed by more refinement of the rules content itself. Understanding where I'm coming from might help you answer the question as I take another crack at it. And if this assumption is wrong, then feel free to correct that as well.
Also, if the rules aren't ready, I don't begrudge them being held back until they are. I can't find myself being that unreasonable. I don't expect third party publishers to get them until they're absolutely ready.
Having said all that: This seems to be a lot of last minute work for a project that seemed well into development last August. is that perception accurate? Can you address that?
Or perhaps has playtesting and public reaction caused a serious second look at certain aspects of the game?
Thanks again for being willing to review these questions! I can't honesly say I wasn't without sarcasm the first time, but this time I have no agenda other than curiousity.
|
Why do you feel it worth while to "fire" your loyal constiuents through asinine marketing used to cover up the self-gratefying "re-imagining" when, for example, if you had left Dragon & Dungeon in the far superior hands of Paizo you could have more positively hid the fact that you were creating a brand new game in a complete MMORPG-sated vaccuum?
First off, let me say to Rodney that I believe I speak for everyone (except maybe those that you chose not to answer ;-) ) when I say "Thank you for your time, and patience."
Why now?Kind of an open-ended question, but one that's been answered before. In fact, I believe it's been answered multiple times by Bill Slavicsek:
Why 4th Edition and why now? Because the time was right. My R&D team has been watching the play environment since the release of the 3.5 rules, listening to what you, the players, have been telling us.
Okay, since it is really Bill Slavicseks point, I won't hold it against you if you aren't in a position to answer. But here is my one question:
Do the designers and developers determine the difference between what people don't like, and what is really a problem - and if I can tack a sub question on, what is being done to ensure that alterations are really needed?
I could go into length of what I mean by this, if anyone requests it. But the short story is, from my experience (and it is rather limited) the 4th Edition rulesset is the "second time D&D has gone down." The first time was for the 3rd to 3.5 fixes (which I can't fault), and now for 3.x to 4th. As the saying goes, "Drowning people sink under the surface three times before it is all over." And while I am really not fond of the changes, I fear for the game, the industry, and the hobby.
|
Mr. Thompson,
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions on this thread. Its been stated before, but it really helps to allay fears when someone "in the know" talks to us.
1) It's probably a cap as far as official support goes; however, given the construction of the 4E rules it probably wouldn't be hard to keep things going past that. The point of going to 30 is to support epic play in the first place right out of the gate, preventing the need to a separate add-on expanding the levels upward. Like I say, though, you can probably keep going after 30...but the vast majority of D&D games will never make it that far, so anything 30+ probably won't see a lot of official support. That said, you can keep playing at 30th-level all you want...you'd just stop advancing.
I was really afraid this would be the case. I realize that there was a hard level cap in 2E, modified in some cases by certain products usually for spellcaster. I felt one of the innovations of 3E was the potential of unlimited game play/character development. To the people I game with, the fact that we could continue playing the same characters for many years encouraged us to "invest" in them and I've found its resulted in well developed characters.
I realize that the 3E rules were a "separate add-on" and that for a lot of them they were designed to prevent a gross imbalance between the PC's and Monsters/NPC's. I've heard a lot of people complain about these rules, but my groups have enjoyed epic level games even more than other levels of play.
I'm guessing the 30th level limit was either the product of research done by WOTC which stated that few people play epic games beyond 30th OR it was what the design team decided would allow for a smoother progression for the new mechanics. I have no problem with the latter, but for the former I submit that 30th level is where I have heard most people say that the epic game "breaks down" (my current group is around 35th...). I have to wonder, if the system was "smoother," would more people play beyond 30th level?
2) You can certainly slow down advancement the same way you always could: by reducing XP awarded. As for treasure, you just distribute treasure at the same levels you normally would. Also, as Mearls mentioned on another thread on ENWorld, it's pretty easy to strip magic items out of 4E, because it's really only assumed you have a very few enhancement bonuses, and you'll know exactly where those belong. So, theoretically, you could run a game without magic items with just a couple of numeric tweaks, preventing the whole "vast wealth" problem, methinks.
