| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:26:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Kaysae
I did a google search for spellplague after reading this on the off-chance it would turn something up, and it did. Someone with an ARC of The Orc King made a post back in March and mentions the spellplague by name, so I assume it's legit. There weren't any real details though (it doesn't start in the novel or anything), you can google "spellplague" and find the post for yourselves it's in the first few results.
Lots of info about the Orc King on that forum's thread :
http://lavendereyes.rivkashome.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=6794&page=1
It all began when Drizzt stepped into a time machine! Yeah, really! |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
 |
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:31:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Like I said, regardless of how NPCs are built, they should be considered important parts of the setting, not just cardboard cut-outs to be trampled upon by the PCs. Even if they might be "wimps" in combat.
The NPCs in FR are important for two reasons, first they are also the protagonist of the novels. Second, they contribute a lot to the shared world experience, which is an important benefit of using an established setting.
In my last campaign, when the cleric of Bane died and the players learned that it was Fzoul that would revive him; it's was fun because they knew who he was!
That being said, when running an adventure/campaign, the most important characters are the PCs and because it's a game and the PCs are the player's avatars in the game, they need more game crunch to define them than any NPCs they may encounter. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 20 Aug 2007 01:32:52 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:36:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
That being said, when running an adventure/campaign, the most important characters are the PCs and because it's a game and the PCs are the player's avatars in the game, they need more game crunch to define them than any NPCs they may encounter.
Agreed. When it comes to rules...well, I'm not exactly a rules junkie, and I think DMs should ultimately works for their game. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 02:14:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
That being said, when running an adventure/campaign, the most important characters are the PCs and because it's a game and the PCs are the player's avatars in the game, they need more game crunch to define them than any NPCs they may encounter.
Agreed. When it comes to rules...well, I'm not exactly a rules junkie, and I think DMs should ultimately works for their game.
I tend to be a rules junkie in regards to my players, because some of them, if I give an inch, they will take a mile or more. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 02:30:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I tend to be a rules junkie in regards to my players, because some of them, if I give an inch, they will take a mile or more.
Understood. If I were a DM, I'd likely be the same way. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 04:14:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I tend to be a rules junkie in regards to my players, because some of them, if I give an inch, they will take a mile or more.
Understood. If I were a DM, I'd likely be the same way.
Its because of those particular players that Wounding weapons are Disallowed in my Campaigns.
Or rather, I said I would allow them, but from then on, all foes fought, would automatically have the Wounding property on all their attacks... they quickly got vetoed by the rest of the group. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 04:33:00
|
Rodney Thompson leaked another bit in his blog, which is something I was wondering, given some of the "clues" about 4th edition that it seems were now strewn about the podcasts over the last few months . . . he said that wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells . . .
In the podcast a few months ago Noonian mentioned that someone was trying out a 20-level spell system, i.e. instead of having spells of level 1-9, 1st level wizards can cast 1st level spells, 10 level wizards can cast spells from 1st level through 10th level (with 10th level spells being roughly the equivalent of 5th level spells now, but with some current 5th level spells being 9th level, and perhaps a few being 11th level).
I'm wondering how this will work, exactly.
|
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 05:26:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Rodney Thompson leaked another bit in his blog, which is something I was wondering, given some of the "clues" about 4th edition that it seems were now strewn about the podcasts over the last few months . . . he said that wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells . . .
In the podcast a few months ago Noonian mentioned that someone was trying out a 20-level spell system, i.e. instead of having spells of level 1-9, 1st level wizards can cast 1st level spells, 10 level wizards can cast spells from 1st level through 10th level (with 10th level spells being roughly the equivalent of 5th level spells now, but with some current 5th level spells being 9th level, and perhaps a few being 11th level).
I'm wondering how this will work, exactly.
The higher levels that PC's can advance to, and higher levels for spells, even if they are essentialy the same spells we currently have, is very computer/game system RPG style. Good or bad, we'll see if we are reading it all correctly. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 07:48:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Rodney Thompson leaked another bit in his blog, which is something I was wondering, given some of the "clues" about 4th edition that it seems were now strewn about the podcasts over the last few months . . . he said that wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells . . .
