4E basic on WotC web


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

They are on the D&D experience page, quick rules primer.

I hope Paizo stays with 3.5, I am cancelling my 4e orders!
Anyone else read this yet?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome


They need to fix their banner formating. It isn't showing up right in either Safari or FireFox. Everything is a line below the bullet and the preview thing is almost hidden by their sub-section selector How does it look for you IE folks?

Downloaded anyways. Post more later.


Here is a direct link to download the rules primer (courtesy of EnWorld) for those who use a browser other than IE. It amazes me how difficult it is for them to do something properly on the site without any major errors.

Edit: Changed wording

Dark Archive

Aaron Whitley wrote:
Here is a direct link to download the rules primer (courtesy of EnWorld) for those who anything other than IE. God forbid they actually do something properly with their website.

Thank you.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4th Edition: Because apparently a 20ft spear can't actually block anything!

4th edition: Because 'controller' means damage!

4th edition: Because durations don't matter outside of combat!

4th edition: Because charging shouldn't be a trade-off!

Short rests: Because nothing ever comes looking for you!

Sigh. 4th edition looks more and more hack-n-slash the more I hear about it.


I can tell I've been playing other systems for the last decade. This is just not provoking a heart attack in me.

I suppose that's why I'm going with Paizo either way they decide to go. I just can't read this and say, "OMG! Oh no!" (And I don't mean to spark the debate about what is good and bad about the edition). Mostly I reckon I'm not qualified to judge.

I will say, it does look simpler, which can be okay, except I would want the system to be able to model a large variety of situations like 3.5 does.


I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Doesn't seem like many big changes that I see (at least, from what we already knew!)


New to me:
* Running is +2 squares flat
* Saving throws are no longer Fort/Ref/Will (those're defences) but a flat roll of 10 or higher to end an effect.
* Durations last until you save or the encounter ends. "That viper's poison would've had me if we hadn't killed it so fast!"
* Reach only counts on your turn.
* Charging is all good

*heavy sigh* So what parts changed your mind, Cy?


I have house ruled about a half of this already. What is the big deal?

Sovereign Court

Axcalibar wrote:

New to me:

* Running is +2 squares flat
* Saving throws are no longer Fort/Ref/Will (those're defences) but a flat roll of 10 or higher to end an effect.
* Durations last until you save or the encounter ends. "That viper's poison would've had me if we hadn't killed it so fast!"
* Reach only counts on your turn.
* Charging is all good

*heavy sigh* So what parts changed your mind, Cy?

Gee all of it?!!?

I guess it is just me but this is just a too simplistic way to do things - no matter the casters level (1st or 25th) once effected by a spell you have the same chance to break it?? Sorry I don'y like it.
No jogging or sprinting just +2 if you run? Again too simple for me I can handle more details then that without the game slowing down.

Liberty's Edge

I won't complain about the content. While 4th edition is not something I'm interested in, this kind of thing would have been nice to see a few months ago. You know, to kind of describe some of the basics for those who still think in 3.x terms.

It could have gone a lot farther.

The one thing that most bothers me is the rolling a d20 to end an ongoing effect. Essentially you have a 55% chance (or better) to end any ongoing effect per round. (10-20 = 11 numbers on a 20 sided die). It boggles the mind. I'd be very surprised if they didn't start applying penalties to the roll. It may very well end up like 1st edition. Save vs. wands with a -4 penalty....

Because you would think it would be harder to break free from a hold person cast by the most powerful wizard in the world than from a 1st level wizard. I hope.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kirwyn wrote:
I have house ruled about a half of this already. What is the big deal?

Reach: Because it's really silly to think reach isn't useful defensively.

Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot.

Charging: Because tactical effects with tradeoffs are supposed to make for interesting choices. 'All benefit' choices aren't choices.

Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway.