The reduced treasure option is a possibile work around for my character development concerns stated above, giving both ample time for development and avoiding the Monte Haul game. I've read the article in question, but I wonder of the game's "assumed item" values will be explicitly stated. Will I have a chart stating "+3 to ST's at xx level" or is it something that I need to wing?
One new question, will there be "wealth by level" table somewhere? I would assume so but well all know how assumptions can turn out.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.
FP
Edit: Message board has eaten this post twice now... hope the third try is the charm.
After people expressed disappointment that gnomes wouldn't be a core race, there has been some rather confused talk concerning their being playable via the Monster Manual. Can you confirm whether or not the Monster Manual will feature non-standard races, and if so will they also get the same progression of racial feats as the other races in the Player's Handbook?
|
|
This is yet another 4E post. I couldn't help but notice we have several celebrity lurkers on these boards. That is, WotC staff from all over the company. So, I thought that since their boards won't host anything like this, I would try it out.
Since the sacred cows have all been butchered for the coming of the all great new 4e, what will be dumped come 5e ? What are the holy pigs planned to go next time ?
Seriously, I fail to see how it was impossible to keep the flavour of older editions and why so much fluff had to be redone.
Would it not have been easier to write up something new without canning the elements the old guard liked ?
Rodney, SRM, or any other WotC Poster,
First off, thank you for taking the time to answer here at all. Most of the folks I see here on a day to day basis are Big fans of RPGs and D&D in particular. I am no different. After a lot of thought and library perusal, I must say, that the biggest concern to me; and the one I seem to see the most often is this: Being one of the big fans of the move from 2nd ed. to 3.0, I was a bit upset at the 3.5 upgrade. I went out and purchased the new core books. The thing that made it palateable was the fact that the game was the same, but the Rules had been tuned up.
3.5 was something that was needed and wanted. My old books didnt need to go on the shelf with my 2nd ed. collection. The most common response to this has typically been to just suck it up and keep playing this still totally useable game. Fine. Unfortunately, this doesn't do you folks at WotC any favors at all. Based on what has been released so far, there is nothing that will make me WANT to pay the money. This is the imortant thing here. Mediocre sales is not what the goal of a new edition is.
As I asked in another thread, with a minor revision. Was the past so terrible that it needs to be dropped? Is wizards predicting the new interest in 4E to be so great they can ignore a fracture of it's core fan base? I understand that these are "marketing" type questions, but having worked product design for a number of years, I know that departments tend to mingle a lot.
I will accept a NDA conflict if it applies, but please tell your superiors that ignoring the "grognards" I believe is a mistake. Otherwise be well, and don't get the fracking flu that is going around.
tis lame.
Why did WotC kill Dragon and Dungeon magazine?
|
|
Why did WotC kill Dragon and Dungeon magazine?
I know they answered that one. 'It was obvious that it was the right time'.
I just wish they would explain how that makes sense. It is still not obvious to me.
Of course, I'm sure a lot of other publishers are happy about it. I just dropped another $400 on gaming materials at Paizo.com yesterday and not a penny of it went to a WotC item. Which is strange, because it used to be that every dollar I spent on other games meant at least $100 for WotC.
|
If I could ask just one question:
How does the 30+ years of D&D mythology, lore, and tradition come into play in 4E? Every preview we see has been "what we have changed/thrown out." What about the stuff you kept?
As for the Dragon & Dungeon mags, I think WotC was threatened by the popularity of the AP's and was moving into the business of printed adventures themselves (which they had mostly avoided up to that point). Also, why subscribe to DDI if you can get great supplemental material and the stuff they left out of the books from Dragon (and have it presented more professionally and empathicly)
-Ryn
Considering that the designers seem to be worrying a lot about rogues' combat capabilities and such things, how much effort is put to integrate those campaigns where combat does not play a major role to 4th edition?
|
Rodney (aka Moridin 8-)), I really admire the way you've come to these boards and answered peoples posts and queries despite the sometimes hostile atmosphere.