In the podcast a few months ago Noonian mentioned that someone was trying out a 20-level spell system, i.e. instead of having spells of level 1-9, 1st level wizards can cast 1st level spells, 10 level wizards can cast spells from 1st level through 10th level (with 10th level spells being roughly the equivalent of 5th level spells now, but with some current 5th level spells being 9th level, and perhaps a few being 11th level).
I'm wondering how this will work, exactly.
The higher levels that PC's can advance to, and higher levels for spells, even if they are essentialy the same spells we currently have, is very computer/game system RPG style. Good or bad, we'll see if we are reading it all correctly.
Why does this sound more omnious each time I hear something new? |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 08:42:19
|
I was glad to hear a bit more of a clarification of the alternative "power sources" for rogues and fighters . . . while I liked a lot of the Book of Nine Swords, I was worried that fighters were going to start throwing around supernatural abilities and the like. It seems that fighters and the maneuvers or whatever 4th edition will call them, will learn things that push what a human could do, but are in line with, for example, an olympic level athlete.
Rogues are suppose to get special applications to their use of skills that other characters don't have. The example cited was being able to deceive an opponent into letting their guard down (essentially, I'm betting that "feint" as a move will be an easier option for a rogue, for example).
I guess I'm glad to hear this, because I didn't want every adventurer to have to be someone that can throw around magic of some sort, and all of this talk of power sources had me worry a bit about that. |
|
|
|
dern.whitecinder
Acolyte
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 13:41:27
|
Here are a couple more sites that may help illuminate 4e a bit better:
Breeyark's D&D4e News
http://dnd4e.blogspot.com/
Johnny Drain's D20 Source
http://d20.jonnydigital.com/
(They are at least easier on my tired eyes than the chaos on the 4e WotC/Gleemax boards.) |
Dern Whitecinder
ex-Sun Soul monk of Lathander, currently in hiding somewhere in the W. Heartlands |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 14:16:39
|
20 levels of spells? Yesh, the spell system doesn't need to be reworked. Maybe the spell progression needs working, but 9 levels of spells was just fine.
So doesn't look good for the Realms. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 00:44:12
|
I don't know if I said this here anywhere, but I know I made the statement elsewhere, so I'm going to do this here as well.
There was a quote attributed to Scott Rouse from the D&D Experience back in February, that, among other things, said that there would be 3.5 products through 2008. What was actually said was that there would be 3.5 products through the rest of the year (meaning 2007).
I have used this quote before to reinforce the argument that WOTC might be suspect when it comes to information coming from them. Basing this argument on this quote was obviously wrong, and I wanted to take this chance to apologize to Scott Rouse and to WOTC in general.
Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 01:22:47
|
| Im betting that the spell plague thing will allow 4ed Sorcerer/Wizards to cast spells above 9th level again |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 02:20:10
|
Well it looks like there will be at least level 25 spells, perhaps gnomes will go extint, some sepculation Drow will become their own race, oh and warlock and/or warlord will become a core class.
The Bard appears to be gone. *shrugs* Not enough information yet to know what the frell they are going to offer. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 03:25:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I tend to be a rules junkie in regards to my players, because some of them, if I give an inch, they will take a mile or more.
Understood. If I were a DM, I'd likely be the same way.
Its because of those particular players that Wounding weapons are Disallowed in my Campaigns.
Or rather, I said I would allow them, but from then on, all foes fought, would automatically have the Wounding property on all their attacks... they quickly got vetoed by the rest of the group.
Wounding 3.5... a DM's nightmare. "Oh, you hit me... let me recalculate my NPC's hitpoints." |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Penknight
Senior Scribe
USA
538 Posts |
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 05:08:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I tend to be a rules junkie in regards to my players, because some of them, if I give an inch, they will take a mile or more.
Understood. If I were a DM, I'd likely be the same way.
Its because of those particular players that Wounding weapons are Disallowed in my Campaigns.
Or rather, I said I would allow them, but from then on, all foes fought, would automatically have the Wounding property on all their attacks... they quickly got vetoed by the rest of the group.
