My thoughts on 4th edition rules

[joshuha]

Warning! Lots of text and opinions ahead! This post was to my current players in my Savaged Ptolus campaign thus a lot of Savage Worlds comparisons. Although we started the campaign in 3.5 so its an interesting comparison.

Disclaimer: This is all based off the information I know so far.

First, an broad overview of the what I like about D&D 4th edition starting of with broad and then some specifics.

Streamlined mechanics. Basically there are nice standard templates on how things are presented. So a spell or a special maneuver use the same stat block to relay the information and rules. It makes it very easy to not have to look at the book once you know those base rules.
Design philosophy that a character should have something to do related to his class at all times. No more first level wizard blowing his two good spells and just using a crossbow. No more early fighter that is just swing/hit/swing/hit.
Simplifying the skills down to a shorter list (similar to Savage Worlds) where you have Stealth instead of Move Silently+Hide, etc.
Balancing abilities around encounters. This includes ditching the Vancian spell slot magic system.
Less focus on alignment. It is more a role playing guide than a strict definition of in game effects.
Reduced prep time for DMs. Monsters are all provided in neat stat blocks with all abilities defined in that same template I was referring to above.
30 level gradual power curve. PCs start out much much tougher than their 3rd Edition counterparts. HOWEVER, abilities scale a lot slower. A rogue is at +3d6 sneak attack from 11-20th level for example. Wizard level 13 spell is only doing on the order of 3d6-5d6 damage + effects.


So those are some of the broad concepts that I am digging in 4th edition so now for a list of important changes for those familiar with 3.5 and then I will post some links to actual character sheets + rules that have been previewed.

Hit points are fixed per level for each class now. Con only helps as far as how many initial hit points you get (you add the whole score now). Generally 1st level characters will get anywhere from 20-30 starting HP depending on their con + class base.
Along with the above the hit point spreads aren't as drastic between classes. Their is still differences but their won't be huge gaps between a fighter and a rogue or even a fighter and a wizard as we see in 3.5 currently.
Point build is now the standard method of creation. But this is pretty norm in the online world right now anyways.
Your saves from before are now fixed defenses. So reflex, will, and fortitude are now defenses just like AC that people roll against to hit you. This doesn't change a lot mechanically but does more to solidify the standard of rolling to hit things rather than sometimes rolling to defend against fixed numbers. So in 3.5 you might have to roll a reflex VS DC 25 for a breath weapon but in 4th it may be dragons breath (+10) vs your reflex defense value.
The biggest change is is going to be At-Will/Encounter/Daily Abilities. Each class gets these type of things. As the name suggests at-will can be used each round, encounter once per scene, and daily well once a day. So a fighter's maneuvers and tricks become these abilities. A wizard's spells becomes these abilities with more powerful spells being encounter and really strong ones daily. Weapons can grant their own abilities that could at-will/encounter/daily (such as a net's entangle). Feats can grant their own abilities that could be the same. But its ALL under a standard system and I love the standardization of it.
As you level you get to choose which abilities you want based of different roles you want your class to play. Multi-classing grants you the ability to pick up some abilities from other classes. From what I hear you do cap at the number you can have at one time but swap them out as you hit the cap. This prevents you from having a list of 45 abilities and freezing when the DM asks what you want to do.
Races have a lot more impact on your character than just some starting stats. They still come with those (and some abilities too) but also have racial feats and abilities you can pick up later to help flesh out your concept.
Movement and ranges are all done in squares to ease counting out things on battle mats. All diagonals are 1-1-1. So instead of dividing everything by 5 to get ranges and radius you multiply everything by 5 if you need a non-combat spell range. But the majority of spells and things where you would need a range would take place in combat so it makes sense to me.
Combat is way more tactical now. I will link to the combat rules later but position matters a lot more now, the Opportunity Attacks (new word for Attacks of Opportunity) are clear and easy now, things like flanking/surprised/etc. get rolled into a term called Combat Advantage that abilities like back stab can work off of. Basically its cleaner now with easy to understand rules.
There is no more full attack now. Characters get 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 minor action a round. Very similar to Savage Worlds. You can also substitute a higher action for a lower one so could use your standard for another move, your move for another minor.
Minons. Basically similar to the Savage World non-wild cards (although this concept existed long before Savage Worlds) in that they die as soon as they take damage. Good for that epic wade through the crowd feel.
Characters can self heal for a little bit after an encounter. This is limited in frequency and ability but represents taking a small rest before trucking on. A cleric still is the healing king but it lets the encounters themselves be more epic in feel without having to make the group wait "8 hours" before moving onto the next one which D&D 3.5 often ended up doing after fights.

[joshuha]

Ok so lets get nitty-gritty into some rules. First lets talk about the new stat block for an ability (called powers). For reference I am using the Deft Strike power in the Rogue preview here: https://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a&authentic=true


Deft Strike
Rogue Attack 1
A final lunge brings you into an advantageous position.

This defines the name and the level it can be taken.



At-Will [ ] Martial, Weapon
Standard Action

This is the frequency and type. This is an At-Will power that takes a standard action.



Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.

Basically requirements.



Target: One creature
Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack.
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC

Here is the nice standard block of how powers work.
Target is obvious and this is where ranged would be listed as well.
Special is anything that can happen during the attack roll. In this case it allows additional movement.
Attack is your roll you need to succeed. So in this case its a 1d20+dex mod vs. opponents AC. The beauty of the new defense system is for the same template for a spell could be 1d20+wis mod vs. Will for a fear ability like the Cleric has or 1d20+int mod vs. Reflex for a Magic Missle.



Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.

Here is where it lists the results of a successful hit. Note the [W] here means weapon damage. Also note this ability scales a little bit which is nice to know all your lower abilities won't always suck. So at 21st level its doing double damage.

Also some abilities still have an effect on a miss which is neat. A lot of spells do that, thats the good old classic half damage or slowed instead of frozen.

So imagine that every maneuver, weapon special ability, spells, trick shot, etc. is listed as above and you can see how in one little stat block you can convey a lot of information as long as there is standardization behind it.

----

Here is a link to a nice preview of the combat rules (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Combat%20Rules%20Preview.pdf).

I will let you read through them but you can see that a turn is well defined now. You'll see some standard verbiage for things like shift which means a move without an Opportunity Attack. This is the same thing as a 5' step but there are situations now you can shift multiple squares (as result of powers like the rogue has in the above link). This makes it so you don't have to repeat things over and over again.

Along with the above here is a link to some standard terms (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/D&D%20Terms.pdf) and some of these will be found in the above combat preview. Some new stuff here but most if this is essentially just the beginning of an appendix.

And finally here are some links to some sample characters that have been released. It may take awhile to get at first because of the new system but once you see that these are first level characters with lots of options I can see this being exciting.

There is enough information (and an adventure released) where you could run through a preview of the system with these pregens especially since all the powers are in those nice stat blocks. I can imagine those being easy in FG.

Cleric (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Cleric.pdf)
Fighter (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Fighter.pdf)
Paladin (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Paladin.pdf)
Ranger (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Ranger.pdf)
Warlock (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Warlock.pdf)
Wizard (https://ptolus-fg.wikidot.com/local--files/forum:new-thread/Wizard.pdf)

[Malovech]

Wow, I never thought I'd say this about D&D - it's elegant.

[Xorn]

Joshuha has pointed out why 4E looks great as well as I could have, and I've run two fan playtest groups now with FG2. My warlock player loves that he can attack any defense, so he practically searches out their weaknesses.

I'm so stoked about 4E, so are my players, they want to keep playtesting with the pregens right now, and my v3.5 campaign is gathering dust suddenly. Speaking which, I'm gauging interest in some pick-up, one-shot 4E preview games in the Guild House, so check the thread if you like.

[Elf]

I had an opportunity to play the new 4e paladin last night in the preview adventure. The combat seemed much more streamlined and relatively easy to pick up; the adventure was primarily focused on introducing 4e combat so I can only comment on that aspect.

The combat system is more streamlined and also the varying powers/feats/spells do give every class something to do every round.

The combats tended to be quicker vs minions. Combat vs mob monsters was longer and effective use of tactics seems more important. We need did not fight the solo monster so I cannot comment on that, I suspect that one was designed to show you what happens when you hit the negative hit points under the new system.

The combat system also seems to promote proper use of tactics. The varying abilities of each class interact in unusual ways and provide lots of possibilities to use varying tactics instead of just hack and slash tactics.

I actually enjoyed playing a paladin; I hate the paladin class in general ever since it's first introduction but I enjoyed playing the 4e version.

[Traygin]

4e looks like it will rock.

[scytale2]

Btw, many thanks for this very useful thread.

[Illrigger]

This is a great thread, I've forwarded it onto our group members.

I posted this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here:

On the subject of 4e, has anyone seen Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might? It's essentially a collection of the house rules he uses under 3.5e, but after reading it, it's amazing how close it comes to 4e. The class and levelling modifications and the new healing rules are essentially mirrors of what 4e is, and the new skill rules essentially serve the same purpose as what they did in 4e, just on a different tangent.

After seeing the D&D Experience stuff, I was skeptical on how much I'd really end up liking 4e, but given that the guy who wrote D&D 3e has independently come up with essentially the same rules in his game, I'm a lot less iffy on the chances of success.

BTW, the that book is a great resource for those who want a 4e flow to their games but want to protect their 3.5e investment. It is also a good "stepping stone" to get used to a lot of the concepts in 4e.

[Merakon]

I bought the Book of Experimental Might, and the problem I have with it is it just makes inflates everyone's powers without addressing what this does to CRs and encounter design. He also [relatively] deflates the power of fighters, because now everyone gets a bonus feat each level, and increases the power of the other classes. Poor fighter.

So I really don't think his book is of that much practical use. On the other hand, I will admit that there's some neat ideas in there; I'm using "Take a Breather" (although modified for my normal HP campaign) and some other minor things.

[Illrigger]

The sidebar recommends that since normal classes get one feat per level (note it's not a "bonus" feat - it replaces the one every three levels progression) that fighters receive one bonus feat per level, so they end up with twice as many as other classes. Also note that if you are using the new spellcaster progressions, half of the feats they take will be used to gain or advance the class abilities they would have gotten in the standard rules. If you feel that the non-spellcasters are giving the fighter the shaft still, then make them buy their class advancements (sneak attack, rage advances, etc) with feats as well.