I hate 'per encounter' durations, even with a Barbarian's fatigue in 3E. Who decides when an encounter ends? In AoW, the Hextorian temple in Three Face of Evil became one-dragged out fight, even though there was a round or two with no enemies, because they were fetching reinforcements. Does that make it one encouter, or two? With standard durations and the knowledge that 10 rounds = 1 minute, I didn't need to make that decision.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Folks: every single rules system has trade-offs on how it simulates the "reality" it's going for. Nobody wants a game with Weapon Speed factors and Weapon against Armor Type modifications, a host of fighting styles, and tons of situational modifiers. But when a game system (a) simplifies a real-world situation for "playability", or (b) introduces a subtle fantasy mechanic, some of us try to mock those rules.

4th Edition looks to be a game system for which a lot of pretty smart people spent a fair amount of time. I think it's capable of doing what they want it to do.

It's really not a game I want to buy, but it looks like a great game on its own merits.

(And again, I can't help thinking that if Wizards had "retired" D&D, and announced the new edition with a new title, there would be such a reduced hue and cry.)

Dark Archive

DeadDMWalking wrote:


The one thing that most bothers me is the rolling a d20 to end an ongoing effect. Essentially you have a 55% chance (or better) to end any ongoing effect per round. (10-20 = 11 numbers on a 20 sided die). It boggles the mind. I'd be very surprised if they didn't start applying penalties to the roll. It may very well end up like 1st edition. Save vs. wands with a -4 penalty....

Because you would think it would be harder to break free from a hold person cast by the most powerful wizard in the world than from a 1st level wizard. I hope.

this, saves as AC, resting and action points scare me....let make it as easy as possible for a pc to get out of every situation without a challenge...doesn't sound fun at all from both a player and dm perspective. because player didn't come to have that drama in their simple lives


Cylerist wrote:


Gee all of it?!!?

I guess it is just me but this is just a too simplistic way to do things - no matter the casters level (1st or 25th) once effected by a spell you have the same chance to break it?? Sorry I don'y like it.
No jogging or sprinting just +2 if you run? Again too simple for me I can handle more details then that without the game slowing down.

I agree completely. So the charm spell attacks the targets Will defense and the next round he has a base 55% chance of canceling it. Lame. I guess those mods mentioned in the last sentence could address that, but I don't see why they couldn't just keep the saves the way they are and avoid the issue entirely. I always thought they worked great.


I do see some of the negative points brought up.

It makes me want to see if there's a definition of 'encounter' that this document doesn't provide. Which is a silly thing to ask, but the saves are troubling. Poison in your system is often more of a threat after its source has been dealt with. Edit: Which is a simulationist outlook

Unless perhaps the poison is doing significant damage every round until you succeed on the save? And it's a real threat while it's happening..?

I'm starting to wonder if they're not going on a cinematographic model rather than a simulationist model... which might explain some of this. That is, how would it look in a fantasy action movie rather trying to simulate a fantasy reality? (Didn't mean to sound patronizing, just wanted to be clear).


Ross Byers wrote:


Reach: Because it's really silly to think reach isn't useful defensively.

Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot.

Charging: Because tactical effects with tradeoffs are supposed to make for interesting choices. 'All benefit' choices aren't choices.

Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway.

I hate 'per encounter' durations, even with a Barbarian's fatigue in 3E. Who decides when an encounter ends? In AoW, the Hextorian temple in Three Face of Evil became one-dragged out fight, even though there was a round or two with no enemies, because they were fetching reinforcements. Does that make it one encouter, or two? With standard durations and the knowledge that 10 rounds = 1 minute, I didn't need to make that decision.

I believe the passage specifically mentions "threatening reach" as an ability some creatures have to use reach defensively.

The lack of a charging penalty doesn't bother me, but I think you're assuming there isn't one. Sure you might not get a minus to AC anymore (I didn't even notice if that was indeed omitted) but you probably can still "set to receive charge". I don't know if I've ever seen it used but it has stuck through a few editions now (maybe that's all the more reason to axe it though!)