Wounding 3.5... a DM's nightmare. "Oh, you hit me... let me recalculate my NPC's hitpoints."
Very much so, but even worse for the PCs...  |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 05:17:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Penknight
Sadly, I haven't had a great deal of time to go over every post here to see if this is listed, and if it is, then my sincerest apologies. Here is a link that I just received this morning from a very good friend of mine, and I figured that everyone here would like to give this the once over...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928
Seen simalar, some think it is a good idea, some think it is bad. SAGA appears to be a main concer, though core classes and races will disappear (and a few get replaced with new core class and race).
This is indeed a new edition. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 09:40:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
First, why would you need something like Profession(Innkeeper) to handle the PCs interaction with Thurl ?
Second, I'll take a better example, let's say that Thurl has a bluff skill modifier of +14. That could be interesting when the PCs are investigating this Innkeeper that is also a Zentish contact. 
How to stat Thurl then ? Well : Thurl [Bluff +14] and you're done. How you choose +14 ? According to the challenges it must present to the PCs (that's a D&D answer).
The players will never now that you didn't really stat him completly, and the "illusion" (which of course I believe is important) is kept.
First of all, let me quote what Ed Greenwood said (in GenCon) about minor characters in the Realms: "The key to making the world seem real is that you treat *everything* with the same respect...". How can you treat everybody equally, if *most* of the NPCs in the Realms will become impossible to stat with 'equal rights' to the characters with 'class levels? What I *really* loved about 3E was that *finally* I could give my non-adventuring NPCs balanced and 'consistent' (with the rest of the world, e.g. PCs and monsters) *mechanical* stats.
Secondly, how long do you think it will take your players to discover that the NPC classes have been cut? It's all over the Internet, you know ;) So much for the 'illusion' of a functioning society once they discover that those poor NPCs can once again be abused at will... 
Seriously, let's return our focus on poor Thurl, and say that your PCs walk into his inn, meeting him for the first time. You just pull him out of the hat, blurting out his name in a moment of inspiration as your PCs introduce themselves to him. What will you do, if the wizard in the party tries to charm him to give them free rooms? What is his Will Save Bonus in 4E? If his only stats are the 'house-ruled' attributes of "Very good at knowing things and innkeeping", how will you handle this? Use that Bluff +14 modifier on all rolls, since the 'goal' in 4E seems to be all about 'challenging' the PCs? Does Thurl suddenly 'transform' into a former adventurer while you give him some rogue and/or fighter levels? Do you let the wizard have his way with Thurl because there is no explicit 'mechanical' way to handle the encounter?
And I just cannot imagine every other innkeeper or smith being a Zhent spy, hence I cannot understand why you would slap him with a Bluff +14 skill bonus (assuming that he is not a spy, unless you want the 'easy way out' from the situation). I was talking about handling these NPCs 'mechanically' equal to all the 'heroic' characters - BAB, Saving Throws, Skills, Feats/Talents, etcetera. I would really like to know how these situations will work out in 4E - if they are targeted with a special ability or a spell, do they always fail the roll? Why is that so important for me? Well, consider also the stress that you'll be under if you have to constantly come up with 'mechanical' ways (house-ruling) to handle these situations. And if you keep creating those 'minor characters' (as in 'a non-adventuring professional') that have to 'challenge' your PCs in these 'encounters' (and consequently have surprisingly high bonuses on each roll) your players will sooner or later probably want to create an innkeeper or a blacksmith, too!
There is no way around it - every society need its non-heroic professionals, too. They are the people who may have never slain a goblin or even *seen* a sword, yet they are some who might have skill modifiers as high as +30 or even +40. Even AD&D had mechanical means to build 0-level NPCs, who, thanks to the Non-Weapon Proficiency system, could still be at the top of their profession. To me it seems a bit unequal and clumsy solution to just assume that they'd have just *one* skill "maxed-out" and +0 on everything else. You just *need* a consistent and 'balanced' way to handle these NPCs without them becoming either completely inferior or superior to PCs!