As far as CR, it works the same as any changes you make - if you give the players something, you should give the monsters the same thing. When all 1st level kobolds start with 8 extra hit points, that should balance the Druid with wild shape at 1st level.

The point here is that this is very similar to 4e. In 4e you'll get class abilities every level instead of feats, but in practice it's all comparable.

[Wraith]

I don't think that more is better. You all say that they get all these cool feats and special abilities and it is supposed to streamline the play. What I see is one more thing for you to keep track of and another pain in the butt. Then they go and get rid of the spell slot system that has been D&D since the dawn of time. Personally I think they need to take the D&D logo off of it and just call it what it is, CRAP. They are changing everything to get it away from the OGL which they have found is taking business away from them because others are making better product them they are. I also think that they have seen the way FG and all the other internet table tops have taken off and are trying to take a page from the MMORPG book and make people pay for an over blown special effect version of what we have for 30 buck. You'll see this new electronic table top they are making will be all about 4e and it will turn into another DDO. 4e is just another way for the min/max players out there to build a bigger badder multi-class character.

Just one DM's OPINION.

[Malovech]

I don't think that more is better. You all say that they get all these cool feats and special abilities and it is supposed to streamline the play. What I see is one more thing for you to keep track of and another pain in the butt.

This is one thing I noted from Xorn's demo that I didn't like. Essentially everything has become a feat in 4e, very much like an MMO with their variously named attack/spell abilities. Instead of just attacking someone, you will "Lance of Faith" them or some other notion which has a number of rules the GM will need to remember. Personally, I think I will eliminate a lot of this should I go the 4e route, but it remains to be seen.

[Xorn]

I don't think that more is better. You all say that they get all these cool feats and special abilities and it is supposed to streamline the play. What I see is one more thing for you to keep track of and another pain in the butt. Then they go and get rid of the spell slot system that has been D&D since the dawn of time. Personally I think they need to take the D&D logo off of it and just call it what it is, CRAP. They are changing everything to get it away from the OGL which they have found is taking business away from them because others are making better product them they are. I also think that they have seen the way FG and all the other internet table tops have taken off and are trying to take a page from the MMORPG book and make people pay for an over blown special effect version of what we have for 30 buck. You'll see this new electronic table top they are making will be all about 4e and it will turn into another DDO. 4e is just another way for the min/max players out there to build a bigger badder multi-class character.

Just one DM's OPINION.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Wraith. There's some conviction there, too! I haven't experienced... any of the things you mention (well I guess the "powers" do have different names), and found running the game to have almost no bookkeeping at all, compared to previous editions of D&D. I can respect anyone that's been playing D&D for any serious length of time to be apprehensive to the "huge changes" to D&D, but I found that the mechanics are mostly the same--just streamlined.

You still roll a d20, you still want to roll really high, and you still kill people and take their stuff.

By the way, Malovech, I didn't find it any harder to remember what Lance of Faith did than to remember what Bless did. Actually, it's easier, because my 3.5 cleric player never casts Bless, his heals are too important. I found there was way less to keep track of in 4E, actually. :)

When the cleric buffs someones attack roll, then tend to remember that theirselves. :)

[Wraith]

The combat system is more streamlined and also the varying powers/feats/spells do give every class something to do every round.
This is what I think 4e is all about everyone wants a Furry of Blows or a Divine Smite they can do every round. What is wrong with just attacking, or my favorite I waste it with my crossbow. I don't think we need to give every attack a name, because that just rat holes the DM in how he can describe the action. I like saying that my players' attacks miss cause the monster ducked out of the way, or that the overhead swing was halted by the low ceiling. On top of that if spellcasters and rogues can do great actions during combat now what are we giving to the fighter to put him in the spot light while the rogue is opening the chest, or disabling a trap? Is the fighter still just going to stand there? YES, cause that is the rogues time to shine not the fighters. If you want cool stuff to do during combat become a fighter. They get power attack, cleave, whirlwind attack, and more. Don't give everyone cool stuff to do during the fighters time to shine.

Sometimes an attack is just an attack.

[scytale2]

Best to try it, Wraith - this new mechanics might not be to everyone's taste, but it builds a lot on what is successful in the market and is a new not a "me too" system, and is groundbreaking as D&D should be, as the rpg original.

I suspect it will have lots of problems in its first incarnation, but from what I can see, it has a lot going for it. Even if you don't like 4th edition, there's always 3.5 still in existence for quite a while, so I can't see why anyone shoudl knock the new system, when they now have two options to choose from.

Cool stuff in every round has to be good, as it enhances the play experience. That doesn't mean fighters will be opening locks or mages will be backstabbing, simply that rounds are less repetitive and predictable.

[Wraith]

I'm not trying to rub anyone raw, but...

Cool stuff in every round has to be good, as it enhances the play experience. That doesn't mean fighters will be opening locks or mages will be backstabbing, simply that rounds are less repetitive and predictable.

If your rounds are repetitive and predictable that is because your DM isn't giving you interesting locations, or interesting combatives. Maybe he isn't using those attack options built into the monsters he uses. Also if you have "Cool stuff in every round" then it will stop being cool stuff.

I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I don't want this to get ugly cause people get touchy when others have different opinions these days. I am just wondering how with maybe some examples how it makes things better. I looked at the rules and I don't like the fact that they are taking power out of the players hand by giving them what I think is 5 Armor Classes with the new save system. This is going back to having 7 different saves like AD&D.

[scytale2]

From what I can see there are four different saves - one being armour class. Essentially you overcome the saves, rather than save against an attack - it's very simple, as you can gauge which adversaries are likely to have which type of good save and select an appropriate attack to make it easier for yourself. A heavy fighter will struggle with its reflex save, while a weedy wizard has essentially only a 10 armour class vs attacks involving fortitude saves.

I'm not the first to say that fighters have too few options, compared to other classes, so it was great to see the fighter in our party take a central role, rather more than simple hack and slash.

I agree that if you can use cool stuff in every round, then it stops being cool, but then that is the same as now and why characters level up, so they can have new things to try out. In 4th edition too, it seems like every fighter has different "cool stuff". For instance, our dwarven fighter had different inherent powers than perhaps would an elven or human one.

All in all, I have been pleasantly surprised by how radically different and forward-thinking 4th edition is, not the simple fix that many were predicting, that we had from 3.0 to 3.5 and even one might suggest 2nd edition to 3rd.

[kalmarjan]

I'm not trying to rub anyone raw, but...

If your rounds are repetitive and predictable that is because your DM isn't giving you interesting locations, or interesting combatives. Maybe he isn't using those attack options built into the monsters he uses. Also if you have "Cool stuff in every round" then it will stop being cool stuff.

I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I don't want this to get ugly cause people get touchy when others have different opinions these days. I am just wondering how with maybe some examples how it makes things better. I looked at the rules and I don't like the fact that they are taking power out of the players hand by giving them what I think is 5 Armor Classes with the new save system. This is going back to having 7 different saves like AD&D.

I really do not want to come into this conversation late... but here goes, from one disillusioned Gm to another.

Hav eyou given 4e a test spin per chance? I am wondering because it looks like you have not.

As for the saves/AC issue. You sort of have it right. In AD&D 1e there was 5 different saves, right? And each class had a different progression with those saves, remember?

That changed in 2E a bit, but was still confusing. When 3e hit the bench, it all seemed streamlined, right? Compared to having 5 different saves, it sure was.

Unfortunately, you are still looking at different progressions with the classes. Some get tooled, others do not. The worst part? You never had a chance when you are looking at saving, it was ALWAYS in the hands of your aggressor. Even worse yet, it looked as if there was no point in some cases. Take magic missile. ALWAYS hits in previous editions. Worse yet, you had to learn it every day in order to cast it. Sure, there was no saving throw against it, but after all, at first level you were doing how much damage?

Now it is a (standard?) action, meaning you can do it once per round. (Sometimes you can even do it twice, if you use an action point...). Okay, so it does not automatically hit. You actually have to roll for it to hit. This is a good thing.

You know one other thing that has been mentioned before... and I will repeat it here is well. I actually feel this way as well.

This is not D&D as it was known in 3e, 2e, 1e or the basic boxed sets. This is 4e. (Or rather, will be. ;) ) WOTC has owned the brand now for 11 years, and they are making it their own. I will be glad that it is different from the previous versions... otherwise why would I buy it?

See, I think WOTC is stuck here. If they put out something that is close to 3.5, they run the risk of people thinking that the new edition will not be worth the purchase. (This happened at the beginning of 3.5, remember?) So their other option is to make major changes- risking the wrath of others when they cry the "this is not the 'real D&D'!"

How is it better? Prep for games is one. You do not need a major degree to keep up with your players. Think about it. You see a lot of builds where the player takes a little from here, there, this prestige class, this other one there... you have a character with about 15 different classes to make up a character that he/she thinks is cool. 4E looks to have done away with this. Instead of having 15 different PrC's, you now have something akin to paragon classes with your characters.

Another way that things are better is the new powers systems... I played the warlock in the playtest adventure. Now, the idea of the warlock is that it is a battle-field-controlling character. Several abilities let me do exactly what it was intended for...and did not interrupt play balance at all. To give a couple of examples:

1) At the beginning of every turn, I could curse an enemy. This did 1d6 damage to the creature, and remained until the end of the fight. It also set up an ability later.
2) If I managed to move more than 3 squares in a round, I was considered to have concealment.
3) If a creature fell to 0 HP or less while under my curse ability, I IMMEDIATELY got to "teleport" three squares without a penalty in actions.

Now, how cool is that? I am playing the character like it was intended... and I get some cool abilities as well. Couple that with some incantations like eyebite (attack, deal 1d6+4 damage vs Will, invisible to crature you attacked.) I now have options in that combat... and I did not have to get all stupid and take weird combos of feats and PrC.

Oh ys, I was doing this as 1st level.


S, give it a try, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Sandeman

[Xorn]

Wraith, consider yourself invited to my next fan playtest game--if you're interested. If not, all the same to me.