Personally I'm really looking forward to 4th edition anyway and like the proposed changes, BUT the big seller for me has been the enthusiasm and forthrightness of the wotc staff members like yourself.
I know from long time lurking at the SWRPG Network that you wouldn't throw your support behind a game you didn't like and I get the same impression from many of the other guys.
Look forward to anything else you can reveal to us either in crunch, fluff or just design philosophy.
Later Days
Many years ago, before 3rd edition was out, me and a few friends made a stab at designing a brand new game system. What started with lots of ideas and enthusiasm, started to break down into deadlocks with details very quickly. What stats and skills should there be? Weapon proficiencies or weapon group skills? How much statistical weight should equipment have versus character skill?
After a couple of months of design it became clear that the task we had set ourself was much bigger than any of us had anticipated. We eventually gave up, and got hooked by 3rd edition instead when it came out, and have been playing D&D exclusively since then.
What we learned from our experiment was that game design, like any other design really, benefits enormously from what has gone before. If software designers had to start from scratch each time, invent a high level programming language, build editors and compilers, write all tools required, new software would never emerge.
I just wanted to present that little analogy as a compelling argument for a new edition (and future new editions) and belief that it will be better than what has gone before. The designers of this edition have all of the experience and statistical data to look back on, all the way down past 1st edition to the original Chainmail game.
And now for a question! :)
Are there any plans for or discussion about a brand new setting at all?
If software designers had to start from scratch each time, invent a high level programming language, build editors and compilers, write all tools required, new software would never emerge.
I just wanted to present that little analogy as a compelling argument for a new edition
4th Edition is.... Windows Vista? Yeah, great analogy :/
4th Edition is.... Windows Vista? Yeah, great analogy :/
LOL - unfortunately Microsoft has been shooting itself in the foot with its backwards compatibility efforts (regardless of how successful or not!), a symptom game design is not necessarily subject to.
|
|
If Train A were leaving Los Angeles at 6:30 PM, travelling 100 mph, and Train B were.....
Just kidding!
Seriously, (although I don't know if someones asked this yet):
In the last "Forgotten Realms" article I read, it stated that Shar was preventing the ascendance of a new deity of magic. Does this mean that Ao is dead, or does he just not care?
Hey cool, Rodney answered. In that case, and despite the fact he seemingly ignored my earlier questions, I've got a few more:
Sorry it took me so long to get back, I had an extremely busy day at work. Also, if I didn't answer your questions, it was probably because I either had no ability/authority to answer it, or because it was worded in such a way that I thought it would only produce an answer the poster wanted to hear and not a real, honest answer. In your case, I'm just not qualified to answer some of the questions.
-If gnomes are being reimagined, what will happen to gnome character's in various novels, such as the Drizzt stories?
I think we've already seen that not every race has to be exactly the same across campaign settings. Look at what Eberron does with halflings, for example, or goblins. Though I'm speaking purely in speculation here, I suspect that such changes can exist across continuities of several settings. There are no novels set in the core D&D non-setting, so there's no continuity to worry about there.
Will there be stats for the Shade in 4E?
I'm at home so I don't have an MM with me, sorry, but if there's not you'll be able to whip one up very quickly.
1. Could you explain what the purpose of each combat role is in more depth ?
2. What is the class design process like in 4e ?
3. What other role playing games do the folks at Wizards play? What about board games?
4. We all know that Mike Mearls and Rich Baker must be stopped. Are you doing your part to vanquish these fiends?
1. Wow, that's a bit more complex than I can answer in a short forum post. I'll give you some one-liners on them, but keep in mind that a role just defines some of the basic expectations of the class, and that it can go about accomplishing those expectations in MANY ways, and it can certainly do MORE than that. Also, some classes are one role, but have the ability to lean into others (paladin is a defender who leans into leader, while fighter is a defender who leans into striker, for example).