As for the rest thing, I think you're totally misconstruing it here. They say resting for 5 minutes is enough to get X benefits. Resting for 6 hours is enough to get Y benefits. I don't see anything about "nothing can attack you while resting".

The problem with durations extending outside of combat is that other than a few very specific instances, keeping track of time out of combat is largely arbitrary and difficlt to do. How many times have my players asked me "what buffs are still running" after a fight, the looting of bodies, the wandering of corridors ... etc. I have to guess how much time has passed, and probably end up all over the place in general. Much easier to have most things last the encounter and just be done with it. At least IMO! Cheers :)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

David Marks wrote:

The problem with durations extending outside of combat is that other than a few very specific instances, keeping track of time out of combat is largely arbitrary and difficlt to do. How many times have my players asked me "what buffs are still running" after a fight, the looting of bodies, the wandering of corridors ... etc. I have to guess how much time has passed, and probably end up all over the place in general. Much easier to have most things last the encounter and just be done with it. At least IMO! Cheers :)

Yeah, I hate minutes/level spells for that reason. They push the party to move fast and not take adequate care.

Scarab Sages

Looking at what is released, my initial reaction is that it is too simplistic a system. I remember when I 'moved' up from 'basic' to 'advanced.' It felt like a mark of maturity to move to the more complicated ruleset. If I was ten years old again, I might enjoy it but that was 25 years ago.

Which means, I guess, that I will switch when Paizo switches and I get to that AP, unless I can retro back the modules.


As for defintions of an encouter this gives some insight:

The Game wrote:


Short vs. extended rests- short rest is 5 minutes and recharges per encounter powers. Extended rest is 6 hours, fully heals you, regain all healing surges, get daily powers back, and action points are reset to 1.

From D&D Exp Blog here (Look at 9:40).

Edit: Also under section 6 of the new update.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:

Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway.

I hate 'per encounter' durations, even with a Barbarian's fatigue in 3E. Who decides when an encounter ends? In AoW, the Hextorian temple in Three Face of Evil became one-dragged out fight, even though there was a round or two with no enemies, because they were fetching reinforcements. Does that make it one encouter, or two? With standard durations and the knowledge that 10 rounds = 1 minute, I didn't need to make that decision.

Dang it, Ross, you beat me to it. This is what I came here to say.

The extended rest seems a bit short to recoup abilities that are measured in uses/day. A day should mean 24-hour period, whether you measure that midnight-to-midnight, surise-to-sunrise, or whatever.

Per encounter uses just piss me off for the very reasons Ross stated. It would be better if these things were tied to something tangible, like, I don't know, maybe character or class level.

I have a love-hate relationship with the healing surge as presented. I like the fact that the Cleric doesn't end up be nothing more that a walking potion. On the otherhand, I'm not sure about the whole second wind thing. For me, the devil is going to be in the details.

I'm also ok with the standard/move/minor actions as presented here, but one paragraph probably isn't enough to really get very good fel for it. The shift vs. 5'-step seems like a good idea to me. I never liked the idea of a 5'-step free action.

All-in-all, I'm "meh." Some things I like, some I don't. i can already see it's going to be very different from 3.5e.

-Skeld


Chris Mortika wrote:


<SNIPPAGE>
(And again, I can't help thinking that if Wizards had "retired" D&D, and announced the new edition with a new title, there would be such a reduced hue and cry.)
</END SNIPPAGE>

Chris,

Do you really think that people wouldn't rise up and storm the WotC castle with torches and farm implements if they "killed" D&D and released a new RPG? I think that would have made the whole "they killed Dragon and Dungeon print magazine firestorm" look like a bic lighter low on fuel.

I think people need to get over the idea that we own D&D (the brand) and that the brand is a specific rules set. WotC controls it for good or ill and they can do what they will with it.

Our input into the design of D&D is mostly indirect, we signal our choices by what we purchase (and the we here being all purchasers collectively) not just those of us who bother to post on message boards.