You aren't going to upset me, regardless of how strongly you express your opinion of 4E. I read the EnWorld forums, so I'm pretty used to seeing opinions of what's coming that sound unfounded. But truth be told? You could be a designer for all I know. So if you don't like it, great.

What you post doesn't leave me the impression that you want to hear otherwise, so I'm not going to try. With both Pathfinder & it sounds like Cooke's 3.75, you've got a lot of options to say in the 3.x ruleset! This seems like a really great time for D&D, to me!

Scytale, by the way, had such HORRIBLE luck with his rolls this morning. LOL! For the last three encounters though--man did he start to shape up and incinerate some bad guys! I have to say, I think that was some of the most impressive play with the wizard I've seen yet.

I do want to mention one thing, though. Far be it from anyone to tell you what to think, but if you go back and read your posts, do you think it's possible it might read off as a little extreme? I sounds like you hate 4E, and people that are interested in 4E are idiots. I really doubt you think that, but that's kind of how it reads. Food for thought, that's all I'm saying.

I guess you did ask for a short list of how it's improving:

1. The 4 defenses (AC/Fort/Ref/Will) all increase with character level, and scale together. Some characters have many ways to attack one defense (wizard) while others have one way to attack each defense (warlock). A big, brawny soldier will likely have high AC & fort, but maybe a lacking will or reflex, etc. I find this a refreshingly elegant mechanic.

2. The healing surges are allowing for clerics to do something besides memorize a bunch of spells that are just going to be channeled into cures. Not a LOT mind you--the mage used a second wind (heal 1/4 health, and used a standard action, no attack that round) to heal FIVE health. This was in response to taking 12 damage! But it DID keep him standing JUST long enough for the cleric to throw a huge heal at him and keep the fight going. I guarantee you, not one person today felt like dying wasn't a distinct possibility, and I actually thought that adventure was a little too easy--though they really used good tactics to tear apart some of the encounters.

3. Monsters feel unique. Fighting the kobolds involves dealing with their battlefield mobility and mob tactics. Fighting hobgoblins means literally dealing with a military phalanx (they got a wakeup call when the warcaster blasted them across the room as the shield wall parted). Running these NPCs is FUN--and popular opinion (right or wrong) is that 3.5 can be a pain in the *** to run.

4. Powers mean options. Not a shitton of options--just options. The fighter on any given turn would typically be looking at Cleave (extra damage to adjacent target), Tide of Iron (push a target and follow them on hit), or just hit them normally. If Tide of Iron was just a feat that allowed that, it would be 3.5 ready. But instead, it's a power that says, "Make a normal attack and if it hits, push your target 1 and optionally shift to their old square." Cool. Fighters don't force someone to attack them, they just have means to make it a really bad idea to not give them your full attention.

5. Durations are simpler. Most crap lasts for an encounter in 3.5. So the duration is just "encoutner" now, or "until save", etc. There's so little to track now, it's great. The biggest tracking we had was "Who gets +2 to hit this turn because the cleric inspired you?"

There's a couple starters for you.

Be careful with comments like, "The problems with your game are the GM." Not an order, but that's going to upset a lot more people thancriticizing their rule system. I personally have been running games for some of the people in my play group for two decades; and despite the distance we found a way to keep playing together. We're doing something right.

[Griogre]

First, if you can match times up when Xorn is running I really suggest you hook up with one of Xorn's play test games and check it out for yourself. You’ll get a much better feel on whether you like it or not. As a side note, Xorn’s way of having players do RP self descriptions of combat is worth sitting in on ever if it turns out you hate 4th edition.

I am just wondering how with maybe some examples how it makes things better. I looked at the rules and I don't like the fact that they are taking power out of the players hand by giving them what I think is 5 Armor Classes with the new save system. This is going back to having 7 different saves like AD&D.
I'll give my thoughts on the saves first. It's different but overall no power is lost by the player. Under 3.x PCs cast spells. They have no power over the opponents’ saves - it matters nothing how well you cast the spell, the opponent still saves on a 20, fails on a 1. In 3.x then the defender makes the determination on whether a spells fails or succeed. In 4th the attacker determines whether his spell fails or saves. Other than changing who determining results - the mechanics are the same. In my opinion is a total wash mathematically.

Ok, then - why do I think it’s good they changed it? I personally don't like a change in a working game system unless I see a good reason for it.

Everyone talks about streamlining but this is a concrete example of it where the math/probabilities are the same but the game runs faster. In 4th edition they got rid of opposing rolls - all of them from what I can see. We are not just talking about the stupid grapple rules, we are talking *all* opposed rolls made at the time when an opponent does something. Saving throws are an opposed roll. By making the attacker roll to hit (in effect beating a take 10 number plus save bonuses target number i.e. a save) we just got rid an opposed roll (note some saves do still happen later but on each players/monster's initiative). Opposed rolls slow the game down. Now you may not like this, but my spell caster player really likes the idea when I told him how it works. He feels he is gaining power over his spells by being the one rolling to see of the spell works instead of the defender.

The increased speed in resolution of combat is real. We would get in 10 rounds of combat with 6 PCs and about the same number of enemies in the time it would take to do 5 rounds of combat with 5 PCs and 2-3 enemies. From what I can see by looking at the samples of monsters they have released you are going to have fast combat with more monsters all the way up in levels. Having the Ref, Fort, and Will “saves” on the PC’s sheet as target numbers does not actually add any more save types it is still just the same three people roll for in 3.x.

As a DM I really like the ability to have more monsters on the field. Not just because I think it is more heroic for the characters (which I do), but because of the different roles different monster NPCs have. More monsters in 4th edition looks like it is going to allow you to customize encounters to what you want easier. You now have monsters that have the same roles as PCs. So if you want a melee encounter you use a bunch of the brute fighter like monster or if you want sneaky you use the rogue like guys. Because you are going to usually have 5 or 6 monsters per encounter you can adjust the type of monsters to match a theme. Despite setting up what are effectively monster mini parties - combat seems to run twice as fast with more PCs and more monsters. What I find very encouraging was this was with a party where five out of the six players had not tried running 4th edition characters before.

On the subject of streamlining, I though you have a good question earlier in the thread about “How could more options be streamlined?” It’s a good question that is a little tricky to answer.

The cleric I ran in the play test had 3 at wills, 3 encounter prayers (one which had 3 options) and one daily prayer. So I had in the first fight of the day about 7 choices plus a second wind option. The 4th edition first level characters are probably about the same as 4th level characters in 3.x in terms of durability and options. In 3rd Edition a 4th level cleric could have brought any of the 0, 1, or 2nd level spells into a fight. He also could have 2 or 3 feats and maybe a domain power or two. What I’m saying is it felt like to me while I had a fair amount of choices they were focused more than earlier versions. Mechanically it was like I had nine feat like abilities instead of all the spells I could normally choose from plus all the different special attacks and feats. I have to admit I am curious to see how well this scales to the upper levels.

One thing I think is a good sign is that when I look at character special abilities most of the descriptions of their effects are in one or two sentences on the character sheet. It they keep that type of simplicity across the various levels, and judging by the high level monster stat blocks they seemed to have, there will be a low learning curve to grasping each character power.

The other thing that I saw in the play test that I like about 4th edition was the encouragement of dramatic movement - the Warlock bounces all over the battlefield and the ranger is encouraged to move around too. The fighter makes it hard for enemies to move around him by making the squares “sticky” and has a “run by” attack. I think encouraging movement helps set a nice heroic scene.

We still don’t know very much about how the rest of 4th Edition will play, particularly how the Ritual Spells and social conflict system work or how balanced the various classes and races are. I will say that what from what I can make out of combat and the pregen characters, I haven’t seen anything to make me cancel a preorder for a 4th edition player’s handbook.

[Xorn]

Other than changing who determining results - the mechanics are the same. In my opinion is a total wash mathematically.

Good point, Griogre--mathematically, in 3.x the caster takes 10 to find spell DC, and the defender rolls Fort/Ref/Will. In 4.0 the defender takes 10 and the attacker rolls vs Fort/Ref/Will. AC already worked like this. It's not quite a wash--because casters can CRIT now--but crits are not as dramatic to a fight as they used to be. (Just max damage.)


He feels he is gaining power over his spells by being the one rolling to see of the spell works instead of the defender.

Exactly--and one difference between the knuckledraggers and fingerwrigglers in 3.x is the wizard rarely hears people cheer at his 20!


We still don’t know very much about how the rest of 4th Edition will play, particularly how the Ritual Spells and social conflict system work or how balanced the various classes and races are. I will say that what from what I can make out of combat and the pregen characters, I haven’t seen anything to make me cancel a preorder for a 4th edition player’s handbook.

Exactly--it's given me enough faith in their design philosophy for this edition that I trust they are not going to skimp out on social resolutions, or weak fluff, etc. I think it's going to be new, with simple approaches, and complex possibilities. Everything I see happening in our fan playtests make me ask--why couldn't a fighter always do this!?

[Dachannien]

I wouldn't consider saving throws in 3.0/3.5 to be "opposed rolls", because there's only one person doing any rolling (the person saving). I can, however, see how having the caster doing the roll could speed things up in area-effect situations.

Anyway, my own personal thoughts on 4th edition are that I'm sure some folks will enjoy the new rules (and I wish them good times in gaming), but I'm satisfied with 3.5. Moreover, its availability at https://www.d20srd.org/ has both sped up my group's gameplay (especially my own as DM) and allowed us to put our 3.0 books back on the shelf for the most part. Since I don't see such a resource being available for 4th edition pretty much ever - and it's still up in the air how well FG will be able to support it due to licensing issues - I'm sticking with what works for me.

One thing I'm not willing to do is to abandon FG for WotC's VTT software, in part because of the "you're kind of only renting it" pricing scheme and in part because of how WotC is trying to force other VTTs out of the market even though they're last to the party.

[Griogre]

Good point, Griogre--mathematically, in 3.x the caster takes 10 to find spell DC, and the defender rolls Fort/Ref/Will. In 4.0 the defender takes 10 and the attacker rolls vs Fort/Ref/Will. AC already worked like this. It's not quite a wash--because casters can CRIT now--but crits are not as dramatic to a fight as they used to be. (Just max damage.)
Acknowledged, but in 4th ed there does not seem to be spells that auto hit - so all spells seem to miss at the very least on a one (with a few having half damage on a miss). There no longer seem to be spells like Magic Missile and Ice Storm with no to hit and no saves. Thus I still think the overall system is still about a wash mathematically.