Defenders should protect his allies, either directly or indirectly, and encourage opponents to deal with him first. Leaders should pump up the abilities of their allies, provide healing, and do battlefield control on the side of his allies. Controllers on the other hand specialize in battlefield control for the opponents, sometimes by eliminating opponents (think area effects like fireball) and sometimes through trickier means (web, ray of enfeeblement, or wall spells come to mind). Strikers excel at damage against a low number of targets, and tend to want to pick off enemies one or two at a time.
2. It starts in multiple places; "we want paladins" and "we need a divine defender" are both perfectly legitimate starting points for class design. Class design can be tricky because you want to find interesting and unique ways to fill the core role while still providing a lot of options for how the class plays. For example, let's say we're designing the whirling dervish class. We know we want to make him a mobile attacker who can sometimes hit all the foes around him, so we probably want him to be a striker who leans into controller a little bit. Once we get down his core abilities that let him be a striker, we want to provide some methods of providing control. Of course, we pick skills and bonus feats that are appropriate for the class' flavor, too (in this case, things like Acrobatics to help him tumble around, or Streetwise if this guy is supposed to grow up on the mean streets of a Zakharan city), and then the rest is all power design.
3. Wow, a lot. I personally run Star Wars Saga Edition, but we play D&D 3.5, Savage Worlds, or Call of Cthulhu on Mondays depending on Mearls' mood. We bust out the ol' Marvel Superheroes or M&M from time to time. There's a lunchtime Savage Worlds game going, and I know there's a contingent of Hero System players as well. As for board games, far, far too many to name. My personal faves are Shadows Over Camelot, Ticket to Ride, and Catan. There are also a lot of minis players; SRM is a big 40k and Warmachine player, I believe.
4. Heh. Mike and Rich are great guys and talented designers. I couldn't stop 'em if I wanted to.
My question -- with the changes to death and dying, critical hits, negative levels, and magical healing, it seems at first impression that the game is a lot less deadly, or more specifically, there are fewer penalties for players who are not 'skilled', be it at tactical combat, resource management, or teamwork, which concerns me. Can you share an example of how 'game mastery', or skill at playing, has been kept in the game, and is rewarded?
I wouldn't say skilled play is unrewarded. For example, movement, positioning, character creation choices, etc. all come into play regularly, and skill of play is rewarded through those venues. Also, despite how it may seem, people do die in 4E. The Wednesday night game I play in has had 3 deaths already, and we're only 5th level. That having been said, if you find yourself behind the 8-ball (say, if you have a particularly creative DM who loves to push you to the brink, ahem) it's easier to find creative ways to get out. I find combat in 4E to be much more of a rollercoaster than before, with the tide shifting one way and then the next over the course of the encounter. Much of this is due to monster design, but also because there are few situations where you find yourself just completely screwed. Resource management is still part of the game, however, and if you try and push too hard or make some bad decisions it can come back to haunt you. Teamwork, especially, is encouraged by the game, I think; if you suck at teamwork, you won't for long, as the game opens up a lot of creative ways to work together. My wizard, for example, works great with the warlord, who helps keep me out of danger when I've got a pack of bad guys in my face; just recently in a fight against a black dragon, the dragon immobilized everyone and came swooping in after me, but thanks to the warlord I only spent one round under the tender ministrations of the black dragon before he was able to move me away and save my life.
A lot of the changes that seem to be coming through (emphasis on combat, everything measured in 'squares') says to me that 4th Edition is going to be to all intents and purposes a board game...But isn't there any worry at Hasbro that this big board game that they've spent so much money planning and developing may very well end up competing for time/shelf-space with products that they already own, (such as the former Parker Games lines), instead of drawing new players into the board game market from online or 'video' games?
I think many people will be pleasantly surprised with how much 4E plays like an upgraded version of 3.5E. If you don't think 3.5 is just another board game, I don't think you'll think 4E is. 4E isn't a board game, it isn't a miniatures game. Without sounding like I'm self-promoting, we switched to the "squares" nomenclature for Saga Edition and it hasn't transformed that into a board game. Maybe this is why I'm not concerned, but I heard all of the same accusations leveled at Saga Edition before it's launch, and I think when it comes out you'll see it's another roleplaying game in the D&D tradition. Yes, it's minis compatible because a large portion of the D&D audience uses minis or some similar representation, but so was 3.5. Calling a 5-foot square a square isn't going to change that.