Yes there is marketing research, playtesters, and inquiries to customer service but those make up a fraction of the influence that our purchasing dollars tell WotC what to do.

The beauty of the edition change is, I can use what I have (3e) and play for a long time (in fact my group has signaled that they don't want to learn a new edition). Or, if the rules are all that and a bag of chips, I can adopt and catch the new wave.

I have plenty of choices and whether my edition is the current one supported or the one that has fallen to the wayside matters not to me.

Come June I will purchase the 3 core books look them over as a whole, I might go do some Living Forgotten Realms to get a feel for it as a player. After that I will either set a deadline for a switch at my home table (giving WotC a new revenue stream) or cannibalize the rules I can use for 3.5 game vote with my dollars.

Either way, I am a winner.

In Service,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus


Wicht wrote:

Looking at what is released, my initial reaction is that it is too simplistic a system. I remember when I 'moved' up from 'basic' to 'advanced.' It felt like a mark of maturity to move to the more complicated ruleset. If I was ten years old again, I might enjoy it but that was 25 years ago.

Which means, I guess, that I will switch when Paizo switches and I get to that AP, unless I can retro back the modules.

That's my reaction too, but I'm thinking there has to be more... something we're not seeing. Gosh, you wouldn't even need a very long rule book otherwise.

Sovereign Court

Lord Thasmudyan wrote:

this, saves as AC, resting and action points scare me....let make it as easy as possible for a pc to get out of every situation without a challenge...doesn't sound fun at all from both a player and dm perspective. because player didn't come to have that drama in their simple lives

And I have the opposite reaction. I like that AC and saves have the same mechanic now. Less looking at multiple pc sheets to add numbers.

The resting/healing helps solve the "3 rooms in, time to go back to town" problem D&D has always had.

Action points add a "hero" aspect as well as strategy (when do I do it?) Star wars had heroic surges and they really added some new drama to the game. "I try to hit him - dammit missed! Quick, I try to get under his guard again with my heroic surge!"

And again, i'm not saying that 4E is "better" then 3.5. I'll play both. I just see what they are trying to do and can certainly work within those mechanics. I'm looking forward to it because it gives me a *different* way to play DnD.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Saracenus wrote:
Do you really think that people wouldn't rise up and storm the WotC castle with torches and farm implements if they "killed" D&D and released a new RPG?

Hi, Bryan.

Yes, I do. At one point in AD&D 2nd Edition's decline, TSR put out the SAGA game. whether people liked that card-bases game engine or not, nobody minded. If they'd called it "AD&D 3rd Edition", there'd have been a hullabaloo.

Earlier, TSR had published the "Basic-Expert-..." D&D boxes, while simultaneously publishing AD&D. There was no claim that the boxed game was replacing the current, popular game, and so far as I noticed, there wasn't much complaint.

When Greyhawk was quiescent, TSR published the BIRTHRIGHT campaign. They could easily have imported several Greyhawk-specific characters, placed it on the Flaeness map, blown up the gods of Oerth for the powers, and called it a "re-envisioning" of Greyhawk. Oh, I bet that would have touched off a protest.

--

Honestly, I think that if Wizards had laid D&D to a dignified retirement and gone on to introduce this new game system, with a fresh new set of mechanics, new game universe, new races, and so forth, it would have been received more warmly.

Unless they messed up the marketing or something bone-headed like that.


The lack of ongoing effects seems to me to really weaken some effects. As is stated above poision that only lasts a single encounter is a pretty ridiculous idea given that many real life poisions take between minutes and days to effect their targets, not seconds. My main problem is that in 3.5e terms this completely rules out diseases. I hope they have some mechanic to get round this as I feel diseases are something that needs rules not just a "the DM arbitrates it now" approach that WotC have taken with roleplaying.

