Hey folks,
En World interview Jason Bulmahn at the DnD XP and it made front page of the Site, right after Chris Perkins and Sara Girard.
I would note that Jason makes a lot of important disclaimers about the scope his comments in relation to Paizo. That is, that he was speaking strictly for himself as an individual. EN World took note of those disclaimers, and SO SHOULD WE. Let's not make Jason sorry he said anything. :D
Here are the contents of that interview:
While Xath and DangerGirl! were enjoying yet another 4e Dungeon Delve this evening with DM Chris Perkins, I sat down for a quick, informal chat with Paizo Publishing's own Jason Bulmahn. Scott "The" Rouse, in an earlier conversation, had jokingly noted that Jason had come to "steal [the 4e] game rules" because of the persistent delays with the GSL. So, eager to hear from a non-Wizards game designer, I tracked Jason down to try to get a sense of what he thought of the new edition.
Jason was careful to note that he couldn't speak for Paizo Publishing in any official capacity, but assured me that he had called back to Paizo's offices several times since he had started digging into the new edition. He emphasized that, even after he got first hand experience with the game, Paizo had not (and could not) make any solid decisions about how (or if) they could support the new game until they saw the final GSL, which would indicate whether Paizo could legally "make the kinds of products [they] want to make." Accordingly, once that assessment was made, Jason surmised that Paizo's development staff would have to look deeply at the rules in order to ensure that they would allow Paizo to "tell the kinds of stories" that Paizo wants to tell. None of these decisions can be made instantly. Perhaps more importantly, Paizo has thus far lacked the kind of information that it would need to even start down that path.
He was clearly dismayed at the delay in the GSL's release, and lamented that Paizo was very close to a point where it wouldn't have time to do any more than it had already scheduled for the year. Jason noted that the first issue of Paizo's second Pathfinder adventure path had probably already arrived at their warehouse, and stressed that work had already begun on the 3rd Pathfunder adventure path, set to debut at Gen Con 2008. He suggested that Paizo was still considering using the 4e rules as the backbone for the 3rd arc, but once more declared that Paizo could not make any final decisions until they had the GSL and the rules. Although Jason emphasized that "the clock is ticking," he guessed that there was "still some time" before Paizo would reach the point of no return.
He took a moment to laud Paizo's loyal fan-based, and noted that he had heard a large number of their most vocal fans declare that they would follow Paizo's lead on the new edition - wherever that lead ultimately took them. Jason guessed that this flexibility had something to do with fans' fondness for the kinds of stories that Paizo liked to tell, rooted, according to Jason, in D&D's history, and heavily inspired by Greyhawk.
He seemed to have mixed feelings about the new edition in play. He told me that he was "excited about some things" in the new game, like PC's increased durability at early levels, and hinted that things appeared to be more "streamlined." He noted that he hadn't yet decided whether all of the "streamlined" portions of 4e were, in fact, better than their 3.x counterparts, or if they were just simpler, and noted that more of the game experience seemed to hinge on how well (or poorly) people rolled. Because things like saves and some monster power "recharges" are based on flat die rolls, he guessed that the game experience would be more variable, or random. On a night when the players are rolling well, a horde of Kobolds might present very little challenge; on a night when the DM is rolling well, they could be a lot harder.
Jason contended that the new edition's apparent focus on adding variety to player options and keeping people engaged at the table at all times had seemed to him, after 2 preview sessions, to be a "partial success." While the "Encounter" and "Daily" powers on the sheet were interesting, it seemed like PCs were once more reduced to "doing the same thing over and over again" after they had burned through them, something that the 4e designers had at least ostensibly attempted to avoid. He confirmed that, in one of the previews he played, a final combat had lasted for nearly 40 rounds(!) (apparently against the 280 hit point Black Dragon mentioned elsewhere).
Jason asserted that it often seemed as if PCs were either "coasting" through adventuring challenges in the new edition, or "completely terrified" by foes that wildly overmatched them. He claimed that, in his admittedly limited experience, he hadn't felt particularly threatened until forced to face a "Solo" monster 3 levels higher than the party (apparently the same Black Dragon). He acknowledged that the death and dying mechanic ensured that most PC's would have at least 3 rounds to live after they lost consciousness, but wondered if it would put DMs in a position where "the only to kill you is to attack you while you're down."