Let me also say that I understand the reason for changing how the skill system works. At the moment, it is time-consuming to pick all the skills for a PC or an NPC, and quite often you might feel that you just cannot have enough points for your original concept. I once had a Zhentarim Wizard/Rogue that ended up being a lot less effective than I had imagined, because I couldn't "max-out" his Disguise and Bluff the way I had wanted to. The new system enables you to pick certain 'strengths' (at least +5 skill modifier) and makes character creation a lot easier. However, on the other hand, it acts (IMHO) as a poor 'measuring stick' if the skill ranks are spaced so unevenly.
For example, if we have a ranger and a rogue (or even two rogues) in a same group and both have chosen to invest in Stealth (but not burn a Talent/Feat on it) only the difference between their Dexterity Modifiers tells us which one of them is (marginally) better in it!
quote:
On the marketing side, you may be right, but on the design side, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Don't forget that Mike Mearls is the lead developper and I'm sure this guy put a lot of thinking into the rules.
With 4E, D&D finally get rid of many ackward "simulation" bits and is becoming a lot more what it's supposed to be, a "gameist" RPG.
The good part of it, is that us that prefer "narrative" style RPGs are winner. Why? Because many restrictions to a more "narrative" style will be removed from the game. For example, the obligation to define NPCs with complete stats, using exactly the same abilities than the PCs.
As far as I know it, 'gamist' and 'narrativist' are pretty much on the other ends of the spectrum, and I would never call D&D a 'narrativist-friendly' system. Besides, 'narrativist' (as I understand this concept) is not equal to 'storytelling' or 'freedom from the rules', but rather implies that the gaming system has some sort of in-built 'mechanical' ways to enhance/emphasize storytelling. You *can* use 'narravitist' tools or means in a D&D campaign, but since the game is steering more towards 'gamist' purposes, I doubt that you'll actually be able to do that very effectively. Even less so, now that I hear all the 'sacrifices' (XP costs to create magical items, less powerful multi-classing, etc.) have been cut (only the 'reward' system will remain). Also note what I said in my earlier post about how innovately Indie games usually handle 'minor characters' without them even having stats, but still being effective and powerful forces (storywise and mechanically) within the game.
And I assume that nobody has ever *forced* you to completely stat all the NPCs in 3.X edition? It is just that we were given the rules and the *possibility* to do so in consistent *balance* with the rest of the system (which I think was a brilliant idea). |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 21 Aug 2007 09:52:48 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 16:34:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
What I *really* loved about 3E was that *finally* I could give my non-adventuring NPCs balanced and 'consistent' (with the rest of the world, e.g. PCs and monsters) *mechanical* stats.
Like I said above, IMHO, it's one the the 3.x greatest mistake (the other would be the way they handled magic items). I'm still saying that you don't need complete and built-as-PC stats to give to NPCs all their due.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Seriously, let's return our focus on poor Thurl, and say that your PCs walk into his inn, meeting him for the first time. You just pull him out of the hat, blurting out his name in a moment of inspiration as your PCs introduce themselves to him. What will you do, if the wizard in the party tries to charm him to give them free rooms? What is his Will Save Bonus in 4E? If his only stats are the 'house-ruled' attributes of "Very good at knowing things and innkeeping", how will you handle this? Use that Bluff +14 modifier on all rolls, since the 'goal' in 4E seems to be all about 'challenging' the PCs? Does Thurl suddenly 'transform' into a former adventurer while you give him some rogue and/or fighter levels? Do you let the wizard have his way with Thurl because there is no explicit 'mechanical' way to handle the encounter?
If saves are still there, of course you should find in the DMG average stats for the commoners. You would use those as default values unless you want to create a very specific challenge (like my bluffing zentish contact). If the charm spell in your example is done only for "roleplay" purpose, then I would suggest than the best answer is : "yes you can".
BTW, D&D was and will always be about challenging the PCs. You can always add a bit of flavor to it, but that's the core of the game. (Some others RPGs have different mindset).