Also, and this is entirely personal paranoia but the encounter duration bothers me because the way these things last per encounter and other mentions of the encounter 'unit' make me think that encounter will be entirely speperate and that no monster from one encounter will reinforce others unless its part of the encounter. If DnD is going down a more cinematic route then encounter will become like set peices with no real interaction with each other.

In a dungeon for example you would fight the vampire lord in his crypt, the move into the next encounter in the cells next to the room filled with his ghoul minions. The two encounters would never mix just because they are seperate encounters. This is the kind of underlying set-peice principle that I am worried we will see in 4th edition. I don't like this unrealistic hollywood-esique approach in my RPG's. Don't get me wrong I love truly epic encounters but I don't want to have to use popcorn logic at the gaming table.

Next, the action points thing I could see being exploited. I have no experience with Ebberron and its action point system so this is just specualtion. I can imagine the min/max group that I used to DM would just save all it action points till the end and use the extra actions to utterly destroy the final BBEG. It just strikes me a system completely open to abuse.

Also the move thing bothered me. They make out like it is entirel new when it was the basic assumption of all battlemaps, with the exception of the diagonal move. On the subject o that did anyone reall have that much trouble counting "5 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet..." I mean was it really that much of an issue? And if it was why didn't they improve it with 3.5 since it would have been easily incorporated there.

The saving throws thing looks unbalance I can only hope that this will work like armour class, 10 to recover is the absolout basic with no modifiers. Having said that if that if there are modifiers involved how is it any simpler than the previous system other than having one save on the character sheet instead of three. And for the record I liked the three saving throws approach. I think it made sense that ninja were quicker on the feet and therefore better at avoiding things than wizards.

Right analysis over. Actually sounds angrier that was intended. Just my opinions on it.


I like the fact that a giants arms acctually shrink because it's not his turn. That's awesome.


Ross Byers wrote:
Reach: Because it's really silly to think reach isn't useful defensively.

Reach is one of the mechanics that can quickly lock down a battlefield and significantly ratchets up the complexity of a given character. That having been said: threatening reach isn't gone (as explained in the primer) just reduced in frequency.

Ross Byers wrote:
Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot.

That assumes that an encounter ends when all foes are dead...which is doesn't. If you're poisoned and all the foes are dead, the encounter is still going, meaning you've got to get the poison taken care of before it takes care of you.

Ross Byers wrote:
Charging: Because tactical effects with tradeoffs are supposed to make for interesting choices. 'All benefit' choices aren't choices.

That's not true at all. An option doesn't have to have penalties to impose a choice. And there are costs associated with these choices--for example, the action costs associated with some choices, or what I call "choice of effectiveness." If a wizard can choose between casting fireball and casting magic missile, there is still a choice there. One might be better in a certain situation than another, but they both have a positive effect. In that case, choosing what spell to use is an all benefit choice, you just choose which one benefits you the most.

Ross Byers wrote:
Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway.

Sorry, resting isn't some magical effect. If you camp in the middle of a battlefield, you're going to get messed up. Just because resting is more defined doesn't mean that you're mystically invincible during a rest.

Ross Byers wrote:
I hate 'per encounter' durations, even with a Barbarian's fatigue in 3E. Who decides when an encounter ends? In AoW, the Hextorian temple in Three Face of Evil became one-dragged out fight, even though there was a round or two with no enemies, because they were fetching reinforcements. Does that make it one encouter, or two? With standard durations and the knowledge that 10 rounds = 1 minute, I didn't need to make that decision.

Timed duration produce just as many, if not more problems, directly related to out of game time. "My spell lasts 14 minutes? How long did it takes us to set up that rope, climb down the mine shaft, fight those kobolds, heal up using wands, cast our other buffs and walk down the muddy cave to this room?" If you can tell me that you precisely track every single action and have no problem tracking multi-minute or multi-hour durations every time, I'll believe that it's easier than per encounter for you.


Cheddar Bearer wrote:
In a dungeon for example you would fight the vampire lord in his crypt, the move into the next encounter in the cells next to the room filled with his ghoul minions. The two encounters would never mix just because they are seperate encounters.