He also noted (only somewhat seriously) that he was "very dismayed" that he had to roll an attack for Magic Missile. I thought about urging him to try The Rouse's "Times 10 Rule" whenever he missed, but, alas, we ran out of time.
If this was an interview, where are Jason's comments and quotes? I'd feel much better if we could "hear" Jason's words in context, rather than some "interviewers" recollections and rewordings of what he said.
If this was an interview, where are Jason's comments and quotes? I'd feel much better if we could "hear" Jason's words in context, rather than some "interviewers" recollections and rewordings of what he said.
I don't imagine that he's had time to get back to make a personal statement of his own.
Other than that I suppose you have a worthwhile observation. EN World isn't a professional news agency. I don't defend them, but merely point out that this was up for public review.
I am glad he points out many FLAWS of 4E instead of hearing WotC paying so many of their damned playtesters and employees to speak rehearsed rhetoric about how great and awesome 4E is without a single thing said about what is awful with it.
Quality review. Said some good things. Said some bad things. Thank you Bullman.
Carlson,
I wanted to add this... before I bash EN World for not being good reporters, I think there is a positive side to this that also has to be recognized.
EN World just put Jason on the front page and let him draw attention to the situation of the GSL. That is, Pathfinder fans can't make a decision, because Paizo can't make a decision, because the GSL hsan't been released.
That's free publicity for the problem that actually helps.
Also...
In a previous thread Jason said he probably wouldn't be comfortable speaking as a representative of Paizo. That isn't within his scope of authority- though I am sure the entire Paizo Editorial Team wants to pick his brain and get his valuable feedback.
To that end, Jason offered up the URL to his personal RPG Journal.. where he can make statements as a private individual. This was in another thread, so I'll copy and paste it here:
http://iuztheevil.livejournal.com/
Nothing as of this writing, but as I said, he probably hasn't had time yet.
|
I find this "quasi-interview", along with the reviews posted in this thread, much more useful in evaluating 4E than all the stuff we've seen and heard so far.
They have had a double effect on my opinions regarding the new edition: that it will not be my ruleset of choice for fantasy RPGs (thus cementing further the previous thoughts regarding overall theme, balance and level of detail obtainable), and that I could give it a one-shot for a funny evening, providing someone else buys the books and provides the props (thus obliterating the former idea of "won't touch it with a 10 foot pole").
After thinking about this a lot, I am going to resubscribe to Paizo; you guys are good guys and I am going to support you. $20 might mean a couple of lunches but I'll suck it up.
Good on you! :D
****************************
To change the subject, and in other news...
I just got myself an EN World Identity and entered the world of polite discussion in regards to the Jason Bulmahn interview, and the Sara Girard interview which were posted at the same time.
If you're curious, Here's a link to the thread, my board name is Admiral Caine
Likewise, Sara Girard discusses the 4th Edition Marketing strategy and I politely point out how the GSL delay has impacted upon how that strategy might play out with me
You'll notice I kept it very civil. I'd love to have some folks join me, but I would strongly encourage it stay non-confrontational.
Watcher, you are good people.
Because things like saves and some monster power "recharges" are based on flat die rolls, he guessed that the game experience would be more variable, or random.
Low level play in 3.5 is exactly like this but even more so. Unless the DM fudges the dice or uses some other mechanic for survival, all it takes is one good smack from either side, or a good crit once you've gotten past first level. His conclusion is that combat is more random, but I've yet to see anything to support that conclusion. Anyone else?
And it's ironic that he says there's more variance yet admits the combat rounds last much longer, especially when going up against a very tough opponent. I'd like to hear how he greater variance leads to longer combats...
Thanks for the links, Watcher!
Low level play in 3.5 is exactly like this but even more so. Unless the DM fudges the dice or uses some other mechanic for survival, all it takes is one good smack from either side, or a good crit once you've gotten past first level. His conclusion is that combat is more random, but I've yet to see anything to support that conclusion. Anyone else?And it's ironic that he says there's more variance yet admits the combat rounds last much longer, especially when going up against a very tough opponent. I'd like to hear how he greater variance leads to longer combats...
The report seemed a bit too short for him to go into as much depth as would be need to justify this. It would be great if we could get him to post some of his thoughts on here.