To continue some thoughts on spell casting in general, one of the things that happened in the move from AD&D to 3.x was the change in the average number of rounds in a fight. In AD&D it was very common in any fight were the party was not obviously being over powered for a spell caster to wait a few rounds to decide to cast - you would wait a bit to see how things developed. If you fighters were doing well you may not cast at all that fight. A lot of that had to do with expecting to fight 20 or 30 encounters that day before you regained spells so you only wanted to cast spells in fights that mattered.

When 3.x came around the number of rounds in a fight dropped and individual monsters became more lethal. Thus if you were going to cast, the spell caster wanted to cast the first round to minimize the damage taken by the party. Third edition also preached the five encounters per day and done average right in the DMG. This meant to the arcane casters that there wasn't a lot of point in saving spells. It's not usually the arcane guys who run out of spells after the low levels - it’s the clerics.

In 4th edition it seems we are back to a higher average number of rounds per fight, but unlike AD&D because of the at will “spells” the casters can still throw a spell every round and not worry about not having any spells a few encounters from now. I have always felt that part of being a caster was rationing your spells to last as long as possible while not hurting your party but the at will and per encounter spells don’t really bother me as long as I feel in return I am no longer stuck averaging five encounters a day. While you are losing the some of the going “Nova” option I really like the feeling we are gaining back the ability to clear a level of 20-30 rooms, like in AD&D, before having to rest.

While I like this for arcane casters, I’m not sure I like it for the divine casters. Before I can make up my mind I’ll have to see exactly how healing scales up in numbers as well as other healing abilities. On the other side until clerics get Heal in 3.x they usually can’t keep up with the damage being dealt out in a major encounter if it is spread around over different characters either.

By the way I have seen some posts on other boards about the “unlimited” healing of 4th edition characters. That *is* kind of true when you *finished* an encounter (very similar to after a fight in 3.x of everyone breaking out the CLW wands) – however during an encounter curing seems more limited than in 3.x at mid to upper levels. An that is why characters are going to die because if the fight goes on too long the per encounter healing get’s exhausted and while everyone gets a healing surge the amount of “highly focused” healing seems limited.

By the way, I really have to say WotC’s names for class roles is just lame; I mean controller? I think enchanter – crowd controller in EQ, not area of effect caster. Only the striker seems to fit reasonably well.

[kalmarjan]

One thing I'm not willing to do is to abandon FG for WotC's VTT software, in part because of the "you're kind of only renting it" pricing scheme and in part because of how WotC is trying to force other VTTs out of the market even though they're last to the party.

Thing is, all WOTC can do is disallow the distribution of a 4E ruleset from a third party developer. Nothing stops me from advertising a game using FGII, with 4E. Trust me, no one in a suit is going to tell me that I HAVE to use such and such software to play online.

See, FG is just what the game needs. An alternative. IF you do not want to pay 10$ per month in order to play online, AND you can live without all the "goodies" that DDI will supposedly give you... then FGII is for you. Once you buy the book, all you need is the software... and someone who is willing to play with you.

Hmmm.... 90$ for a group license with discount (one time!) vs 120$ per year (per player) to game in a group. Hmm.... DM+average size party...(*we will say 5 to make it even.) Well, that is $720 a year... but you get their nifty character generator with the rules database. (If of course it is not as buggy as Etools was. Past predicts future people.)

As for the 4E and my thoughts... I am still on the fence. Will it be SW or 4E for me?

Sandeman

[Xorn]

There really is some fantastic discussion here, folks!

On the healing--Griogre (as usual) hit how I felt it's working--I like the cleric having 2 heals every encounter--and I *think* the healing surge mechanic (determining how much even the cleric heals you) will help heals scale per class--as well as minimize "bad" heals. You're getting back 1/4 of your HP, and then extra. So even a terrible heal dice doesn't mean you're screwed.

I think the Magic Missile is going to become the neverending crossbow, really. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet (I mean talk about a sacred cow, magic missile!?), but everyone that has played the wizard thus far has told me they really enjoyed all their options. (Scytale2 really turned into a fire-slinging dynamo last game.)

And I think Controller is a terrible name so far--but they did mention it means taking on multiple targets, with damage AND conditions. So maybe there's more to see there. But yeah, I thought enchanter, too.

[scytale2]

Just a quick comment on the wizard - it is too early to say (from what I've seen) whether what they have done is suitable for a wide variety of campaigns. We ran a number of combat encounters, which were quite varied and so my spells, which were 80% combat-focused turned me into a useful damage-dealer.

I think the wizard is uniquely placed to do everything other than damage deal in 3.5, and damage is far better suited to sorcerors. I've no idea whether there is a sorceror in 4th ed, so can't comment on this, but I very much hope that wizards remain the most limited and the most flexible class at the same time, dependent upon choice of spells.

I enjoyed the at will powers, though and to me this is a big step forward and far more sensible to give a "flavour" to your character, but I certainly don't want to lose the spell variety.

One thing that I was surprised about in the game was the loss of logic in favour of simplicity. Clearly arrows and daggers aren't going to be effective against some creature types and I think players should be making these types of decisions - "will my weapon work against that creature?" In its simplest form you don't cast fireball against a fire elemental. 4th does seem to have taken a more blanket approach in this area, from what I gather, which takes some element of skill from the game, in my opinion.

[joshuha]

In its simplest form you don't cast fireball against a fire elemental. 4th does seem to have taken a more blanket approach in this area, from what I gather, which takes some element of skill from the game, in my opinion.

I think elemental and type of damage will play a role just as much as it did in 3.5. Maybe not the whole blunt/piercing/slashing thing which is probably what you are referring to more. But you will notice that powers like scorching burst or the clerics spells make sure to specify fire damage or radiant damage.

We already know the pit fiend has 30 resist fire and I am sure a fire elemental will maybe even have a special absorb or just really high resist. But the other types can lead to interesting things like undead taking extra radiant damage and celestials being immune and what not.

[richvalle]

I've no idea whether there is a sorceror in 4th ed, so can't comment on this, but I very much hope that wizards remain the most limited and the most flexible class at the same time, dependent upon choice of spells.


From what I've seen, Sorceror is is not a starting character class but will come out in a future PHB. Same with Bard.

rv

[Xorn]

I think elemental and type of damage will play a role just as much as it did in 3.5. Maybe not the whole blunt/piercing/slashing thing which is probably what you are referring to more. But you will notice that powers like scorching burst or the clerics spells make sure to specify fire damage or radiant damage.

We already know the pit fiend has 30 resist fire and I am sure a fire elemental will maybe even have a special absorb or just really high resist. But the other types can lead to interesting things like undead taking extra radiant damage and celestials being immune and what not.

The Wizards Presents books (Races & Classes, and Worlds & Monsters), which I'm currently finishing off, are really a behind-the-scenes look at where the design direction is going, and honestly, half of it is essays from the people writing 4E to explain the "template" they are shooting for.

They wanted to reduce immunities drastically, because they are too prevalent in 3.5. They aren't gone, just reduced. Those skeletons for example, no longer have the damage reductions vs non-blunt. They do have resistance to dark (necrotic) magic, and a vulnerability to light (radiant) magic.

They are NOT immune to the rogue's "4E sneak attack", because is a defining ability of the class, and they are trying to limit anything that makes a core class ability pointless. Should a mace inflict a lot more punishment to an undead creature than say... a mace? Probably so... but what do I tell the ranger, who's an archer through and through? I'd rather come up with different fluff to explain why his arrows work than force a player to set aside his core aspect. Maybe the skeleton in animated by a force, and that's what you're really attacking?

Anyway, I'm with you--in that it does take away a level of combat--but I think it's been replaced in better ways. One of my players made a ranger for our game once, melee specialized. He had a pair of shortswords he fought with, and loved them. He also had a pair of maces, and a pair of daggers, which he hated. (He needed blunt and slashing damage types.) With such an annoying solution (that the player didn't even want to do) I'm fine with just eliminating it. :)

Oh! And on the sorcerer, it's not in the core PHB--but the design ideas suggest that the sorcerer (which is actually emulated by the wizard rather well now) is going to be a "barely in control" arcance caster again. When a sorcerer throws a fireball, expect him to be wreathing in flames for a turn. They can't just "turn it on and off" like a wizard can. :)

[scytale2]

I had in mind that a sorceror would be the "elementalist" of 2nd edition, focusing on one element, but being especially powerful, so it's interesting what you say. However, again this is a little problematical, if Wizards is concerned that a character HAS to be useful with its core abilities. This does seem to pander to a particular type of player, who refuses to play a rogue, if he/she is up against Undead. 4th edition seems to have enough special abilities that I'm sure a rogue can be useful in many ways. Rogues aren't backstab machines, anyway, are they?

So we do seem to be sacrificing realism a bit. I suppose the way I look at things is that if you know you're up against skeletons, you prepare for it. If you don't why should the skeleton lose ITS core ability? If a player insists on preparing for every eventuality, then so be it, let them carry the kitchen sink and have them whinge at being very slow in the heat of battle. They have to make that trade-off.

To be honest it's a very singular scenario too, so why should a whole logical game mechanic be changed to suit one style of gamer? One of the irritating things in WoW is that you can blast away with ice and fire on snow yetis and the damage is the same, simply so the designers don't have to worry about class balance or wizards being useless against some creature types if they specialise. Under these circumstances you pay no penalty for specialising and clearly a character should be allowed to build their skills with a focus, if they wish to.

The MMO issue is very interesting and one can see now D&D4E On-line in perhaps 5 years time (if not before). I feel quite positive that the design is aware of future markets in on-line virtual worlds and very much support these changes, with the mild reservations above. D&D is one of few brands capable of succeeding very well alongside WoW, without taking away the innovative and creditable DDO which despite its strange game mechanics has a loyal following.