If you stumble into a second encounter while in the middle of the first one, they don't just freeze; it all becomes one big encounter.

Cheddar Bearer wrote:
Next, the action points thing I could see being exploited. I have no experience with Ebberron and its action point system so this is just specualtion. I can imagine the min/max group that I used to DM would just save all it action points till the end and use the extra actions to utterly destroy the final BBEG. It just strikes me a system completely open to abuse.

It was explained in the document that you can only spend one action point per encounter.

Cheddar Bearer wrote:
Also the move thing bothered me. They make out like it is entirel new when it was the basic assumption of all battlemaps, with the exception of the diagonal move....

It's similar, yes, but remember that there may be people at D&D XP who have no experience with D&D at all.


Whoa Rodney. Its almost like you designer guys actually rationally thought this stuff out. Talk about straining my sense of disbelief. :P

Cheers! :)

Edit: Did you not get to go do DnD XP, or are you just taking a break (like me!) from work?


I hate the new movement system.

If I am fighting an enemy wizard, it now provides me excessive benefits to attack the flankers first. I can close over a longer distance (Use a ruler to prove this, the math really will work the same ), kill the flanker, and if the other guys come over to attack me, then the Wizard is suddenly exposed.

In 3.5, this was a stupid tactic, because I might not be able to reach the flanking warriors before I engage the main one, because of the fact that every other square cost 2 points of movement.

The square root of 1 should not equal the square root of 2.

Sovereign Court

Rodney Thompson wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Reach: Because it's really silly to think reach isn't useful defensively.

Reach is one of the mechanics that can quickly lock down a battlefield and significantly ratchets up the complexity of a given character. That having been said: threatening reach isn't gone (as explained in the primer) just reduced in frequency.

Ross Byers wrote:
Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot.

That assumes that an encounter ends when all foes are dead...which is doesn't. If you're poisoned and all the foes are dead, the encounter is still going, meaning you've got to get the poison taken care of before it takes care of you.

Ross Byers wrote:
Charging: Because tactical effects with tradeoffs are supposed to make for interesting choices. 'All benefit' choices aren't choices.

That's not true at all. An option doesn't have to have penalties to impose a choice. And there are costs associated with these choices--for example, the action costs associated with some choices, or what I call "choice of effectiveness." If a wizard can choose between casting fireball and casting magic missile, there is still a choice there. One might be better in a certain situation than another, but they both have a positive effect. In that case, choosing what spell to use is an all benefit choice, you just choose which one benefits you the most.

Ross Byers wrote:
Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway.
Sorry, resting isn't some magical effect. If you camp in the middle of a battlefield, you're going to get messed up. Just because resting is more defined doesn't mean that you're mystically invincible during a rest....

As to reach I was used to keep opponents at bay or at least attack them as they closed with you before they could reach you with shorter weapons but in 4E if you roll low initiative they close with no ill effects and your reach weaopn is usless close up>

So I have to agree reach is pretty useless in 4E

Sovereign Court

Balabanto wrote:

I hate the new movement system.

If I am fighting an enemy wizard, it now provides me excessive benefits to attack the flankers first. I can close over a longer distance (Use a ruler to prove this, the math really will work the same ), kill the flanker, and if the other guys come over to attack me, then the Wizard is suddenly exposed.

In 3.5, this was a stupid tactic, because I might not be able to reach the flanking warriors before I engage the main one, because of the fact that every other square cost 2 points of movement.

The square root of 1 should not equal the square root of 2.

Well said!

If the diagonal math was that hard for you, there are better ways you should be spending your free time then playing a game.