As for the whole longer round vs variance thing. I suppose it could have been more random between the turns. First couple of rounds everything goes ok but then people has a bad round and spend the next few rounds struggling to recover from it. Plus I think he may have meant that it was more random in that there was no way these rolls could be modified by anything the character did. Like the death rolls for example.
|
Because things like saves and some monster power "recharges" are based on flat die rolls, he guessed that the game experience would be more variable, or random.Low level play in 3.5 is exactly like this but even more so. Unless the DM fudges the dice or uses some other mechanic for survival, all it takes is one good smack from either side, or a good crit once you've gotten past first level. His conclusion is that combat is more random, but I've yet to see anything to support that conclusion. Anyone else?
And it's ironic that he says there's more variance yet admits the combat rounds last much longer, especially when going up against a very tough opponent. I'd like to hear how he greater variance leads to longer combats...
i think you missed the point here. It is the 'flat die rolls' that will make it more random. That phrase would suggest that some mechanics have a set % chance that is not contingent on level advancement or iterative bonuses.
I do agree it would make combat more random. I'm ambivalent about whether that is good or bad, but i think it is a rather large departure from 3.5, where almost all saves/power/abilities improve with leveling up.
Thanks for the links, Watcher!
Both you and The Last Rogue are quite welcome.
**********************
In other related news...
Posting polite and civil discussion about the GSL and the bind it puts all of us in might have been a bit of stunt on my part, but I hope I represented myself well in doing it.
(Because I can only represent myself in this case)
But ya know..?
Maybe we got somebody's attention.
Afterwards look what Dangergirl wrote
Transcribed here with her formatting:
One thing that came across very clearly in an interview that The Universe and I conducted with Rouse and Collins is just how bad they feel that "third party" publishers don't have their hands on the 4e info they need. The look on Rouse's face when the topic came up was a combination of embarrassment and frustration. It's painfully obvious that he wants to get everything hammered out as quickly as possible and feels terrible for not meeting previously established deadlines.
Collins and Rouse noted that what they believe is the final legal document for the GSL release was floating around the office awaiting approval from the essential WotC people last week, but - then - everybody headed out to DC for the Con.
So - hopefully this means that everything with the GSL will be in order in the next couple of weeks (maybe even sooner!).
Remember, keep it civil! Even if you're frustrated. :)
And it's ironic that he says there's more variance yet admits the combat rounds last much longer, especially when going up against a very tough opponent. I'd like to hear how he greater variance leads to longer combats...
More rolls averaging things out in the long run? Thats my suspicion. In 3.5 if it goes wrong it goes really friggen wrong. Here there may be more flat rolls but I suspect that its much harder to knock either a monster or PC out of the game in one round so your going to make more rolls.
It sounds less arbitrary which is the kind of thing that tends to be a cup either half empty or half full. When you roll that crit its less impressive and less memorable. On the other hand it seems less likely that you will go from near full hps to dead without ever having a chance to do anything.
I do suspect that this will reduce character deaths. My experience when it comes to killing PCs in 3.5 is that almost every character I have managed to kill, and I have bagged a fair number, started the round thinking things were just hunky dory and they almost never had an action between the point when things started to go wrong and the point when I told them to roll up a new character. Now my players are pretty good so generally its a case of nobody having a chance to help the poor sod out since if some one could do something they would have. When its just getting really bad other PCs almost always manage to extract a critically endangered PC, hence its often a case that the initiative order turned out to be a major culprit. This is such a factor that some players are told to design their characters to 'go slow' with the idea that this will spread their actions out over the entire initiative sequence making it less likely that random monster initiative rolls will allow the monsters to doing tag team combos becuase they get to go one after the other.
I do agree it would make combat more random. I'm ambivalent about whether that is good or bad,
But it does counter their Wizards own argument that low levels are to "swingy." But then again, on the below 0, you have three chances on something you have a 50% chance to succeed on each time. That's not swingy, that's a statisticaly guarantee.
It really sounds like the only way to kill players in 4E is to hit them with so much excessive force that that you'll have to hit them with 10 levels above what they should be fighting. (Hell 24 zombies is a standard 6th level encounter for a single player. How many will you need to kill an entire party? One million? Players are expected to defeat a dragon at 1st level. And they're trying to tell us that the relative power level of characters is not going up at 1st level. Bull!)
Thanks for the links, Watcher!Both you and The Last Rogue are quite welcome.
**********************
In other related news...
Posting polite and civil discussion about the GSL and the bind it puts all of us in might have been a bit of stunt on my part, but I hope I represented myself well in doing it.
(Because I can only represent myself in this case)
But ya know..?