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
There is no way around it - every society need its non-heroic professionals, too. They are the people who may have never slain a goblin or even *seen* a sword, yet they are some who might have skill modifiers as high as +30 or even +40. Even AD&D had mechanical means to build 0-level NPCs, who, thanks to the Non-Weapon Proficiency system, could still be at the top of their profession. To me it seems a bit unequal and clumsy solution to just assume that they'd have just *one* skill "maxed-out" and +0 on everything else. You just *need* a consistent and 'balanced' way to handle these NPCs without them becoming either completely inferior or superior to PCs!
Of course the verisimilitude of a fantasy world need those NPCs, but again, there is no reason to balance them. The "power balance" of D&D is usefull only because it helps the "spot-light" balance during combat, which take most of the game time. Try to find one non-"simulationist" example where a skill like Profession : Innkeeper is relevant?
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
As far as I know it, 'gamist' and 'narrativist' are pretty much on the other ends of the spectrum, and I would never call D&D a 'narrativist-friendly' system. Besides, 'narrativist' (as I understand this concept) is not equal to 'storytelling' or 'freedom from the rules', but rather implies that the gaming system has some sort of in-built 'mechanical' ways to enhance/emphasize storytelling. You *can* use 'narravitist' tools or means in a D&D campaign, but since the game is steering more towards 'gamist' purposes, I doubt that you'll actually be able to do that very effectively. Even less so, now that I hear all the 'sacrifices' (XP costs to create magical items, less powerful multi-classing, etc.) have been cut (only the 'reward' system will remain). Also note what I said in my earlier post about how innovately Indie games usually handle 'minor characters' without them even having stats, but still being effective and powerful forces (storywise and mechanically) within the game.
You understand it well (at least like me). However, I need to add that they have a common foe: "simulationist". As a "vanilla narrativist" myself, a 4E freed from the old "simulationist" bits is a better game. It's very difficult to add "narrativist" tools like "Belief, Instincts, Traits" of Burning Wheel to a level-based game like D&D so I'm not expecting it.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
And I assume that nobody has ever *forced* you to completely stat all the NPCs in 3.X edition? It is just that we were given the rules and the *possibility* to do so in consistent *balance* with the rest of the system (which I think was a brilliant idea).
Some players would argue that a DM under 3.x must do it, but anyway official game material must do it, and I'm very tired of Dungeon and FR books full of useless NPC stats. Brillant idea ? Foolish illusion |
Edited by - Skeptic on 21 Aug 2007 17:47:49 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 20:23:52
|
I keep saying the same thing, but I'll say it again -
It could work, if they do it right. Personally, I never liked fully-stated out NPcs myself. I really don't think I need a 3-pg stat-block telling me everything there is to know about the stableboy that will be handing the reigns to the PCs.
Exceptional NPCs should always be stated anyway, in any addition, and DMs always had the option of creating stats if the PCs wound up using the NPC as recurring contact.
I DO NOT think it should be as simplified as ONE SINGLE SET of stats for "Average Commoner", because that is a little to rules-light, even for me. A farmer is going to have a MUCH higher strength then an Innkeeper, in most cases. Ergo, a set of stats for "Merchant", another for "laborer", a third for "Average Cityfolk", etc... would work. You can't have a single set of stats, because that would make the players job way too easy (they read the DMG too, you know). You have to take into account that a rural person will be hardier then a city-dweller, but the city-dweller is more likely to be better educated (and "street smarts" counts).
So it could be a vast improvement, but they have to give us a list of "generic people", not just one. I used to keep a set of blank NPCs next to me when I gamed, and just stuck in the most appropriate when in a situation, so I KNOW this can work. "Joe Fighter" becomes Krugark the Barbarian, simply as that. If Krugark is encountered again, or is hired by the party, or even returns as a recurring villain, THEN he can get full stats.
But you need both in place - a system that allows you to flow through encounters quickly, and one that allows for deeper roleplay. I think this amalgam of play-styles might just work, IF they do it right.
That being said, doing the 'right' thing has not been part of their track record.
Either Way, I'm just glad the setting-specific books will be more lore-heavy from now on. 
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Aug 2007 23:50:33 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 20:36:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Exceptional NPCs should always be stated anyway, in any addition, and DMs always had the option of creating stats if the PCs wound up using the NPC as recurring cotact.
