| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 21:35:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caedwyr
quote:
Monsters in general are being broken down by role, or theme, such as soldier (front line), artillery (ranged attack, Skirmisher (sneaky dodger) and Controller/Hexer (commander or magic user).
This makes it so much easier to pick and pull monsters from the MM to design challenging encounters. You know you need a couple of soldiers for the front, an artillery or two for back and a skirmisher to flank! It is super easy, and the monsters have powers that are relevant to their description, gnoll soldiers, for example, will have powers that are activated when they are attacking in packs, as dogs would. This makes so much more sense the differentiating humanoids by hit dice, etc.
It also makes it much easier to introduce tabletop wargaming and minatures to the system as well.
*shrugs* It makes it easier to computer code, 3.X was that compared to 2nd and SKR stated ir was not the design intent for 3.0. Of course the splat books increased coding problems as they came out.
As for minis, nothing official as to if they will cost something. however the only idea so far offered by WotC was offering random minis (but that they would not be needed) to be used with game table. A wargame is what D&D came from, but returning to it strikes me as a bad idea. |
"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 |
 |
|
|
Chosen of Moradin
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1120 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 21:36:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ranak
In the latest Wizards podcast on monster design, for example, the Drow are referred to as Fey. Monsters in general are being broken down by role, or theme, such as soldier (front line), artillery (ranged attack, Skirmisher (sneaky dodger) and Controller/Hexer (commander or magic user).
Itīs only me, or this appear to much as "videogame"???
quote:
Originally posted by Ranak
This makes it so much easier to pick and pull monsters from the MM to design challenging encounters. You know you need a couple of soldiers for the front, an artillery or two for back and a skirmisher to flank! It is super easy, and the monsters have powers that are relevant to their description, gnoll soldiers, for example, will have powers that are activated when they are attacking in packs, as dogs would. This makes so much more sense the differentiating humanoids by hit dice, etc.
I think once people actually sit down and play with 4e mechanics, there will be little love lost for 3/3.5 Edition.
Well, in all editions of D&D, I never have problems to design my encounters, and I donīt know in what a "videogame description" of the monsters will help me.. I prefer to trust in myself, and in the nasty monsters books that are at my disposal.   
Chosen of Moradin, great fan of Fiend Folio |
Dwarf, DM, husband, and proud of this! :P
twitter: @yuripeixoto
Facebook: yuri.peixoto |
|
|
|
Tiziano
Acolyte
Italy
36 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 21:43:29
|
quote:
Monsters in general are being broken down by role, or theme, such as soldier (front line), artillery (ranged attack, Skirmisher (sneaky dodger) and Controller/Hexer (commander or magic user).
This makes it so much easier to pick and pull monsters from the MM to design challenging encounters. You know you need a couple of soldiers for the front, an artillery or two for back and a skirmisher to flank!
I'm sorry but, with this premise, I can't help but visualize groups of monsters antagonists put together just to fill said roles, with no or little thought to respective ecologies and agendas (but for maybe a 'wouldn't it be cool to have two gnolls, a beholder and a catoblepas?').
I fell in love with D&D (1st ed.) because it was a game that made you think, and sent you to the library to look for archetypes and ideas, not because it was 'fast', 'smooth' or (Heavens forbid!) 'cool'.
Sadly the more I hear about 4th ed. the more it sounds like a game designed for videogamers with a short attention span. |
http://www.portraitadoption.com/ |
Edited by - Tiziano on 06 Oct 2007 21:46:23 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 21:45:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ranak
In the latest Wizards podcast on monster design, for example, the Drow are referred to as Fey.
...
I think once people actually sit down and play with 4e mechanics, there will be little love lost for 3/3.5 Edition.
Well I skiped the last podcast, but from what I have read Gold and Silver are also Fey and my impression was a non core race.
If we see the rules, we might like them. This however does not change the idea that appears to be out there that no gnomes exist, that Warforged exist in the Realms with Trieflings as well, that a Bard will not likely exist in rules until 2009.
*sighs* |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 21:50:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
quote:
Originally posted by Ranak
In the latest Wizards podcast on monster design, for example, the Drow are referred to as Fey. Monsters in general are being broken down by role, or theme, such as soldier (front line), artillery (ranged attack, Skirmisher (sneaky dodger) and Controller/Hexer (commander or magic user).
Itīs only me, or this appear to much as "videogame"???
quote:
Originally posted by Ranak
This makes it so much easier to pick and pull monsters from the MM to design challenging encounters. You know you need a couple of soldiers for the front, an artillery or two for back and a skirmisher to flank! It is super easy, and the monsters have powers that are relevant to their description, gnoll soldiers, for example, will have powers that are activated when they are attacking in packs, as dogs would. This makes so much more sense the differentiating humanoids by hit dice, etc.