Maybe we got somebody's attention.Afterwards look what Dangergirl wrote
Transcribed here with her formatting:
One thing that came across very clearly in an interview that The Universe and I conducted with Rouse and Collins is just how bad they feel that "third party" publishers don't have their hands on the 4e info they need. The look on Rouse's face when the topic came up was a combination of embarrassment and frustration. It's painfully obvious that he wants to get everything hammered out as quickly as possible and feels terrible for not meeting previously established deadlines.
Collins and Rouse noted that what they believe is the final legal document for the GSL release was floating around the office awaiting approval from the essential WotC people last week, but - then - everybody headed out to DC for the Con.
So - hopefully this means that everything with the GSL will be in order in the next couple of weeks (maybe even sooner!).
Remember, keep it civil! Even if you're frustrated. :)
I wondered who that was. :) I've been poking at it over there for a long time now. And I laughed when I read how bad some of the WotC people seem to feel over the delay.
Good, I say. If you walk up to the girl swinging around the pole, you give her a dollar, or you keep your ass in your chair. And, yes, that's relevant.
So - hopefully this means that everything with the GSL will be in order in the next couple of weeks (maybe even sooner!).
I'll believe it when the Paizians see it.
I was really pleased to see Jason interviewed. He gave a far more objective survey of the system. I understand that the WotC folks are very excited (and probably have a few pairs of rose-colored glasses on too). Jason's comments gave me a lot to think about. They were very helpful in letting me know that I can buy 4E and it will have good elements, but it's not the Ultimate Gaming System That Roxxors!
Question: Can someone explain a little more about what a 'flat roll' actually is, and how it's more 'random' than it's equivalent in 3.5?
Comment: Yesterday I ran a demo of 4th edition for my group (not at D&D XP) using compiled info from EN World. Anyone play D&D Online? It was the "Kobold Assault" mission, and I used the Encounter at Blackwall Keep map from Age of Worms.
I started with a dozen minions and that was a complete cakewalk. They die when they're hit, and between the wizard's aoe fire spell and the fighter's cleave ability they went down in three rounds. A couple did get a chance to hit, but for only 2 points of damage. 2 points would have hurt some of them in 3.5, but as soon as they saw that I wasn't rolling for their damage and that it was only 2 point, their attitude changed quickly.
Next up were some some 1st level skirmishers. These guys actually had hit points (a decent amount) and could deal decent reliable damage. Their shifty ability also helped them get flank when they needed it. At +11 to hit (6 plus 3 for mob, plus 2 for flanking) and 1d8 and 1d6 sneak attack all it took was a little luck on their part and they got the cleric to -10. The party was surprised, but then the fighter took a moment to move and heal the cleric, giving him a healing surge with a result of 24.
(By the way, the only way to tell in the game world that these were 'better kobolds' was that they had coin purses and the minions did not.)
I then threw some artillary and skirmishers at them and this time the ranger was dropped. Again he survived, but it wouldn't have been hard to kill him if I had rolled a little better on the damage. Statistically death will happen if the party fought enough of these battles, but IMO low level death will be a little less frequently than in 3.5 and if it happened I think the whole table would have seen it coming (assuming the injured player announces his damage).
I had the black dragon directing the attacks from a distance, and as the Stormreach militia arrived to save the party (we were running out of time) I had the dragon fly over and bomb the party with a breath weapon. It dropped the wizard, but it was near the end. With 280 hit points, I don't think there's anyway the 1st level PCs could dish out enough damage to kill it before it killed them. Using standard dragon tactics (low level dragons fly and bombard, they should never, ever get into melee, IMO) the PCs would have no chance at all at 1st.
The kobolds, on the other hand, were exactly the level of challenge I was expecting for a gamist fight. Had I used 2nd level soldiers I think the PCs would have had a much more difficult time.
Thanks for that. It's nice to hear from people playing around with what we know so far. Sounds very interesting.
And, yes, my group of players have always been more gamist than anything else. We roleplay quite a bit, but it comes after the fighting. But we've been playing since elementary school, starting with the red box, and they're very much a "poison the well, burn the village ... that will get the bad guy out of there" type of group.
Quality review. Said some good things. Said some bad things. Thank you Bullman.
Yes, thank you Bullman for keeping it a bit more real than what we've heard so far.
Question: Can someone explain a little more about what a 'flat roll' actually is, and how it's more 'random' than it's equivalent in 3.5?