Having said all that: This seems to be a lot of last minute work for a project that seemed well into development last August. is that perception accurate? Can you address that?
Or perhaps has playtesting and public reaction caused a serious second look at certain aspects of the game?
Ah, I understand now. One thing I've come to believe is that very few game designers ever are really satisfied with their work. On a project as large as D&D there will continue to be changes up through the day it goes off to the printers. Heck, on Saga Edition, I made some emergency changes AFTER it went off to the printers. To be more accurate, most of these changes are tweaks. Should this be a +2 bonus, or a +3? Should this spell be a level lower, or higher? Should this weapon do 1d12 or 2d6? Ultimately, no amount of testing and refinement will ever be enough, as evidenced by the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect roleplaying game, but as more and more people play the game we continue to find ways to refine it. So, no, I woudln't say there's any more last minute work on this game than there is on any other game of its complexity, and I know for a fact that the same thing happened with Saga Edition and even 3rd Edition before.
Do the designers and developers determine the difference between what people don't like, and what is really a problem - and if I can tack a sub question on, what is being done to ensure that alterations are really needed?
Such thoughts are definitely on the minds of D&D designers, developers, editors, etc. A lot of times, the discussion goes "People don't like system X; do we jettison it, or try and fix it?" Sometimes, the answer is neither, and we change something else that makes system X work more smoothly. The bottom line is that D&D is being designed to provide the D&D experience and do so in a way that is fun, interesting, and smooth. That being said, if a lot of people say, "I don't like X," it's a good bet that X is worth taking a look at.
The reduced treasure option is a possibile work around for my character development concerns stated above, giving both ample time for development and avoiding the Monte Haul game. I've read the article in question, but I wonder of the game's "assumed item" values will be explicitly stated. Will I have a chart stating "+3 to ST's at xx level" or is it something that I need to wing?
It's pretty evident in the PHB where those bonuses should come into play.
After people expressed disappointment that gnomes wouldn't be a core race, there has been some rather confused talk concerning their being playable via the Monster Manual. Can you confirm whether or not the Monster Manual will feature non-standard races, and if so will they also get the same progression of racial feats as the other races in the Player's Handbook?
I'm pretty sure gnomes have been slated for the playable race index since well before the game's announcement. You won't have quite as much material on them as you would one of the PHB races, but they're certainly playable.
As I asked in another thread, with a minor revision. Was the past so terrible that it needs to be dropped? Is wizards predicting the new interest in 4E to be so great they can ignore a fracture of it's core fan base?
Look, I'm not going to try and justify the edition any more than Bill did. Suffice it to say that at a certain point the build up of new game design tech just lends itself well to a new game.
For several years until I moved out to Seattle I would ride with Robert Schwalb (of Green Ronin publishing) up to Origins in Columbus. Right after Book of Nine Swords came out, Rob and I had a long conversation on the way home about how Bo9S could be adapted to rogues, rangers, wizards, etc. We talked about some of the changes we were making on Star Wars. We talked about d20 Modern. Eventually, I started to realize that continuing to try and bolt on these other systems (each of which I thought presented some great gameplay options) would ultimately lead to unbalanced mechanics and rules bloat. No matter how good the ideas are, and how good the game design is, you're always going to run the risk of completely obsoleting the core rulebook, which is something you never want to do. That's why 4E was fine by me when they told me they were working on it. I felt like it was time before I got here, and I stand by that.
How does the 30+ years of D&D mythology, lore, and tradition come into play in 4E? Every preview we see has been "what we have changed/thrown out." What about the stuff you kept?
Well, it wouldn't be a very interesting preview for me to say, "Well, zombies are the same. Also, mind flayers. Also beholders. Also the githyanki and githzerai. Also, not much changing on the Yuan-Ti."