I completly agree with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I DO NOT think it should be as simplified as ONE SINGLE SET of stats for "Average Commoner", because that is a little to rules-light, even for me. A farmer is going to have a MUCH higher strength then an Innkeeper, in most cases. Ergo, a set of stats for "Merchant", another for "laborer", a third for "Average Cityfolk", etc... would work. You can't have a single set of stats, because that would make the players job way too easy (they read the DMG too, you know). You have to take into account that a rural person will be hardier then a city-dweller, but the city-dweller is more likely to be better educated (and "street smarts" counts).
Yeah we could have some tables for such thing, the important idea here is we have only "result stats" not "building stats". For example, we have the skill modifiers, not the skills by level. (and btw getting rid of the NPC classes)
IMHO, those stats are also easy to come up with during play as needed.
I repeat myself, but what I try to say that is really bad, is trying to simulate (with rules) those NPCs outside of their encounter with the PCs.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But you need both in place - a system that allows you to flow through encounters quickly, and one that allows for deeper roleplay. I think this amalgam of play-styles might just work, IF they do it right.
Here I disagree, deeper roleplay has nothing to do with the completeness of the NPC stats.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 21 Aug 2007 20:53:36 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 20:37:15
|
Well James Wyatt has indicated no longer "fireball spells don't do 1d6/level any more" so it appears less dice rolling is part of the change. How the change will be is not said yet.
Source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388 |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2007 : 23:41:49
|
Markustay & Skeptic,
I very much doubt that they'll provide any kind of stat blocks for 'commoners' - general or 'profession-specific' - as the focus in the game shifts even more on the 'heroic' characters and their 'special roles' in the campaign. I'll be positively surprised if Charisma makes the cut (not to mention about Diplomacy, Gather Information and all the other Charisma-based skills) as any kind of social actions will probably be "better left out of the game mechanics and handled through role-playing outside the encounters... except for Intimidation - which is cool! - and by the way, that is now a strength-base skill!".
After watching all the interviews and reading those details the designers have leaked so far, they seem to be overly worried about the game being too complex and slow (for example, they made several references to "doing the math" and "how the game has become bogged down"). I think they also compared 3.X edition to 'first generation console games' or something like that? On basis of all this, I guess this is how their brainstorming sessions for 4E must have gone:
1) WoW is very popular.
2) So are console games, too.
3) Maybe it's the nice and shiny colors... naah... must be something else.
4) Maybe it's the fast-paced action?
5) Must be it, but also something else.
6) Maybe it's the diceless system? Maybe D&D should get rid of using dice? No... yes.. maybe... no...
7) Maybe D&D is just too complex to play?
8) Maybe we should get rid of all the "uncool" stuff?
9) Maybe we should get rid of all the complex stuff?
10) Math is overrated. We should definitely get rid of math.
11) More choices, less thinking! That sounds nice...
12) Maybe we should just buy the license to WoW?
13) Hmmm... superhero comics are popular, too...
14) Maybe D&D should have 'superhero' as a core class? Naah... maybe?
15) I know, I know! WoW *AND* many console games have GAZILLIONS of cool powers your characters can learn! And superheroes have cool powers, too!
16) Maybe D&D should have superpowers as feats? Why not...
17) What was that someone said about WoW? Cool powers?
18) I know, I know! We should copy those Talent Trees - or whatever they're called - from WoW! And maybe we should give some ultra-cool stuff to learn at every level?
19) Yeah, and some racist... racial... whatever... stuff
20) Less hit-points! More damage! That sounds nice, too...
21) We should definitely get rid of all the NPCs... they are bogging the game down!
22) Warlord! Warlord! Warlord! And more cool stuff to do with weapons!
23) Fast-paced, focused and simple action! Gazillions of new superpow... feats! Now *THIS* sounds like what the D&D-fanatics *really* want from the game!
24) Roll-playing, not role-playing, goddammit!
25) Kids will love it!
26) Uhhh... adult gamers will love it, too? Maybe? No? Yes! YES! Maybe? Who cares!
27) Sounds like we are ready for some play-testing!
28) Did someone say something about WoW?