I think once people actually sit down and play with 4e mechanics, there will be little love lost for 3/3.5 Edition.
Well, in all editions of D&D, I never have problems to design my encounters, and I donīt know in what a "videogame description" of the monsters will help me.. I prefer to trust in myself, and in the nasty monsters books that are at my disposal.
Chosen of Moradin, great fan of Fiend Folio
I don't think it is Videogame...and even so...what if it was?
I have a hard time understanding whether people are upset about the setting changes or the rules changes? I mean, to me at least, the setting is what is most important. The role-playing is what I like most, and the rules are just a means to implement some small parts of the "game" that can't be handled simply by talking.
So if they stream-line the mechanics of the game...doesn't it sound like the game will be more of an asset allowing us to get past the mechanical parts and back to the role-playing part? |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 22:04:49
|
Some are upset about rule changes of core classes and so on.
Some clearly are upset about setting changes, dead deities all over the place.
All in all we do not know the entire scope of changes to either the rules or the setting, just what many of us are hearing/reading we do not like either.
In fairness there are some that welcome the changes as best as they currently know them. Faster play sounds good even to me. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 22:08:03
|
They're separate concerns, though not entirely separate as some people, like Rich Baker, have their hands in both.
Bringing in MMORPG terms by itself obviously won't do any good, and adding a new layer of jargon doesn't sound like streamlining. Whether what they're doing with monsters overall will work well remains to be seen. I predict it will for some, not for others, and will be neither 'better' or 'worse' in any totalizing sense. |
|
|
|
Ranak
Learned Scribe
USA
190 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 01:45:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
Itīs only me, or this appear to much as "videogame"???
...
Well, in all editions of D&D, I never have problems to design my encounters, and I donīt know in what a "videogame description" of the monsters will help me.. I prefer to trust in myself, and in the nasty monsters books that are at my disposal.
Chosen of Moradin, great fan of Fiend Folio
I think it has more to do with using miniatures than video games, but there a similarity there (the concept of going through 13+ encounters per day in dangerous areas, etc.)
I think the most positive change in the MM is that monsters are being crafted to have really unique powers that do no overlap so much with spells, so they will be in many cases truly different in abilities than PCs. They described some of them in the pod cast, like the pack abilities of gnolls. Some of the monster powers are definitely aimed miniatures players, like an automatic tail slap if you flank a dragon.
Hobgoblins, Orcs and Goblins, etc. all now have actual differentiating abilities that are true to their cultural descriptions (Goblins have deceptive attacks, Hobgoblins for effective lines or phalanx). It is pretty cool.
And if the DM wants to add class levels to the monsters to make them elite units, that is still an option.
In a way I think this does harken back to 1st Edition, all the monsters and classes very clearly defined - leaving the role playing up to the character. 3rd edition took the opposite tactic, where it is very easy to try and differentiate your character by going for an odd prestige class or feat, rather than through role playing. I hope simplicity of the new edition brings backs more focus on role playing, by moving the mechanics along faster.
And, that being said, I do not think they will over-simplify things. If you hear the podcast where there are talking about the new axis system they used to design the monsters, you can tell there is plenty of minutiae in there to please rules hounds.
I am approaching this with cautious optimism. The only tidbit mentioned in the podcast that I found upsetting was that not all the core monsters are going in the Monster Manual, they want all Monster Manuals to be considered core books, so they are spreading the core monsters out between the upcoming Monster Manual I and future editions. Frost Giants were one example, that are being pushed into MM2. |
|
|
|
RodOdom
Senior Scribe
USA
509 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 02:51:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
So in other words it was not the 4E changes to the magic system is not the reason why they blew up Faerun.
It's like I been saying all along - the advance in the timeline didn't have anything to do with the rules changes. The writers ran out of room to write, so they moved the timeline forward (note that the guy in charge of novel development played a pivotal role in FR's future). We were complaining a bit too loudly about the RSEs and other meta-plots happening in too quick succession, and they agreed with that part. However, they weren't about to get rid of their novel cash cow, so instead gamers were forced to 'take one for the team'. It wasn't for us, the fans and players, but rather for them, so they can continue to write novels in the hundred years between settings/timelines. It is a time without rules (between editions), so the prima-donna authors can write whatever they like and not be challenged as to it's 'canoness' or continuity.
It has become a setting for novels - forget playing a game in this. 
I agree with much of that. If FR is not selling as much as Wizards would like, it's not a failing of us fans or the setting that Ed created. It's a failing of the designers and authors who have not been able to come up with truly kick-ass stories and products. Re-creating the Realms will not change that. |
Edited by - RodOdom on 07 Oct 2007 02:52:43 |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 12:30:12
|
I'm not very well informed at all about this yet, but I read the leaked developments that drive the coming "Spellplague" at EN World...