Flat roll - You are not rolling a die, adding some kind of save/skill/ability/BAB modifier and try to beat a given DC. There is no buff spell, potion, elixer magic armor that will help. The number on the die is the number you get. Now stuff we heard did make it sound that at higher levels, you do get some kind of bonus to the roll, but it sounds like that bonus is being kept to a minimum. But otherwise, a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard are just as likely to pass.
Flat roll - You are not rolling a die, adding some kind of save/skill/ability/BAB modifier and try to beat a given DC. There is no buff spell, potion, elixer magic armor that will help. The number on the die is the number you get. Now stuff we heard did make it sound that at higher levels, you do get some kind of bonus to the roll, but it sounds like that bonus is being kept to a minimum. But otherwise, a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard are just as likely to pass.
Actually, check some of the 4E sheets. I'm pretty sure the Paladin had something that gives a +1 save (assuming that is what we're talking about here! If not, very sorry!)
Cheers! :)
I am glad he points out many FLAWS of 4E instead of hearing WotC paying so many of their damned playtesters and employees to speak rehearsed rhetoric.
Where where did you see something saying playtesters were paid to speak rhetoric? I would like to check that out.
Flat roll - You are not rolling a die, adding some kind of save/skill/ability/BAB modifier and try to beat a given DC. There is no buff spell, potion, elixer magic armor that will help.
What are these rolls though?
The recharge and saves?
Those, IMO, are exactly the same as rolling a 1d4 for duration in 3.5, except it streamlines it so you don't have to keep track of what round the duration wears off.
I strongly dislike the mook rules. No hit points? One hit and they die?
No thanks!
|
|
What are these rolls though?
The recharge and saves?
Those, IMO, are exactly the same as rolling a 1d4 for duration in 3.5, except it streamlines it so you don't have to keep track of what round the duration wears off.
You don't have to keep track of durations, but it slowed down every turn.
Example: our first fight was against 4 town guards and an assassin. Each of the guards had a "powerful blow" ability with their polearms that would automatically knock you prone if they hit. EVERY TURN the DM had to roll for each one of them to see if they had this power again. This slowed things down.THEN the wizard hit them with her daily Sleep spell. All four guards were slowed and EVERY TURN the DM had to roll for each guard to see if they "failed their save" (the straight 50% chance) and fell asleep. This slowed things down even more.
Sorry, but from my experience I didn't see a whole lot of "streamlining" in these mechanics. I just saw a whole lotta extra rolls. <shrug>
-J
|
Flat roll - You are not rolling a die, adding some kind of save/skill/ability/BAB modifier and try to beat a given DC. There is no buff spell, potion, elixer magic armor that will help.What are these rolls though?
The recharge and saves?
Those, IMO, are exactly the same as rolling a 1d4 for duration in 3.5, except it streamlines it so you don't have to keep track of what round the duration wears off.
I think he is referring to the save rolls - save rolls are a flat DC10 with no modifiers. Roll higher than 10 and you shake off the effect (ongoing black dragon breath damage for example). Roll 10 or less and the effect remains. These rolls are taken at the end of your turn, every round you are subjected to an ongoing effect. They are not modified by character level or augmented by buffs.
This is Bad in that it radically changes how effects of different powers combine with one another. A 20th lvl character has just as much chance of avoiding an effect as a 1st level character and a debuff placed on a character by a 20th level mob can be resisted by a 1st level character just as easily.
Edit: And as Jenner2057 points out above, it causes many more rolls than previously required under 3.5
|
Edit: And as Jenner2057 points out above, it causes many more rolls than previously required under 3.5
More rolls is a concern of mine but the mitigating factor is that it is a simple roll that does not require a look up to make sure all of the modifiers are taken into account. That may ease some of the delay.
In general, however, I agree that more rolls are bad.
I strongly dislike the mook rules. No hit points? One hit and they die?
No thanks!
Dave Mage, another example minion, a 6th level vampire spawn has 10 hit points. Granted, its the same general principle.
Bit of a non-sequitur here, but I can't for the life of me recall my en world login. Anyways, I saw a bit near the end of the thread Watcher linked a few posts up concerning print vs online costs. I'll put it in spoiler tags below, to avoid bloating things up here:
Online is 90+ dollars/year minus whatever their operating expenses are (2 dollars for development? 3 dollars? Sever costs and internet bandwidth will probably be less than a dollar).This is patently false, and is the same inaccurate argument used when complaining about Blizzard's profits from WoW.