Anyway, thanks Xorn for a really fun session. I told my F2F players about it last night and they asked me what I didn't like about it. Here are the two issues I mentioned to them:

a) A little hard to assess bonuses if you don't use floorplans (which they don't)
b) The cleric's/paladin's abilities including healing seem a little counter-intuitive. Whilst the game combats are simpler to resolve, 4th ed takes advantage of that by putting in quite a few extra + and -'s to hit, which some may find hard to handle. Bloodied was a bit tricky too.

In FG terms, can I put in a request to have green health bars on the tokens, which change colour to orange at 50% and red at 25% health, so we can know when to use our "bloodied" bonus?

[Wraith]

I was reviewing some 3.5e rules for a up coming game and was wondering if the 4e rules address this issue. I have always found that a character that lights on fire has to save for his items that he cares to see what is destroyed and what isn't. Does the 4e rules give items a set save and the "caster check" or spell check or what ever set what is destroyed and what isn't or what?

Example: Sam the dwarf is carrying a Frost Brand save DC 24 (15 standard save bonus, +2 item bonus, +7 1/2 caster level 14) and a Cure Light Wounds Potion save DC 18 (15 standard save bonus, +2 item bonus, +1 1/2 caster level 1). Sam is hit by a Dragons Breath weapon, and the dragon rolls a 20 on its attack roll. (assuming I am understanding how this works) That would mean that the potion shatters and the sword stays intact. (20 beat the potions 18, but not the swords 24). Would this be fair for the character if every time they get hit by a powerful creature that their potions (at least low level ones) are destroyed?

[Seriul]

I've only seen people set on fire a couple times and each time they only had to save to stop taking fire damage every round. I don't think there's enough solid information out yet to know if equipment will be destroyed by fires.

[Wraith]

Like I said in the Play test thread...


Now that I have played Xorn I am one of the converted masses of 4E. Thank you oh great one. When you want to get a campaign going I would consider myself honored.
So count me as first in line.

[mr_h]

I played in Xorn's playtest this morning and I have to say I'm rather impressed with the way that the rules have been modified. In 3.5 I normally play the Cleric, so I grabbed that for todays game so I had teh best way to compare them.

Ther were a couple of things That I really liked about playing the cleric this time.
First off I didn't feel like I was just a walking box of bandaids. The clerics healing power (Healing Word, can use twice per encounter) were minor actions, so I could do something else in addition to healing another party member (Which happened once: I attacked with my mace and used Priests Shield, then turned around and healed the Paladin). All those Healing Surges people have did a nice job replacing the Clerics constant need for burning spells on Cure spells, without completly removing the need for a Cleric.

In addition, the other spells were nice to have. I didnt have to sit back and go "Do I cast Bless this round, or just attack with my Mace?" The spells I did have let me contribue to combat as well as providing assistance to my party members. That did add a lot of tactical use for it too: Who will benefit the most from this +2 Hit, or will someone else benefit from having a +1 AC?

Speaking of tactics, when we got into combat I noticed the other players doing a lot more then "I Swing my sword" "I shoot my arrow", etc. Every action seemed different as they did different powers and actions (although I think our wizard was getting a bit annoyed that he couldnt scorch everyone in the area....I hope he doesnt get fireball :D). I wish the fighter had had better luck with their dice, I was one of those people who thought they actually 'fixed' the fighter when it came to third edition by making them a force to reckon with again. I wanted to see if it was the same in 4E.

Anyhoo, the rules were really easy to pick up for playing the first time. My biggest problem was actually trying to deciede what to do. This might have been because the powers were different then normal, or just that there were a number of additional options to me. If it's the later, I do worry about what it could e like when characters have a lot more powers at higher levels.

All that said, I'm impressed and it was a lot of fun.

[Xorn]

As a side note, from what we're hearing, a lot of your powers choices will either upgrade an existing power OR grant you something new. So you can kind of go either direction, I think. I'm hoping that flexibility will be there, anyway--from the development essays in the Wizard Presents, I'm most excited about the attitude reflected by the development teams. Hopefully their game (which we've had a teeny peek at) will be able to live up to those goals.

[Seriul]

Mr_H, I've been reading about a feat that was announced for people who love AE spells. It does something like you can burst 5 still, but you can ignore x squares for that AE effect where x is your wisdom modifier. That way the fighter can get in the thick of things and you place the AE all around her.

[Wraith]

I by the way was the wizard and I wasn't annoyed I was playing my character which was a tiefling wizard... which I came to find out was not what I thought it was at the beginning of play, but none the less had a great time.

I did like how a lot of the special abilities worked and the way the game flowed. I contribute alot of that to Xorn's nice toys. (ie tokens, maps, and extras) With that aside though the mechanics were easy to pick up on, a little because they still had a flavor of 3.Xe in them and the conversion is easy to see.

On the other hand I did see at the end everyone was starting to get the hang of things, but also I started to see that the more things change the more they stay the same. By that I mean what I said earlier in this thread. If everyone has cool things to do all the time then they stop being cool. I am not saying that I don't like the system just that I would like to see how this would look over a long term gig.

Which brings me to my last point, and this probably won't be the last time you hear this. Xorn I bag you please let me play again I gotta get another shot at that Dragon. :D

[Seriul]

If you do another run in 4e I'd recommend trying a completely different sort of character. It's amazing the differences between playing a tank and playing anything else. Personally, the only class I didn't enjoy playing was the cleric, but a lot of others seemed to enjoy the experience.

Being a tank is lots of fun, and the paladin is normally more fun for me when its not my turn (miss, miss, miss, oh I hit Corrin, no reroll that, miss, I hate you, miss). I prefer tanking with the warrior because while Corrin locks down a single target well, Kathra is the point of the attack and the one who wades through enemies protecting the squishies in the back.

The wizard, warlock and ranger are probably my favorites to play. The wizard has a lot of neat utility with mage hand and does some amazing damage to groups or single targets. The ranger can stand back at extreme range with the wizard or move up close and move around with ease as enemies try to keep him in melee. The warlock is fun because I try to learn about my enemies and what types of attacks hit their defenses the best along with bouncing all over the battlefield. I can't wait to get the chance to play a rogue and test out what being a melee striker is all about. Meepo is the closest thing I've seen to a rogue and I love his abilities.

The cleric is an amazing class. I love being in a party with one. The only reason I don't like to play the class is it isn't the type of character I enjoy playing. Griogre and Mr_H both played great clerics, buffing, healing and attacking like the beacons of light they were supposed to be. I enjoy watching others playing that class so effectively. The warlord looks to be in that same vein, and I hope to get the chance to run one soon.

The best thing I've seen running the games so many times is different ways people employ their powers. I saw great uses of mage hand when Scytale was picking up bones or switching a level, and another great use today of throwing hot coals on an enemy. One of the first parties I was in with the paladin, marking the target and running (which is nerfed now, but was a great strategy and the reason I was throwing hammers at the stinky lizard). I loved seeing a warlock teleport through enemy lines to open up other strikers from behind and helping them attack enemies. Watching the warrior lock down a bunch of enemies (dragons, goblins, kobolds) with her mere presence.

I think what it boils down to isn't that powers are simple and repetitive, but the unique ways I've seen people use the same powers and unlock the potential of the character. It just breeds that much more creativity into the game.

[Xorn]

I want to see a dragonborn fighter with a great axe; that's just me. I mean, D&D starts out for everyone with the desire to chop an orc in half with your great axe, right? Just want to kick off 4E correctly! :D

And Wraith, the next 4E fandemo will probably be on a 6AM Sunday again, so I imagine there will be a spot for ya. :) Dunno that you'll get to try for that dragon again, but I'll be sure to give ya some targets!

[Wraith]

I am so there and I want to try the fighter to see the difference cause I am wondering how different they can be when they have so similar mechanics. I mean the wizard was cool, easy, and fun to play. But, I want to see how the tide of battle and stuff like that works comparatively speaking.

Don't worry I am sold I went and pre-ordered my 4E core rules collection set for $83 from Paizo yesterday and I can't wait I feel like a kid on Christmas eve. I would love to blast some baddies with you Xorn.

I would rather play a powerful fire wizard though. My love D&D came from Tolkien's Middle Earth so I love the magic and mystery of magic users. A powerful wizard or a sexy warlock is right up my ally. Nothin I like more the burnin some gobbos down to the ground, and wasting stuff with Magic Missile. (which I like more then wasting stuff with my crossbow)

[Xorn]

LOL

I'm going to see if my brother wants to run his SWSE game again on Saturday--if so, I might run 4E this coming Sunday.

[Seriul]

I agree on playing a wizard or something along those lines once I actually get to level a character, but since this is just a preview its fun to play each type personally.

This last game I played the paladin differently than the first game. In the first one I would go after the back ranks of enemies and go toe to toe. This last time I worked more on trying to lock down the closest enemies and against the dragon I was staying back for the most part.

[Xorn]

FYI from some more of what I've been reading, and from comparing all the various marks, I'm changing the mark again (since WotC hasn't told us what the real change was):

If you don't melee attack the mark by the end of your next turn, the mark fades.

Granted as long as the paladin stays within 5 squares, he can re-mark the target every other round. (As the mark won't fade until the end of your turn, you can't remark till the next turn.) So it's possible to mark without meleeing the target, but not nearly as effectively.

[Seriul]

Quit nerfing my mark! I should compare this to the old monk AC nerf but only if it happened in beta.

[Wraith]

I have already set my time away for playing with or without a game.

HERES HOPING. :D

[Xorn]

I'm going to run my D&D game Saturday (maybe even 3.5) so there will not be a 4E fan demo this weekend. I will be running one the following Sunday--April 13th! I'll make a Guild House post this weekend.

[Wraith]

OK, so I have played and I have played. I like the system, but I see something that maybe can be improved.

AC has always been a pet peeve of mine. I don't like the fact that armor makes you harder to hit. If you get hit you get hit with or with out armor. All armor does is when you get hit makes it hurt less. So I propose getting rid of AC all together and making attacks that target AC target Reflex instead. Then using armor for what it was meant for Damage Reduction. As I understand it though there is no damage reduction in 4E. Am I right or does anyone know. I think that getting rid of armor class and just using the three defenses makes sense. I mean AC is just a armor boosted Dexterity check anyway right? It makes sense that a higher level character would get hit less there for their saves increase as they level and improve their defense while damage stays static with the type and size of the weapon they wield. I would think that there fore the damage reduction would stay static as well. I was using a variant that used armor for DR and it worked rather well. A crit over came the DR so a full plate fighter was not completely immune to damage but have you ever tried hitting a person in full plate and doing any damage to the person inside other then a little bruise here or there? If WotC could work this into the system I think it would be better for it. Also why doesn't armor check penalty or Max Dex apply to Reflex checks/defense? It slows you down in every other thing you do why not reacting to Reflex oriented attacks? Just one DM's opinion.