(Etcetera)
Seriously, I personally think that the game design is taking the wrong turn with making D&D simpler and 'faster' to play in all aspects. Thinking, doing the math, and certain 'slower' elements in the session (role-playing, for example), are all part of the gaming experience. If I want to play a simpler, faster and more 'action-focused' RPG with heaps of cool powers/skills (and nice graphics, to boot!) without doing any math, I'll just log on to my WoW-account...
I think they're turning D&D into another hybrid of board/strategy game with loose RPG elements. After all, they're *emphasizing* the importance of the 'tactical' aspect, and *educating* DMs and players alike how to run the PCs and monsters in encounters using group strategies (to gain maximum advantage) in very 'military-like' efficiency and precision. Plus, the 'environment' itself will play a key role in encounters - I guess they'll cut the Dungeon Dressing tables from DMG in favor of all those 'terrain details' and tactical bonus modifier tables.  Good luck with speeding up combat with all that, since it has been my personal experience that using minis and battle-mats is the single major reason for the game to slow down since playing AD&D.
We are now also being told that *EVERY* character will have a tactical 'role' in the party, and all the thousands upon thousands new feats revolve around making them uniquely useful in these (combat) encounters. I wouldn't be surprised if they 'force-feed' these roles down our throats, by making it 'official' (in PHB) that someone *MUST* play a 'healer', someone *MUST* play a 'spellslinger', someone *MUST* play a 'striker'... just read that part about two gamers in GenCon, discussing how "you've got the 'tank' covered, so I'll be playing a halfling rogue." What if your players want to run, let's say, three fighters, a ranger and a rogue - do you, as DM, have to deny them this right to choose their classes freely? ("No! It says here in PHB that *someone* MUST play a 'healer'... and only one of you can create a 'tank'!")
I am also very disappointed in the concept art I've seen so far - they have really gone for more 'toylike' or even 'comic book-like' image (just take a look at that fighter and those weapons). But I guess that goes pretty well with their primary target audience, since it appears that in every way (especially with the game design) they wish to appeal to younger customers (manga/console game generation).
One final thing: did anyone else notice that reference to using Constitution for hammer? I guess this is another 'Book of Nine Swords'-thing, but does it refer to attack and damage bonus or Per Day/Per Encounter bonus? (similar to how wizards gain bonus spells for int) |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:00:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
[quote]Of course the verisimilitude of a fantasy world need those NPCs, but again, there is no reason to balance them. The "power balance" of D&D is usefull only because it helps the "spot-light" balance during combat, which take most of the game time. Try to find one non-"simulationist" example where a skill like Profession : Innkeeper is relevant?
Gladly. Let's assume that good ol' Thurl is not a Zhent agent, but his cook is! Now, this poor evil-aligned commoner is scared witless by the appearance of the PCs (his superior in the Black Network has warned him about them) and thus decides to poison them. He then tries to mix some poison into their food, and uses spices and his cooking skills to conceal the bitter taste. However, one of your PCs noticed (with his Perception-skill) that the cook seemed a bit startled as he peeked into the taproom. He announces that he's going to taste the soup very carefully in case there's something strange going on.
I'd rule that as an opposed skill check between the cook's Profession (Cook) and the character's Perception before any saving throws are rolled. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:19:03
|
Sorry, but I grow tired of it.
I don't see a way to make you understand what I'm saying...
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 22 Aug 2007 00:26:02 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:19:54
|
Asgetrion - You say you HAVE a WoW account? Yet you do not like how much easier combat flows in a video game? I have an account too (three, actually), and I think moving in this direction may be a good idea, as long as the DON'T take away from the role-play element. That is the one shortcoming with Comp/Vid games - the redundant quests and 2D NPCs.
But thats because the NPCs and Quests are handled by a computer, not a real, live DM. It's the DM's job to make the game interesting, not the rules. Some of the best RPG sessions I have ever played in didn't even use the rules once.
It seems the current iteration of the game is just to get to the 'final encounter', which usually takes up at least half the session. If you can show me a set of rules that will give me simple yet detailed combat, so that my players can move on to the next role-play encounter, then so much the better.
You put down WoW quite a bit in your post. yet you play... why? 