No one is saying a high-subscriber-volume online service is unprofitable, but the profits are nowhere near the numbers most people assume. Operating costs are much higher than casual people estimate.
An online subscription component means:
* software development costs (which are not the same as game development costs; paper doesn't require programmers)
* software QA costs (which are, again, not the same as game playtesters)
* software QA management
* software QA training
* technical support
* technical support management
* technical support training
* technical support management training
* all HR-related costs associated with these additional people
* physical locations for technical support
* server maintenance
* database maintenance
* database backup maintenance
* hardware maintenance
* online security maintenance (there are always those trying to game the system. Always.)None of these costs are insubstantial. They can avoid the tech support-related ones by sacrificing a huge chunk of the profits to go third-party for support, but that still drastically reduces the profits you're assuming they'll make.
High-volume subscription isn't the "free money train" so many pretend it is. It takes a lot of work, and an awful lot of money.
Now, I'm not a WoTC employee, so there's no way I can speak directly to their operational costs, but I am in the academic and trade journal publication business (and if my observations seem off base, maybe DangerGirl! could offer a counter point, as I believe she is in the same industry.) Specifically, I deal with online content, XML, typesetting software (we use ArborText, InDesign and Quark primarily, with a couple of legacy typesetting systems as well) and managing deliveries to downstream clients, mostly aggregators like PubMed Central / PubMed.
Many of the costs Dacileva over on the en boards mentions actually do exist in modern publishing, either as an in-house production cost (Adobe licenses and software, SQL licenses and hardware/servers, technical staff, typesetting template development staff, application support staff , etc) or as a cost to the publisher passed along by the company doing the printing. We can add in paper costs (which are always going up, sometimes quite dramatically) and transportation costs (you've got a physical product that has to get somewhere, that means gas, tax and handling charges).
Further things like editing, copy editing, proof reading, managing and creating art, etc are non-trivial, time intensive, costly procedures. So , even without having access to WoTC's numbers, I can say there are enough costs associated with traditional print and bind publishing in general to make publishing content online, or pursuing online business models, quite attractive for some companies, such as WoTC.
I realize this pretty of topic, but felt the need to respond, even if it was in the wrong forum.
|
|
More rolls is a concern of mine but the mitigating factor is that it is a simple roll that does not require a look up to make sure all of the modifiers are taken into account. That may ease some of the delay.
In general, however, I agree that more rolls are bad.
Oh no! Now you and I are starting to agree on things! Where will this all lead??
I think he is referring to the save rolls - save rolls are a flat DC10 with no modifiers. Roll higher than 10 and you shake off the effect (ongoing black dragon breath damage for example). Roll 10 or less and the effect remains. These rolls are taken at the end of your turn, every round you are subjected to an ongoing effect. They are not modified by character level or augmented by buffs.
This isn't a fair comparison with 3.5, because the terms are different.
If someone hits your defense, you've failed your save. In 3.5 that's it, you're done. The effect is on you, and it lasts for a variable number of rounds.
The 'save' in 4th edition isn't a save at all, it's just a way of keeping track of duration. The actual save where you buff against is now defense.
I agree that whether this method is more streamlined or not is questionable, but I don't see it adding any additional variance.
|
|
I agree that whether this method is more streamlined or not is questionable, but I don't see it adding any additional variance.
First off I apologize for jumping into this discussion, quite possibly unarmed. With that said, allow me to clarify:
There are two points here that I think are at issue. Firstly, a flat DC10 to end ongoing effects means one cannot count on a certain effect being in place for a certain period of time, and spells cast by powerful wizards last just as long, on average, as spells cast by novice wizards. This decrease in certainty of spell duration is an increase in variance.
Secondly, there is the entire concept of the flat roll, unmodified, to end a spell effect, not allowing a higher/lower/buffed/debuffed target to apply modifiers to the roll. This tends to flatten the power curve between opponents. Contrast this with a hold person spell from 3e that allowed the target to save every round at the spell's original DC. Various modifiers, the power of the spellcaster and other spells may adjust that saving throw under the 3e ruleset. This is no longer true under 4e, so the chance to break the hold of a powerful spellcaster is the same as to break the hold of a novice caster.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This feels like the familiar mechanics of things like the Web spell, where a target makes an active defense roll to avoid the effects, and then rolls a simpler-mechanic roll (currently, a Strength check) to shrug off the effects.