(not meaning to offend the math challenged - I am one of you- jast stating "It ain't hard"

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
David Marks wrote:

The problem with durations extending outside of combat is that other than a few very specific instances, keeping track of time out of combat is largely arbitrary and difficlt to do. How many times have my players asked me "what buffs are still running" after a fight, the looting of bodies, the wandering of corridors ... etc. I have to guess how much time has passed, and probably end up all over the place in general. Much easier to have most things last the encounter and just be done with it. At least IMO! Cheers :)

Yeah, I hate minutes/level spells for that reason. They push the party to move fast and not take adequate care.

That does seem sensible.


Cylerist wrote:

As to reach I was used to keep opponents at bay or at least attack them as they closed with you before they could reach you with shorter weapons but in 4E if you roll low initiative they close with no ill effects and your reach weaopn is usless close up>

So I have to agree reach is pretty useless in 4E

If you lose initiative in 3.5, you're flat-footed until your first action and can't make AoOs with your reach weapon anyway.

Besides, as Rodney (and the primer) point out, 3.5 style reach still exists, its just that not EVERY reach ability grants it. Will it be impossible for players to gain? We'll probably have to wait until June to know for sure.


Cylerist wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

I hate the new movement system.

If I am fighting an enemy wizard, it now provides me excessive benefits to attack the flankers first. I can close over a longer distance (Use a ruler to prove this, the math really will work the same ), kill the flanker, and if the other guys come over to attack me, then the Wizard is suddenly exposed.

In 3.5, this was a stupid tactic, because I might not be able to reach the flanking warriors before I engage the main one, because of the fact that every other square cost 2 points of movement.

The square root of 1 should not equal the square root of 2.

Well said!

If the diagonal math was that hard for you, there are better ways you should be spending your free time then playing a game.

(not meaning to offend the math challenged - I am one of you- jast stating "It ain't hard"

It's not that the diagnoal 1-2-1-2 counting was hard. It was just time consuming and inaccurate. Going in a straight diagonal was easy, but how often did that really ever happen?

At my table, movement is often zig-zagged and all over the place. And every time someone stops to say "wait, was that 1 diagonal or 2" and then has to recount their movement to figure it out ... well its a hassle I can do without. I'm not saying this method is 100% better, but I can see why they changed it.

(As a side note, our hobby is small enough as is. I don't know if we can afford to kick anyone out, no matter how bad at math! :P)


Reasons I like these changes:

- Combat roles are defined; the power of a fighter won't overshadow my wizard cause they have two different functions in combat.
- There are more combat options based on what kind of character you have built; making it feel less like he hit, then you hit, then he hits
- I personally don't want to spend my time adding up how many hp one heals after a day of rest, how many squares diagonal movement costs, what multiple modifiers there are for charge, how many rounds until the spell is over, and so on. I'm not saying these are difficult, they're just not fun. I'd rather spend my time determining the best combat option and actual roleplaying. I don't need complexity in combat if it doesn't add much enjoyment or even that much realism.

I respect those who don't like the changes, but I thought I'd put in my voice as to why I do.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

Rodney Thompson wrote:


Ross Byers wrote:
Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot.

That assumes that an encounter ends when all foes are dead...which is doesn't. If you're poisoned and all the foes are dead, the encounter is still going, meaning you've got to get the poison taken care of before it takes care of you.

Then how do we know when an encounter ends? Can you provide a definition of a 4E Encounter (including what triggers the beginning of an encounter, and what triggers the end of the encounter) for clarification?


Somebody please explain this saving + duration thing for me with spells. This sounds like a dealbreaker to me in my hopes for 4th.

Your telling me that if a 20th level wizard casts charm person on a 2nd level fighter, he's got a 50% chance base to beat it???

Your telling me that the majority of spells will now probably not last more than a round or two before a save? Really even if the level comparison above doesn't fit and it's just some kind of misunderstanding, casting a spell now implies that it will be broken whenever cast within a round or two.

This basically makes the wizard a stalling tactic, so somebody else can come pick off the stalled monsters while he...well STALLS them. This along with AoE's is controlling....stalling?

Good god, and I haven't even seen the spell list.