[Seriul]

With AC you could picture it as a blow made contact with the character but the armor deflected the blow harmlessly away. The game just isn't balanced around armor being DR and reflex counting for your AC.

There also is DR in the game. There are these undead that we've faced who get dealt 5 bonus damage to any radiant spell and have 10 DR against martial and some necrotic energy (dark energy?).

[Dachannien]

Unfortunately, you do have to have some suspension of disbelief when it comes to things like AC. Same goes for things like only being able to swing once every six seconds, not being able to parry, etc. The idea is that there's a lot more going on in combat than just waiting your turn and swinging - you're constantly dodging around, parrying blows, and fighting with general panache, but the total of all of that is accumulated in one "to hit" roll versus an armor class.

[joshuha]

Right, AC and hit points and many other things have always been an abstraction and not modeled on how reality works. There are other systems out there that try to model realism but things get more complicated that way.

Once you make armor into damage reduction for realism purposes than weapon types vs armor comes back in. Then condition of the armor, coverage, where the hit lands, etc. I like that D&D abstracts it. Just like HP is an abstraction on health, avoidance, fatigue, grit, etc. all rolled up into one.

[Wraith]

Well I just figured it would be a way to simplify the rules which everyone is raving about by eliminating an entire redundant defense and cut down on the obscenely high hit point counts that have been popping up since 3.5e started. And again it is just an idea that I thought WotC could try in playtest or something and see what happens. I think it makes sense and I understand how combat is an abstract concept if it was more real, then combat would take for ever to resolve. But getting rid of one defense and adding damage reduction doesn't have to get as far as where does the hit land. That is going farther then I intend, but just making a set DR like the Barbarian's special ability so that other characters could be tough as nails like him then why not. I mean the Barbarian would still be the only one that has DR 1/- naked, but now the rogue in his leather would have DR 1/- also, and the Fighter that clanks around in that full plate everywhere would get 8/-. I have seen what this does to a campaign too. I know that, that fighter would never take damage from a kobold with a short sword. You know why... cause they are weak and stupid, but that ogre would knock him across the room and he would get up to go back for more. If you don't like the idea I understand why, but you are taking the idea to far before ever trying it out. I have tried your way, but you don't seem to want to try mine. Fair? I think not!

[joshuha]

Well I just figured it would be a way to simplify the rules which everyone is raving about by eliminating an entire redundant defense and cut down on the obscenely high hit point counts that have been popping up since 3.5e started. And again it is just an idea that I thought WotC could try in playtest or something and see what happens. I think it makes sense and I understand how combat is an abstract concept if it was more real, then combat would take for ever to resolve. But getting rid of one defense and adding damage reduction doesn't have to get as far as where does the hit land. That is going farther then I intend, but just making a set DR like the Barbarian's special ability so that other characters could be tough as nails like him then why not. I mean the Barbarian would still be the only one that has DR 1/- naked, but now the rogue in his leather would have DR 1/- also, and the Fighter that clanks around in that full plate everywhere would get 8/-. I have seen what this does to a campaign too. I know that, that fighter would never take damage from a kobold with a short sword. You know why... cause they are weak and stupid, but that ogre would knock him across the room and he would get up to go back for more. If you don't like the idea I understand why, but you are taking the idea to far before ever trying it out. I have tried your way, but you don't seem to want to try mine. Fair? I think not!

Actually I have tried it. There are variant systems out there that do use DR in place of armor and the classes get bonuses to their defense per level. But that that leads to like you allude is the stacking of DR. Once someone get 10+ DR or what not throwing a horde of goblins at them becomes no fun :)

It can work and there a pros and cons. I just mentioned the realism thing because *most* people who want DR want the game to be more realistic but thats just one aspects. Wounds/damage tracks instead of HP, etc. are all more realistic as well but I don't think they are what I would call "core" D&D.

[Sorontar]

Just play Hero System guys, problem solved :D

[Malovech]

OK, so I have played and I have played. I like the system, but I see something that maybe can be improved.

AC has always been a pet peeve of mine. I don't like the fact that armor makes you harder to hit. If you get hit you get hit with or with out armor. All armor does is when you get hit makes it hurt less.
I agree with you Wraith, it really makes no sense, and I am confused about why they didn't change it in 4e. They took ideas from other RPG systems (True20/Savage Worlds). Why not this one? Conan uses DR for armour, so it can't be that unbalanced. If I ever run 4e I will definitely tweak it so that it does.

[scytale2]

One thing that we can learn from World of Warcraft is that realism isn't necessarily fun and lack of realism is often more fun, so this issue with armour and some of the many other critiques of D&D should just be taken under this banner. Is this a game or a simulation? It's a tough question to answer, as roleplay is all about simulation, but there are times when fantasy and reality do not meet and perhaps armour class is one of these.

[Stuart]

Rolemaster uses specific tables for weapons and whilst combat resolution is unarguably lengthier it does mean that specific armor types, criticals and so on all work more realistically. I dimly remember this as an option in D&D 2nd (though abbreviated). In short, with Rolemaster, heavier armor means you are more likely to get hit but you suffer far less damage. A critical however, is still capable of proving lethal no matter what armor or how many hits (hit points) a character has.

The number of d20 rpgs using DR in conjunction with AC is quite large and Mongoose's Conan rpg works quite nicely.

[Xorn]

The abstract styling of AC can be just as useful at achieving the same result as having DR, or the "easy-to-hit-hard-to-hurt" of plate armor, and "hard-to-hit-easy-to-hurt" of leather and padding. Does the AC specifically state why you did or didn't hit? Nope. But the same result is achieved--the fighter in his big, nasty plate armor is easier to hit, but a telling blow, one that will actually affect him? That's why his AC is high. That shifty rogue in leather that bounces around? He's much harder to hit in the first place, but the blow does not have to be as solid to damage him. So rather than having a hit, damage, and "chance to get past the armor" they just abstract it into one roll.

If you want a "guide" for describing the flavor of an attack, just look at the AC provided by armor and shield. If the enemy misses by more than the armor bonus of the target--then they truly missed. If they miss the target AC by equal or less than the armor bonus of the target, they hit them, but the armor kept the blow from being effective.

Ultimately, the hit roll is determining if you did damage. Reaching that number is a lot of factors, including mobility and protection--not one or the other.

I'm reminded of watching SCA at the RenFest. There was this guy with leather padding and two little dowel rod rapiers juking and jumping around all the guys with metal breastplates and leggings, and was just rapping them on the arms, chest, head, or legs with his little sticks. I actually started booing because it was so silly. If they guy in armor had just stood there asleep, you could a rapier at his chest like a broadsword with both hands and it's not going to do anything. But he'd bounce around, *tap* and the guy is on his knees now. *tap* I tapped your fully armor enclosed head with my nifty little stick, you're dead!

I was so glad when a guy with a huge flamberge swept it out and cracked that little guy in the ribs with it. It came sweeping around and he had nowhere to go. Anyway, that's an example of what AC doesn't represent. Sure he was hitting, but even with real weapons he wouldn't have been DOING anything. That's the point of wearing armor.

[Wraith]

I don't know I just always see armor as stopping damage not stopping a "hit".

Even so no one has even addressed why a shield bonus is added to a Reflex Defense, but a armor check isn't subtracted. Armor slows you down right so why wouldn't it make you easier to hit with something like that? I know why a Shield Bonus is add by the way. (even so why isn't it's check penalty add to the score as well? Oh, never mind they don't have one anymore, and the only reason for that it's for streamlining, or simplicity. Come on I like some of the things they are doing with the rules for 4E, they make things easier, but if something isn't broke then don't fix it.

For example:
Pros
Saves: I like the saves at the end of the round it is easy to remember and makes things fast.
Duration: I like how they work duration until the end of the round, until you save, or until the end of your next turn. Again makes things easier to remember.
Defenses: I like changing the defenses from save rolls to set DCs, this way the caster knows all the modifiers to his attack can pump out an attack for every target quick and the DM only has to check a couple of numbers. On the other side the DM can say it goes in order around the table or in a curtain order on the map and everyone knows. Again makes things easier and quicker.
Skill Groups: I like the new skills, grouping the different skills together like listen, spot, and search makes things quicker and gives the DM more room to work with.

Cons
Everything Adds Up: There are no draw backs. Everything is set to see who can make the biggest badass out there. If your Con Mod isn't high enough to give you a good Fort Defense then use your Str Mod, oh wait that gives you damage too. I didn't like the Weapon Finesse feat of 3.5e either it circumvents the point of the checks and balances. I'll just make a Fighter Rogue that can kill any regular fighter cause he has a high Dex which not only gives him good range attack, AC, and Reflex saves, but now he gets good mêlée attacks all on top off disable traps, open locks, use magic device, sneak attack damage and all the weapon proficiencies in the world. Who needs another character.

I don't know maybe I need another session with Xorn to really get the feel for it ;) , but I think they are just adding things to add things. I see a whole fleet of books with nothing but powers coming just around the corner, and WotC's own little table top game that it costs an arm and a leg to rent that is the only show in town. (Monopoly) I don't like it. I think that 3.5e might need a face lift, but not an overhaul.

Again just the rantings of an old gamer with to much time changing games and not enough time playing in them.