It sounds as if 4th Ed. also uses this mechanic to keep an effect (like magical sleep, or death) at bay.
The fancy name for these roll-until-you-accumulate-so-many-results is a "Poisson distribution."
The feel is very different from a single-roll duration . A Poisson distribution with the same mean duration is weighted towards shorter time periods, but also has a small chance for very long durations.
I think you're both seeing this the wrong way.
It's not really a 'SAVE' in 3.5 terminology. It's DURATION, which in 3.5 can be just as variable.
Rolling a 1d4 to see how long something lasts (paralysis being a great example) has about the same net effect as having everyone roll a 1d2 every round to see if an effect ends or not.
In 3.5, the duration roll has absolutely NOTHING to do with the target's ability. It's just random. The same applies to 4th edition. What's the difference?
|
The fancy name for these roll-until-you-accumulate-so-many-results is a "Poisson distribution."
Correct. Piosson distributions are usually used to model the time interval between process arrivals. The classic example is the lifespan of a lightbulb. There's a small probability that it might last a years, most will last a few years, but there's a finite chances that it could last for many years.
For a flat roll (where flat is unmodified) di roll where the chance of success is 50% (1-10 fails on a d20, while 11-20 passes), the distribution of 10 consecutive rolls would have a statistical failure percentage of something like this:
1 50.0%
2 25.0%
3 12.5%
4 6.25%
5 3.125%
6 1.5625%
7 0.7813%
8 0.3906%
9 0.1953%
10 0.0977%
So you can expect that if you roll an unmodified d20 3 times, you have a 12.5% chance of failure (conversely, a 87.5% chance of success).
-Skeld
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Rolling a 1d4 to see how long something lasts (paralysis being a great example) has about the same net effect as having everyone roll a 1d2 every round to see if an effect ends or not.In 3.5, the duration roll has absolutely NOTHING to do with the target's ability. It's just random. The same applies to 4th edition. What's the difference?
Hello, Takasi. I'm going to get a little geeky here.
Rolling a duration of 1-4 on a d4 is called a discrete uniform distribution. If you know that the DM has rolled a d4 for duration, then the probability for breaking the duration after the first round is P = 0.25. One round later, the probability that the duration ends on round two given the fact that it didn't end on round one is P = 0.33. If you're wondering if you'll be able to break the duration on round 3, the probability is P = 0.5. And, if the condition hasn't broken by the third round, you're guaranteed it'll break on the fourth round.
Explicitly, the probability of the duration breaking increases each round.
Rolling a d2 each round to break a duration is a Poisson distribution. It has a higher probability the first round (P = 0.5), but it stays at P = 0.5. The history of the previous rounds doesn't change the possibility that the duration breaks this current round.
It really has a different feel.
The history of the previous rounds doesn't change the possibility that the duration breaks this current round.
As Skeld pointed out, the probability of repeated success decreases exponentially though.
It really has a different feel.
Yes, even the DM doesn't know how long the effect is going to last.
However, I think others are claiming that the PCs have some control over this. They are confusing 3.5 saving throws vs DCs with the new 'saving throw' mechanic against what they see as a 'flat dc' of 10.
This is an inappropriate comparison.
The net effect of both systems is a random duration where ongoing effects will usually only last two or three rounds. There is nothing you can do as a PC to change either outcome.
(And yes, I know 3.5 makes it easier to metagame the probability of the end of the effect but I don't see that as a positive thing.)
It also adds tot he number of rolls you have to make each round. Not very elegant, and definitely not sreamlined.
In 3.5 durations are generally secretly tracked by the DM for both NPCs and PCs. This sometimes leads to DM metagaming.
In 4th edition players keep track of their own character durations. It's more elegant and streamlined in that regard, IMO. The DM should keep their focus on the monsters they're running. Rolling a handful of d20's every round to determine what effects to remove is as much work IMO as keeping a timeline.
|
|
It also adds tot he number of rolls you have to make each round. Not very elegant, and definitely not sreamlined.In 3.5 durations are generally secretly tracked by the DM for both NPCs and PCs. This sometimes leads to DM metagaming.
In 4th edition players keep track of their own character durations. It's more elegant and streamlined in that regard, IMO. The DM should keep their focus on the monsters they're running. Rolling a handful of d20's every round to determine what effects to remove is as much work IMO as keeping a timeline.