"I weild the mighty power of the acane! I can annoy enemies for a good 5 seconds...if I'm lucky maybe 10!"


Big Fat Meh.

The whole thing reads like a very interesting skirmish game, but not geared towards a role-playing game. What if you didn't want to use minis, battlemats and all the rest? "Realism is overrated, but believability is key." to paraphrase from another thread.

They are on to something with the healing, at least I think the Second Wind is a good mechanic. But that is super-easy to port into 3.5.

The Standard, Move and Minor actions is soooo close to a good idea. No Full Round if you notice! So no full attacks, probably means no or Saga style iterative attacks. While the GTWF Ranger PC might not like that, it does speed play. But Std > Move > Minor I don't like. Just give everybody 2 Std and a Minor. So you move and attack, or attack twice, or move twice. Spycraft is set up that way, right?


As always, I do appreciate Rodney coming to field questions..

I hope he comes back and continues to elaborate as more folks have questions.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Good to see you Rodney, appreciate you being here for clarification.

Shadow Lodge

First off, thanks for showing up here for rules clarifications Rodney. And now on to my own question:

This rest thing is something that has been in the back of my mind for some time. It is suggested that the party stop to "rest" (as in the old 3.5 manner) when everyone is out of daily powers and/or down to one healing surge. My concern is that given:

(1)It is harder for PCs to die in 4e (lethality reduced compared to 3e by design)
(2)DMs still want to "press" their parties on most encounters (admittedly a preference thing, but at least in my group, an encounter the party just blows through is more of a time waster than a meaningful story element, thus encounters for us are times when the characters are quite pressed to survive)

Isn't it likely that the party will just blow their once per day powers and healing surges in these preliminary encounters, or after a few of them, and we are right back to the 15 minute adventuring day?


David Jackson 60 wrote:
Your telling me that if a 20th level wizard casts charm person on a 2nd level fighter, he's got a 50% chance base to beat it???

No, because there's nothing that says that spell's duration is based on saves. That's not a combat spell. This is probably more of an attack vs. Will.

David Jackson 60 wrote:
Your telling me that the majority of spells will now probably not last more than a round or two before a save?

No, just some of them (where did you get majority?). And remember, there are per encounter spells that probably effect more than one person, so it really depends. For example, an acid spell cast on 5 opponents. Two make the save right away, three take d8 damage, then the next round two more make the save, but the third takes d8 damage. That's a lot of damage spread out.

This is purely hypothetical, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that the sheet doesn't really show.


Whimsy Chris wrote:
some good stuff.

To build on Whimsy's point here, I'd assume that some debuff/conditions lasted for the entire encounter, just like some buffs do. Others might last a round, or might employ the save mechanic.

Cheers! :)


This is 4E basic. I somehow expect there is going to be a little more to system hardcore players will be using. So again, I'm going to abstain from judging 4E by what I'm seeing here.

On funny thing for me is the diagonal movement: I use hexes, always have and always will, so eliminating the diagonal cost does nothing for me.

Sczarni

Rodney Thompson wrote:
Cheddar Bearer wrote:
In a dungeon for example you would fight the vampire lord in his crypt, the move into the next encounter in the cells next to the room filled with his ghoul minions. The two encounters would never mix just because they are seperate encounters.

If you stumble into a second encounter while in the middle of the first one, they don't just freeze; it all becomes one big encounter.

so in the aforementioned poison scenario, if you get poisoned in the first fight and just keep going you could go the entire dungeon without being able to use once per encounter abilities a second time?

BTW thanks for helping with our questions


Cpt_kirstov wrote:


so in the aforementioned poison scenario, if you get poisoned in the first fight and just keep going you could go the entire dungeon without being able to use once per encounter abilities a second time?

BTW thanks for helping with our questions

Even in 3.5 poison only lasts for a minute, and I wouldn't expect poison to last any longer based on what we've heard so far. Still, good question! :)

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4E basic on WotC web All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.