Yeah, you're going to hear about the new stuff, but I think a lot of the classic D&D mythology remains intact. Some stuff gets reimagined or tweaked, but that happens with every edition. A lot of planar stuff got changed, it's true, but a lot of it is still around. All I'll say is that I had a very, very interesting conversation with Chris Youngs the other day about the Lich Queen's Beloved adventure and how we could use stuff from it in 4E adventures.
I think a lot of people are just startled that the 4E designers weren't declaring anything sacred, and things that were feared to be touched got, well, touched. My hope is that, when the books come out, it'll be easy to see how almost any classic D&D concept can be done in 4E. I certainly haven't had any problems with my Al-Qadim conversions I've been doing (for personal use only, don't get any rumors started or hopes up).
Considering that the designers seem to be worrying a lot about rogues' combat capabilities and such things, how much effort is put to integrate those campaigns where combat does not play a major role to 4th edition?
Combat requires the most work to get it right, as it requires the most balance. That said, the non-combat encounter system is pretty sweet, and I've heard numerous people say that the 4E DMG is excellent (including Nick Logue over here). I think it does a fine job, at least on par with 3rd Edition and IMO better thanks to the noncombat encounter system. It definitely encourages more people to get involved in noncombat scenes.
Did you expect the negative response to the announcement of 4E?
(A buddy of mine attended GenCon UK and told me that the crowd at the 4E seminar were the most hostile he had ever seen at an RPG convention!)
I wasn't at GenCon UK so I'm not familiar with what happened. That having been said, I think we all expected some skepticism and worry at first. Though there have certainly been some adamant and zealous naysayers, though, there's also been a lot of positive response. My coworkers tell me that the parallels with the 3rd Edition launch are extremely strong.
Are there any plans for or discussion about a brand new setting at all?
Sadly, I can't talk about what might (or, heck, might not) be coming out in the future. I can't even say what we're NOT publishing for the Star Wars RPG, and that's my primary responsibility!
That's it for now. I'll try and check back soon.
Just when I thought my question was too...something, there it was! lol. Once again, thank you for coming to our humble board to answer questions for us. My anti-4E meter has dropped from no fracking way to heavily guarded curiousity.
I am willing to be open minded and check it out, but the groaning bookshelf behind me tells me that I am just too tapped out to start collecting a whole new edition. That may or may not change in the future depending on the qualkity and flavor of the product in question.
Can you tell us when we can expect the floodgates of information to open up? Official release is closing and there is very little concrete information still! Can't help but remember the 3.0 and 3.5 buildups and how well they were covered in Dungeon and Dragon, but that is a seperate discussion all by itself.
Just when I thought my question was too...something, there it was! lol. Once again, thank you for coming to our humble board to answer questions for us. My anti-4E meter has dropped from no fracking way to heavily guarded curiousity.
I am willing to be open minded and check it out, but the groaning bookshelf behind me tells me that I am just too tapped out to start collecting a whole new edition. That may or may not change in the future depending on the qualkity and flavor of the product in question.Can you tell us when we can expect the floodgates of information to open up? Official release is closing and there is very little concrete information still! Can't help but remember the 3.0 and 3.5 buildups and how well they were covered in Dungeon and Dragon, but that is a seperate discussion all by itself.
I think I can actually help with this one. The deluge of information should begin at D&D Experience in a few weeks - I believe it's been mentioned in a Podcast or somewhere else that tons of info will be given out there, as well as actual demos of 4th edition.
Do the designers and developers determine the difference between what people don't like, and what is really a problem - and if I can tack a sub question on, what is being done to ensure that alterations are really needed?Such thoughts are definitely on the minds of D&D designers, developers, editors, etc. A lot of times, the discussion goes "People don't like system X; do we jettison it, or try and fix it?" Sometimes, the answer is neither, and we change something else that makes system X work more smoothly. The bottom line is that D&D is being designed to provide the D&D experience and do so in a way that is fun, interesting, and smooth. That being said, if a lot of people say, "I don't like X," it's a good bet that X is worth taking a look at.