When I DM (which is much more than I play) there is no task more cumbersome than tracking a multitude of spell durations.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(And yes, I know 3.5 makes it easier to metagame the probability of the end of the effect but I don't see that as a positive thing.)
It does feel different but I don't think it's worse. As a DM its actually better.
Dudes.
If I've given anybody the impression that I thought the Poisson distribution was a bad thing (or, given the fact that everything about 4th Edition is seen in light of its comparison to the current D&D, worse) I apologize. I don't think it's bad / worse.
I think it's different. I was responding to someone who said he didn't see any difference.
A duration can be extended by (a) reducing the per-round chance of successfully breaking the duration, or (b) requiring more than one success.
I think it's different. I was responding to someone who said he didn't see any difference.
The real question was whether it's different enough to warrant this statement:
"Because things like saves and some monster power "recharges" are based on flat die rolls, he guessed that the game experience would be more variable, or random. On a night when the players are rolling well, a horde of Kobolds might present very little challenge; on a night when the DM is rolling well, they could be a lot harder. "
The Poisson distribution may feel different, but I don't think it produces the level of variance alluded to in this statement.
The increase in hit points, the removal of instantaneous effects, the removal of crit multipliers and the removal of power attack does a lot more to reduce variance, IMO.
When I DM (which is much more than I play) there is no task more cumbersome than tracking a multitude of spell durations.
Are you talking the spells your NPCs cast or what players cast?
When I DM (which is much more than I play) there is no task more cumbersome than tracking a multitude of spell durations.Are you talking the spells your NPCs cast or what players cast?
I can't speak for CWM but I generally end up tracking A) spells/effects FROM my critters to my players and B) effects ON my critters (FROM the players or from other critters/self). That doesn't include the more general category C) effects from my players onto each other outside of combat ("I cast a Fly that lasts for 7 minutes, how long did it take to loot the bodies, search the room, and discuss exploring the pit trap?") which is similar but unrelated to the first two.
|
|
Well since people are discussing this I might as well throw out what I do to track durations of all spells.
I created a simple spreadsheet that has every minute of every hour on it from 12am to 1159pm that evening. Each hour is represented by 60 small boxes on one horizontal row. This 'array of boxes' fits (printed horizontally) on a single sheet of paper. Each box has enough room for me to write in 3-4 letters of the alphabet if written small but legibly. The sheet also has a "whitespace" area below this chart for me to make notes. At the beginning of the adventuring day, I mark off the full hour the party spends memorizing spells and then ask what the players are casting (I have 7 players at 12th level including a a war weaver, druid, cleric and psionisist). For each spell I make a letter designation in the minute box when it is due to expire and then use the white space area to note the target of the spell and the spell effect. I do this for all spells cast that have durations greater than rounds. For all other spells, I mark them on my handy-dandy Paizo-supplied Gamemastery Combat Pad and use their round marker to track rounds but since this is almost always combat only there is no loss of information between the two sheets. My players often have 20 spell effects up at once, and this allows me to track durations very accurately as well as sweep through the list on a dispel magic to see who is affected and check to see if the effect holds. If a spell ends prematurely for any reason, I mark it off in the whitespace area. I do this for enemy spellcasters as well and can easily manage a high level battle with few issues (and the War Weaver has issues let me tell ya).
To handle durations outside of combat, I continually inform the players of how much game time is passing as they move about and explore. I usually error on the side of the players for this and never once has their been an argument that I am passing time too quickly. For extended conversations (something my players do all the time) I tell them that they are switching to real time - every minute spent talking is a minute of game time. This keeps the game moving so buffs that last for minutes or hours are not squandered on a long discussion. I remind the players regularly that time is passing and this feedback ensures they are never surprised when spells start to go down. At regular intervals, I cross off the requisite number of boxes and inform everyone at the table which spells are about to come to an end and about how long they have before the spell goes down. If they want to know exactly how long a spell has, I do the math or count the boxes and tell them. To keep things simple, I always have spells end in the last round of a minute regardless in which round they were cast. For example, in round 3 of a fight, the wizard casts fly, which lasts 12 minutes. I note only that fly ends 12 minutes from now, and do not worry I will grant the player an extra 7 rounds of fly.
The system has been a godsend for my high level play and has never failed us in more than 3 months of use.