If you take out all if its faults (the lack of human-controlled encounters), you have to admit the fighting is more exciting and the Graphics blow-away just about any art I've seen from WotC in a long time. Also, I think it will stimulate party-balance, not enforce it. As a WoW player, you should know that groups 'advertise' for certain classes to finish off their party, like "Need Healer", or "Need Tank". No one forces a group to be balanced, but you trying running an instance with a party of rogues! Its just common sense to balance your party; no-one makes you do it.
I will miss the bard, though, but who cares? Did anyone ever use 'bardic Knowledge'? How can you compare that with some of the other class's abilities?
I've heard a few other things that give me pause, but most of what I'm hearing are concepts that I myself have used, and they work well. I think it sounds 'interesting', at the least.
As one person on the WotC boards put it - they are doing us a favor. If you have no intention of playing 4.0, then you need NEVER purchase another book again. 3e is done, and you can play until the end of time with what you have. One of the biggest complaints was the never-ending 3e books we needed to buy to keep up.
Now you don't have to spend anymore money.
As for me, I'll take a look at it, and if I hate it, I will stick with 3e. It's all good.
As one person at the WotC boards said, concerning a run-in they had with Ed in an elevator, Ed said "People will be angry, but just get over it".
Besides, could anything ever be as bad as the ToT? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Aug 2007 00:23:05 |
|
|
|
initiate
Learned Scribe
Canada
102 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:34:58
|
Kentinal Wrote:
Well it looks like there will be at least level 25 spells...
As always, I'll look at what they come up with, but I don't like this in theory. Keeping track of nine levels of spells involves enough tables and such already. Perhaps the system will introduce more changes to make handling twenty levels of spells less than a mindboggling task? In any case, seems to me like something that didn't need fixing. For myself, I'm fine with the way the spell system works now, and see no reason to change the fundamentals.
Kentinal Wrote:
...perhaps gnomes will go extinct...
Has this actually been implied?! A whole core race, dozens of Realmsian NPcs, just gone. Can't see any bright side to this; hope it doesn't happen.
Kentinal Wrote:
some speculation Drow will become their own race...
Perhaps the current drow novel plot in FR is leading towards something of this sort? Would be pretty weird, though. I'd rather drow didn't become a core race; their not supposed to be common after all, on account of living in the Underdark and everything. Last thing we need is more Drizzt wannabes running around.
Kentinal Wrote:
oh and warlock and/or warlord will become a core class.
Curiouser and curiouser; kind of liked the core classes how they were, but might be interesting I suppose
Kentinal Wrote:
The Bard appears to be gone. *shrugs* Not enough information yet to know what the frell they are going to offer.
No way! Another fixture of the game removed completely? Say it is not so, and I shall take back every unkind word I ever said about the bard's statistical abilities. Couldn't they fix it rather than remove it? What happens to all the NPcs, [major ones, like Storm and Danilo Thann], who're at least partially bards? Again, hope very much it isn't so.
As for the NPc classes biting the bullet: I agree with Markustay and Skeptic. It could work, but it may well not. I, too, found the amount of space taken up by full stats in 3.5 products a shame, but I'd kind of like the option to stat an NPc in full to be there if I wanted it, and I can't really see why it shouldn't be. I agree that, at the very least, they should provide us with a fair number of "generic stat blocks" rather than just one for "Joe the Unheroic and Totally Not Important". A way to engineer our own would also be nice. I appreciate their efforts to minimize the number of gamestopping slowdowns at the table, and I think its a design problem worth their attention. However, as discussed in this scroll, I think they may be over simplifying a bit in the process.
|
Edited by - initiate on 22 Aug 2007 00:40:25 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2007 : 00:48:12
|
I think you pasted twice.
25 levels are comfirmed by WotC staff.
Rumor has it Bard might be in PHB II if they can not balance enough to get into the PHB.
Warlord might include aspest of bard and marshall (sp), if it is a core class.
As for NPC stats, I can agree some that stats take up room, but translation of some of my more exotic characters will not be posible.
Gnomes so far nothing official, just implications that race list will be cut. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 22 Aug 2007 02:13:12 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