The two bolded lines seem to be contradictory to me. But work was less than ideal today, so I may just be cranky.
But still, I am not certain we are having the same conversation. If all you were trying to say is "If more than a few people gripe about System X, we should review it," then I can't argue that. But if you are saying that System X should be reviewed with an expectation of some sort of revision, then we are on different channels, so to speak.
I can only go by 3.5 and earlier editions right now. But in that context, I can tell you that there are a few of us that didn't like the changes in some of the spells from 3.0 to 3.5. (Examples: Haste, Heal/Harm, Charm Person) Are you saying that if I/we got enough people together behind us that the staff at WotC would have given serious thought to reverting the spells back to 3.0 status? (If 4th Edition wasn't in the works at the time.)
I would certainly hope not! Because even though the few of us don't like the changes, we can admit that they are needed - and are improvements to the game.
Another example is Turn Undead. There are at least a handful of posters on these boards that don't like the mechanic. I don't blame them, but I don't feel there is much that can be done to improve it (again, for 3.5 only).
But let's examine that, as purely an academic type exercise:
We have two rolls that determine what a Cleric can or can't accomplish with it, it is rather closely tied to Cleric level (not much variation), and it is "balanced" in the sense that a 1st level Cleric can't affect a Vampire Lord (no matter how much s/he may want to) and a 20th level Cleric can't have Skeletons resist them (normally).
The two alterations that come to mind are;
1) Saving Throw - Adjust the mechanic to be a saving throw for the undead instead. Even if we ignore the possibility of a large increase in dice rolls, this still posses the problem that a 1st level Cleric has a 5% chance of affecting a Vampire Lord (okay, could put a level based clause in there to fix this) and every Skeleton has a 5% chance to resist a level 20 Cleric (sure, you could put in an "automatic" level based effect - but then you are taking the system back to "clunky").
2) Caster Level Check - Some function of level + D20. That just opens the spread too much, unless you start dividing the D20 roll. And then you bring it right back down to the Level Check that is already there.
Either of these systems may be great, and many people may love them. But they don't improve the mechanic. They simply trade one set of flaws for another.
I have said it in another thread (that I can't expect you to have read Rodney), "Just because people don't like the mechanics, doesn't mean they need to be changed."
But then, we may have fundamentally different views on that.
Can you tell us when we can expect the floodgates of information to open up?
Probably after D&D Experience next week.
The two bolded lines seem to be contradictory to me. But work was less than ideal today, so I may just be cranky.
Not contradictory at all. If we hear a lot of complaints about a certain system, we take a good, hard look at it. From there we determine whether to make changes, jettison the system entirely, find other ways to fix it, or do nothing. It sounds like exactly what you're talking about.
There are also times when a game designer comes up with something may be unpopular at first blush but playtesting reveals actually works. For example, the removal of the 5-foot step from Saga Edition was largely met with derision when first announced, but we had playtested the game with that change and knew that it worked. That would be a case where game design principles trumped "popular opinion."
The truth of the matter is that it's always a give and take. Game designers are game designers because they have a solid grasp of what makes good game mechanics. At the same time, a good game designer knows that sometimes he's going to be wrong, and that there is no playtesting like the playtesting done by the millions of D&D players worldwide. Sure, the designers at Wizards will have a vision for the game, and players may have their own, but the key to good design is knowing how to strike a balance between the two (a fact that all the designers here are aware of).
Again, Mr. Thomson, you're proving to be an awesome breath of fresh air with regards to 4e. It really means a lot to have someone from WotC personally look at and answer questions. Consequently we're flooding you. Sorry.
I've been reading Worlds & Monsters and the idea of what constitutes the game "world" is a bit tricky. I'm hoping for a nice overarching place to contain the various adventures and sourcebook materials, and from some of what I've seen it looks to be that: specific countries, race backstories, adventure sites and historical events--even specific names for this place, like The Middle Realm (which I personally love a lot) or Creation.
Other stuff though makes me think the term "world" is actually more like a "template" which gets applied to any setting to make it feel more intrinsically D&D.