[Wraith]

Everything Adds Up: There are no draw backs. Everything is set to see who can make the biggest badass out there. If your Con Mod isn't high enough to give you a good Fort Defense then use your Str Mod, oh wait that gives you damage too. Sorry got of track, This right here only makes you have to make the monsters harder to meet the growing player power. Then the players want more power so they can overpower the monsters. Then you have fighters that roll 1d20+99 and deal 1000 damage like Final Fantasy, but that 1,000 damage doesn't matter when the dragon has 100,000 hit points. Now if you have DR and that dragon has DR 20 with 100 hit points? That is a tilt-a-whorl. DR 10 no one can do that much damage in 3.5e right? (well almost no one) It would take all day, but I have seen a party whittle down that 100 hp, and I have seen a party hack down that 100 hp with one crit that did 26 damage. That's a quarter of that things hit points. Even if crits don't do double damage, if they only do max damage but over come DR then it would mean something to crit again. If your worried about monsters one hitting characters then they should keep there tails behind the fighters, or just say monsters don't crit. (4E has a bunch of monster only rules anyway) Oh, never mind I am most likely the only person on earth that thinks this way. I am about most things. Thanks for letting me eat up so space on the forums though DEVs.:D

[Xorn]

I think in my gut I'm pretty sure the math will work out after I'm looking at the core books on June 6th. Until them I'm just in a holding pattern, and the only question I ask is, "Did I enjoy the sneak peek I got?" I can answer that yes, and while it's really, really hard for me to not speculate over the numbers (always want to know what makes things work), that's the challenge I've been facing. I have faith in the guys making the game, so I just don't address the questions of "why did you do it like this". At least, I just assume the answer is, "Because it worked out really well, you'll see."

The abstractness in play right now doesn't state that the armor doesn't stop damage. It just doesn't state how. Back in red-box basic D&D (1981) in the first introduction it says, "Just because your enemy rolls a miss, that doesn't necessarily mean they failed to make contact, it just means they weren't able to land a damaging blow." (Emphasis mine.) I like the abstract, keeps the game moving.

[joshuha]

Not sure if we should start another thread but lots of crunch on the new rules here: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

[Xorn]

Not sure if we should start another thread but lots of crunch on the new rules here: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

I'm out of these thread for a bit--I spend all day at work watching EnWorld, so I'm a bit burnt out. Waiting excitedly for the podcast tomorrow (with talk of the GSL supposedly), and fiddling with my new endeavor:

Playing Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures over FG2!

[Vorpal]

I have very little experience in this sort of gaming. Played a *long* time ago in the early 80's. Just started SW again so I can play with my kids. Just started playing LOTRO for the sheer joy of it.

From what I can see, DD4e is an attempt to make the table top experience a little more like the MMORPGs. I think that is smart for a couple of reasons: 1) the MMORPGs are fun, and 2) table top gaming will die if it does not adapt.

Having read through this thread, I am *much* more likely to try DD4e than I was DD3.5.

[Xorn]

I won't get into the 4E vs MMO discussion, as it's been talked out as much as it can be on EnWorld already--but just remember there's no "chicken or the egg" question involved here. RPGs (and D&D specifically) were the first cooperative team play hobby game, and any MMO that involves killing things and taking their wallets, experience, or leveling up in an ongoing game--it started with D&D.

According to Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan--4E is their three year effort to make D&D more fun than it is now--keeping what they got right in 3.x, and improving the rest. There are ideas you see prominently in WoW (like fighters having lots of stuff to do) just like there was a lot of EQ elements in 3.0. RPGs and MMOs are symbiotic, they both feed off each other.

[Stuart]

RPGs (and D&D specifically) were the first cooperative team play hobby game

Not everything stems from D&D ...

D&D grew out of a "team play hobby game" that traces it's history back to classical Rome (Pliny The Elder makes passing reference to what sounds like a naval reinactment involving models). I'll not debate the unarguable, D&D's progenitor status amongst rpg's (D&D 1974, T&T the following year) but D&D came from Chainmail (Perren & Gygax) and leant on a 1971 fantasy supplement though I think the rules as they were in Chainmail were too complex for what was intended. True, it was the first rpg, individual-character-focussed hobby game... at least, as far as I know ... ?

I played Chainmail for years and we had teams, it was a hobby and we mostly got on ... as long as my archers were not routed (prompting sulks and other non-cooperative behaviour).

It sounds like 4th Ed will change the D&D game and given the positive vibes when 2nd Ed went to 3.5 I'm pretty sure 3.5 to 4th will also prove wildly popular. The rules and posts I've seen sound fun but I'm way too deep in 3.5 and other systems and you can't teach an old dog that many new tricks.

[Griogre]

Here's where I disagree with you a bit, Stuart. I don't think it is a matter of teaching an old dog new tricks - I think it is a more a matter of teaching an old dog new names for mostly the same tricks – while dumping the old confusing tricks.

The core of the game rules still is grab a d20 and roll high. Then grab another die (or dice) and roll high. They have apparently trimmed off a lot of the rules that aren't in the first two sentences above or were exceptions to them. No surprise really.

What is surprising is they have taken all what were feats, spells and magic item abilities in 3.5 and put them in a single consistent "terse magic item" format and called them "powers." They distribute these powers out by level, race and class - typically giving the player several different choices per level.

One of the things I like very much about what I have seen of 4th edition is these “powers” are all explained in three sentences or less - plus five words or so in a header.

Mechanically it is very much like playing the D&D of the ‘70’s except instead of having thousands of magic items and spells separate from the character classes you now have powers that are innate to the character which the player has chosen as it developed.

[Stuart]

I think it is a more a matter of teaching an old dog new names for mostly the same tricks – while dumping the old confusing tricks.

But I spent hours getting this grey head round those confusing tricks ... gah !

[Wraith]

I don't know what you two are talking about I think 3.5e is easy as is...
I also think 4E is better, but I still think 3.5e was very logical and straight forward. Do I think there was room for improvement, yes. I also think that they could improve 4E from what I've seen. So there is my two cents.

[Oberoten]

Most systems work going out the door (if the publisher is serious about what they are doing) since they can not afford not to do so. The big problem is usually when the expansions start coming out. With each expansion the powercreep tends to increase exponentially and so does complexity. On the inverse curve on the other hand, we see enjoyment shriveling as it drowns in too many übercool extra rules, races and classes.

[Griogre]

Well said. Actually 3.5 with just core books works pretty well which is what I usually run. The real reason I am looking foward to ditching 3.5 is the prep time for higher levels just takes too long. The other problem I see is upper level fights are just too swingy.

[Oberoten]

*grins* Well it is the same with Operative Systems really. :) Windows installed on a machine supporting it can run for years without reboot problem comes when you start installing other programs on it. ;)

[Wraith]

On the inverse curve on the other hand, we see enjoyment shriveling as it drowns in too many übercool extra rules, races and classes.
I also see this fact coming with 4e. Everyone will think of cool ways to bend the rules in a special power and we will get book after book of "powers" that get stronger and stronger. Finally everyone will get tired and another rewrite will come out with 5e. It is a constant circle. The reason why it came so quick with 3.Xe as you all call it, is because of the OGL so so many other people came up with more and more rules that expanded the power base. I foresee 4e going along the same road since today is the age of automation.

[Munmun]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it but 4th edition comes with their own new program that is exactly like Fantasy Grounds to play D&D over the internet. So I guess you don't need to worry about upgrading FG but it's kinda bad news for the program.

The upside I see to this is that all the rules will be built in and official. So we'll get lightning quick combats where you just run down the list clicking your actions and emoting in the chat. Every rule, spell, ability and all that is built into it and the program gets updated with each new book that is released.

The major downside? $10 a month per person or the DM can buy it and buy day passes for each player for each session. I don't know how much these passes might cost.

[joshuha]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it but 4th edition comes with their own new program that is exactly like Fantasy Grounds to play D&D over the internet. So I guess you don't need to worry about upgrading FG but it's kinda bad news for the program.

The upside I see to this is that all the rules will be built in and official. So we'll get lightning quick combats where you just run down the list clicking your actions and emoting in the chat. Every rule, spell, ability and all that is built into it and the program gets updated with each new book that is released.

The major downside? $10 a month per person or the DM can buy it and buy day passes for each player for each session. I don't know how much these passes might cost.

Well Fantasy Grounds is used for more than just D&D. We have official rulesets supported by RPG companies for games such as Savage Worlds, Castles and Crusades, and more coming like Call of Cthulu and others I am may not allowed to mention yet.

There are many fan created rulesets for various games out there as well. Plus at the very least when 4th edition rolls out we should be able to produce a character sheet ruleset for 4th edition and may be able to do more depending on the full wording of the new System License.

And like you mentioned, if its really $10 a pop per person per month (and I believe that $10 number is only with a prepurchase of a year) you are looking at $120 x number of people in the group per year. Fantasy Grounds is a one time purchase. I don't think its bad news for Fantasy Grounds and actually expect it may drive more customers here who have never heard of a virtual tabletop.

[Munmun]

Of course FG is used for other game systems and I in fact use it for such. I'm just saying (since this is the 4th edition thread) that there is going to be an official program with all the D&D rules built in. Since FG can't legally have a 4th edition ruleset (at least not one as all-inclusive as gametable) it seems like the logical choice for people who want to get a lot of D&D gaming done over the internet. The price tag is annoying to say the least but my gaming group feels it's worth it if the program delivers what they claim it does. Much as we all love FG, having a program that has all the rules built in beyond just a character sheet is extremely attractive because it would speed up combats considerably. You took my post entirely the wrong way

Edit: About the price. It's actually cheaper than almost any big MMORPG on the market and in my opinion D&D is far superior to any MMORPG on the market. :)

[joshuha]

Of course FG is used for other game systems and I in fact use it for such. I'm just saying (since this is the 4th edition thread) that there is going to be an official program with all the D&D rules built in. Since FG can't legally have a 4th edition ruleset (at least not one as all-inclusive as gametable) it seems like the logical choice for people who want to get a lot of D&D gaming done over the internet. The price tag is annoying to say the least but my gaming group feels it's worth it if the program delivers what they claim it does. Much as we all love FG, having a program that has all the rules built in beyond just a character sheet is extremely attractive because it would speed up combats considerably. You took my post entirely the wrong way

Edit: About the price. It's actually cheaper than almost any big MMORPG on the market and in my opinion D&D is far superior to any MMORPG on the market. :)


Well when you say its bad news for FG it sounded like you were talking about it would be the end of FG. We have another thread around here were we discuss DDI and I think it will actually drive more customers to FG but we won't know until its released.