The former I love. The latter I worry about. I don't know how well the template fits the two established settings, and likewise I worry that we might end up with the same problem as last time around--lots of books with "setting" information that seem to describe no setting in particular.
I guess if you could clarify what the new Core Setting will be like, I'd be really really grateful.
Thanks again. Sorry for the longwinded question.
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions here. It is much appreciated.
I really like the idea of the Feywild and Shadowfell and I was wondering if there has been any talk floating around WoTC of doing sourcebooks for those areas?
The thing I'm most curious about in the new edition is the cleric. In third edition clerics of different gods are little more than the same person wearing a different hat - powers, spell lists and abilities are almost identical regardless of who they happen to worship. I've always thought this was just plain wrong.
What will fourth edition do to differentiate between two clerics who worship different gods? Will there be meaningful differences in their powers and spells they can cast?
Many thanks!
Neil.
Hmm .. . . I started another thread (4e roles) shortly before this thread started asking a question . . . and it seemed to verify what I thought from general consensus opinion of those not affiliated with WotC, so I'll quickly paraphrase the question here since Rodney seems to be keeping an eye on this thread . . .
Are people getting too hung up on class names in regard to designing characters? for example if the say I want a fighter character with x,y,and z abilities, where as those abilities are such that the fit closer in line a different class. Similar to the debates between the jedi class vs. Jedi Order debates on the Saga forums back when the new edition of star wars came out.
I'm not so sure that's true in 3.5 (and 2e had the Specialty Priests that made a great deal of differentiation possible...).
You've got Domains, Domain Powers, plus individual Feat and Skill selections; if all Clerics are just the same person in different suits, your group may well be nerfing them, going with "optimal" spells and Talent selections instead of spells and Talents reflecting the individual Deity worshipped - or the setting your using is not well-defined.
In either case, I suspect a group that has this problem now will still see it in 4e (or if they go back to 2e or 1e, or even go "sideways" to HackMaster or whatever).
You have domains, sure, but domains offer mincey little abilities and nine spells. Feats and Skills can diffrentiate your Cleric, but no more than any other class. I believe the poster was asking about whether two Clerics of a different diety will have any inherent mechanical differences (like 2E's sphere access, or the specialty priest).
The thing I'm most curious about in the new edition is the cleric. In third edition clerics of different gods are little more than the same person wearing a different hat - powers, spell lists and abilities are almost identical regardless of who they happen to worship. I've always thought this was just plain wrong.
You could institute some alternate rules from the SRD like Spontaneous Divine Casters if you wish more differentiation among clerics in 3.x games. If you use Weapon Group Feats as well, clerics aren't stuck with "standard" selections of crossbow and heavy mace/morning star (unless the spend a feat or have the War domain), either.
I kind of liked the idea of Law and Chaos being removed from the game so the rogue writeup took me by surprise. Is there anything you can say to alleviate my concerns ?
I am still waiting to be WOW'ed by your new system before I will actually buy it, so as a fence-sitter leaning a bit away from you guys, here are my questions.
1) When are we going to get a real preview of new spell mechanics and a real spell list for the wizard?
2) My guess is the biggest potential rift you guys face is crossing over to a new spellcasting system, especially with the fact you seem to be taking out so much stuff (necro, enchant, illusion, SoD, specialization now new classes, a few tricks gone that were apparently drinking other peoples koolaid), changing the vanician system, and changing descriptions into combat/non-combat. Do you feel people who already in love with the wizard and other spellcasting classes that are now sitting on the back of the bus, (druids and bards) will be happy with the versatility that has always been the staple of their characters?
3) Will there be a way to add powerful spellcasting ability to some of the new monsters without blasting their CR thru the roof? Your Pit Fiend preview made me very upset. :(
*if you cannot answer all of them answer #2. My faith in your new game will probably hinge on the spellcasting system, seeing is I view the rest as a mixture of good and bad.
How is it that you're looking at finished galleys of the core books over at WotC (according to Bill Slavicsek), while the GSL and rules still haven't been distributed to the early adopters among the other publishers?