I am probably going to subscribe to DDI but not really for the gametable (but I will give it a shot) but mostly for the database of rules and online content. But I am going to wait about a month after 4th comes out because there is so much confuson out there as to what you get and what charges there are. The most recent thing is that gleemax itself will have a seperate charge than from DDI (although DDI might include that fee). I want to know how much we need to pay to unlock the books we purchase to be used in the tools and those kind of things. I am just wary of paying a monthly fee AND having to pay fees for 3D minis, unlocking books I purchased, etc.

However, if they do it right I will be subscribing for the content.

[Munmun]

I meant that it seemed like bad news for FG's focus on D&D.

[joshuha]

I meant that it seemed like bad news for FG's focus on D&D.

Understood now. I think it may be interesting to see what Smiteworks does once we know what the new System License allows. Maybe the default ruleset included would not be D&D but another popular game system. It may be that FG becomes the flagship of non-D&D RPGs and 3.5 gamers.

[Sorontar]

Well Fantasy Grounds is used for more than just D&D. We have official rulesets supported by RPG companies for games such as Savage Worlds, Castles and Crusades, and more coming like Call of Cthulu and others I am may not allowed to mention yet.


Rolemaster as well don't forget the game with the fumbles that take an ear off with a bowstring :D

[Wraith]

Sounds to me like Munmun is a WotC spy trying to convert the blessed of Fantasy Grounds to the evil ways of corporate D&D. :D

[Stuart]

Rolemaster as well don't forget the game with the fumbles that take an ear off with a bowstring :D

Hey ! If yer not gonna take Rolemaster seriously then I reckon me an' a few o' me best archers will come lookin' fer ye ! :p

[Sorontar]

Hey ! If yer not gonna take Rolemaster seriously then I reckon me an' a few o' me best archers will come lookin' fer ye ! :p

Pinning your foot to the floor is funny as hell, well it was when I charged a group of archers in a heroic moment with my companion and three from five fumbled with unpleasant results.

The next unpleasant thing was having us right next to them with controlled fury burning in our eyes :D

[Oberoten]

Understood now. I think it may be interesting to see what Smiteworks does once we know what the new System License allows. Maybe the default ruleset included would not be D&D but another popular game system. It may be that FG becomes the flagship of non-D&D RPGs and 3.5 gamers.



Oh YESSSSSSSSS.... Think if newcommers might get to choose a generic ruleset AND a ruleset on purchase. THAT would make people sit up and take notice. :)

[DNH]

I have recently been in discussion with my brother on the question of "saves" in 4e. His chief concern is that there is no longer any room for DM fudging. That is, suppose he uses a power that attacks my monster's Will, he achieves a 21 and succeeds. Next time he tries it and rolls a 22 - I can no longer say no, that's a fail. Previously, the DM was able to roll the saving throws behind his screen and fudge according to whatever criteria he wished. Not now.

My argument that he would have to assume some situational modifier, or the effect of some monster power that he is not privy to, was rebuffed but without much of a counter-argument (it went like this: "nah!").

I also pointed out that this is the EXACT same problem that we have ALWAYS had with ALL editions of D&D with regards to AC. He argues that battles can turn on a failed save in a way they can't from a successful attack.

Moving on from this, he says that the "feel" is wrong. He believes that the defender should be able to defend (ie roll a save), not the other way around. Personally, I like the fact that the caster has more of an influence (ok, a die roll) on the effectiveness of the spell and that the defense is more static. For me, the old way had it wrong, in that the spell that was cast was exactly the same every single time and yet every individual could save or fail, on any given occasion. To my mind, for the theory of magic which prevails in my own campaign, it makes much more sense that a given casting of a spell is more or less effective than another (reflected in the caster's die roll) and that defences such as Will and Fortitude are largely static.

My brother made some comment that it would have been better to move AC in with the saves, rather than the other way around, as 4E has done. That would obviously be unworkable, but the fact remains that he is not happy about the whole saves/defences mechanic, and for two reasons: it doesn't feel right not to be able to save; and there is no room for fudging.

Has anyone else had any problems with this aspect? Or if not problems then issues. Any thoughts?

I should add that neither of us has actually played the game yet (our first session is pencilled in for the end of June) and we closed the discussion with me saying "the proof of the pudding etc etc".

[Wraith]

Well DNH,
I am one of the converted of Xorn's tribe and I am holding a 4e Playtest on Sat. May 10th some time between 3pm and 12pm (midnight) CDT (GMT -6) you can check out the thread in the Guild House.Or click here and set a post. (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8352)

As far as the static Defenses go. I too, was unhappy with the way they looked, but after playing it makes play much faster. Also its not like you don't take your life into your own hands. Every turn you have an ongoing effect (e.g. sleep, poison, catch on fire...) you make a save verse DC 10 plus any racial or feat modifiers (e.g. Paladin's resistence to fear, dwarf's resistence to poison...) and if you make it the effect ends. This makes keeping track of durations quicker cause they last until you save, so either your effected or not. No more tracking rounds and forgetting. As far as each person making a save it is easier for the DM if you have all your modifiers in your attack and you make separate attacks against each monster then if he has to stack all of his modifiers into the defense and roll. All in all I like the way it plays and invite your to join us on Sat.

[Griogre]

I had the same kind of concern, but after playing in a 4th Ed playtest am no longer worried about it. I encourage you to play in Wraiths game to get a feel for it yourself - if you are free.

On the fudging of die rolls by the DM. It's a two way street. It will be more difficult to fudge players hitting or missing monsters/npcs after they have hit a few times (though not at the start of a fight where the AC and defenses have not been established) but the DM will now have abosolute control over whether the monsters/npc hit with spells or attacks because he will be rolling for all aspects of their attacks and he can say whatever he wants for the rolls "behind the screen." I don't fudge dice much as a GM though I will do it occasionally in some campaigns, and usually if I do fudge a roll - the rolls I fudge are monsters ones anyways - up or down. So I don't really see there is going to be much impact that way either.

[Munmun]

4ed seems to take some of the control of the game away from the DM and puts it in the hands of the players and system itself with various rules and abilities. Not sure if I like that. An obvious example is the epic power you get for being a Deadly Trickster:


Trickster’s Disposition (30th level): Once per day, you can tell the DM to treat the result of a d20 roll he just made as a 1. No rerolls are possible.

[Stuart]

That's really a rule in the 4th Edition ? Oh my ... :(

[Munmun]

Yup. If you preordered through Amazon and chose next-day shipping, the books arrive today. Not sure if this is a mistake or not, but I am not going to complain!

There are other abilities with similar game-changing effects and the aforementioned saves thing. The Trickster's Disposition power is the most blatant one I have found so far though.

Also the prereq to be a demi-god is simply 21st level. It's a destiny path you can choose like being a Deadly Trickster.

[Griogre]

*shrug* It's an epic power. It doesn't bother me because 1) I have zero expectations on the epic tier based on D&D's past 4 editions (I also have low expectations of the middle tier for the same reasons). The last time I played a serious D&D game past the low/mid teens was 5 editions ago. 2) In general, I still don't really see a problem with it from a DM point of view - if I must crit the character I just say the next attack is a 20 also. :p

Edit: Hit send too soon. 3) Epic NPCs would have the same power too, Think of the look on the epic trickster's face when you tell him that 20 he just rolled was negated. :D

[Stuart]

I guess I'm horribly old fashioned ... I don't like the "taking 10" rule in 3.5 and frankly, Feats, AoO's, Touch Attacks .... bleh ... Rolemaster begins to look simple :(

I'll never get the hang of 4th Ed ... roll on (or is that role ?) SW ... I think I'll even manage Raises and Soaks ... Bennies will be a toughie given that I come from the Falklands and ... well ... some of you will understand ;) Suffice to say I reckon it's only fair that I have an extra one or two.

[Griogre]

Can I tempt you with 4th ed by saying they have... action points? Pretty much just like bennies in Savage Worlds. :)

Ha, chartmaster, er Rolemaster *is* simple... if you have the charts. ;)

[Sorontar]

Ha, chartmaster, er Rolemaster *is* simple... if you have the charts. ;)

Don't dis the RM, fear my "tiny" critical :D

RM was the first RPG where I came across the killer rabbit from Holy Grail in a monster section :)

[Stuart]

I'm that much of an rpg geek that I'll almost certainly buy the 4th Ed stuff out of curiosity. When 3.5 came out I think I was very firmly in the "This is heresy !" camp and pledged never to play it in favor of "good old" 2nd Ed :o

So ... watch this space, that said ... it sounds as if 4th Ed is less of the rpg I grew up with and more like the character-centered MMO's I'm struggling to play.

DDO: How can a great axe allow a character to sneak attack like a rogue ? I mean, is this sensible ?! And what the hell does "Yark, yark !" actually mean for crying out loud !:confused:

Killer rabbits are only bested by the dreaded Shard ... does anyone really know how these RM critters are supposed to be killed ? I've decimated all sorts of parties with them and it seems so unfair :D

[Sorontar]

DDO: How can a great axe allow a character to sneak attack like a rogue ? I mean, is this sensible ?! And what the hell does "Yark, yark !" actually mean for crying out loud !:confused:


Well kobolds are the farmers of the sewers in Stromreach you see, so when they shout Yark Yark, it's "Get off my land" but the shotgun is replaced with a spear.

Hope thats cleared that up for you :)

Backstabbing power on weapons though I can't help you with ;)

[Xorn]

Yup. If you preordered through Amazon and chose next-day shipping, the books arrive today. Not sure if this is a mistake or not, but I am not going to complain!

There are other abilities with similar game-changing effects and the aforementioned saves thing. The Trickster's Disposition power is the most blatant one I have found so far though.

Also the prereq to be a demi-god is simply 21st level. It's a destiny path you can choose like being a Deadly Trickster.

Might want to read all of the .pdf you downloaded, first. The path doesn't make you a demi-god. Completing your destiny (30th level basically) is when you become a demi-god, and retire the character.

Oh, and during that last level before you become a demigod, you get Trickster's Disposition. I can live with that.

[Stuart]

Well kobolds are the farmers of the sewers in Stromreach you see, so when they shout Yark Yark, it's "Get off my land" but the shotgun is replaced with a spear.

Of course ... now it makes sense ! Surely (and I hate to nit pick) the correct translation is "Get orf moi laaand" :p