The Spellplague's bursting of the Weave strikes me as a kind of 'mega-disaster' for the Realms. Something akin to an asteroid striking the earth in RL, causing climate change, and then profoundly altering the entire ecosystem. An event that forces adapatations within the environment, and causes some rather sweeping changes.
Myself, I prefer a relatively 'low magic' setting where magic maintains an aura of something truly special and mysterious. For my own taste, FR kind of spun out of control with magic getting too commonplace and high level. (No right or wrong to this, it's a matter of individual taste, I respect those who differ.) On the whole question of magic, I'm comforted somewhat by Ed's response to my question some years back about the level of magic in Faerun.*
To use another analogy, I view the changes to the Weave itself also as something like a stock market 'correction' where stocks have inflated value and eventually must drop. Very tough on investors who have most of their portfolio in stocks, but it's still a necessary development for the overall health of the market.
But again, preference for the overall level of magic is a matter of taste. And we have no idea how farreaching the impact the bursting of the Weave will be, how long it will take for the use of magic to return to normal if it ever will, whether magic will be permanently changed, and so forth.
As the type who tends to view the glass half full, I think it's actually kind of exciting to contemplate how all the various civilizations, races, classes, etc., will adapt to this momentous development.
* quote:
June 2, 2005: Hello, all. Ed replies to this question from Lemernis: "I have a question for Ed about the level of magic in Faerun. The 3rd ed. FRCS pp 92-94 implies that adventuring magic is not particularly common, and in fact may be rather hard to come by. Is real magic (as opposed to gimmick magic) extremely familiar to most or something of a rarity? How difficult is it to come by? Is it found commonly in stores?"
Ed speaks:
Well met, Lemernis. The reason why Realms sources tend to be vague about "how much" magic is out there, and how easily obtained it is, is simply because "we" (the Realms designers) want to leave the 'magic level' of any campaign up to the DM and players in that campaign.
It's easy to be misled by the endless writeups of new spells and magic items into thinking of the Realms as some sort of vast candy store of magic, and by seeing the Chosen of Mystra endlessly flitting about using magic (particularly if you forget that the Chosen of Mystra are charged by their goddess to EXPAND MAGIC USE throughout Toril, putting more magic into the hands of all who won't use it primarily to seize magic from others, slay those who work magic, and by other means restrict magic).
In 'my' original Realms, magic is gained in two ways: by adventuring (as shown in a scene in THE TEMPTATION OF ELMINSTER, Chosen of Mystra actually go around 'planting' scrolls, spellbooks, and magic items in tombs, for adventurers to find), and by undertaking training or study (which often involves temporary service with) someone who possesses more powerful magic. Apart from 'THE' MageFair, magic is never for sale in a store (as opposed to 'secret deals' where someone sells or auctions individual items to discerning persons). The published Realms does have some magic stores, because some gamers prefer that style of play and the published Realms was intended to be the "campaign setting for all" for the 2nd Edition of the D&D game.
Myself, I believe you should pick the level of magic that's most comfortable for you and your fellow gamers/DM, and always err on the side of 'low magic' or at least 'mysterious magic' (the sword glows, and can slice through coat-of-plate, but it started humming that one time, and on that other occasion made a doorknob glow green, so I'm not quite sure what else it does, and what it was crafted to do), to keep roleplaying to the fore and avoid any temptation or possibility for your game becoming a sort of football-huddle tactical arms race wherein attention shifts to game rules and mechanics in endless fighting.
So saith Ed.
As one of his players, I can confirm that we Knights SAW a lot of magic hurled and carted (in the form of gleaming magic items) around, but rarely got our hands on all that much of it - - and when we did, we tended to worry, because it meant we were soon going to face a challenge that would test us to the utmost and we'd better be able to USE that magic if we didn't want to perish. Which is one of the reasons that the first decade or so of real playing time took us up to the lofty heights of 7th to 9th levels!
love to all,
THO
|
Edited by - Lemernis on 08 Oct 2007 11:40:17 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 19:22:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by sparhawk42
But this is only speculation until we find out exactly how far ahead they are moving the setting, right?
True.
Sorry about all the 'doom and gloom', I'm trying to avoid it here at the keep.
Yes, if the setting is not set ahead a hundred years or more then perhaps we have some hope of retaining something recognizable.
When I said you 'can't play in this', I was referring to the time-jump between editions - technically, their will be NO rules applying to that 'down-time', so if we want to continue forward past 1385 DR, we must jump all the way ahead to when the NEW FRCS takes place.
None of this will stop me from being a huge fan of the Realms, regardless. The only thing it will effect is which future products I deem neccesary for my game.
I believe it has now been revealed that we will be getting NO diety of magic in 4e, because someone assumed the concept was 'broken'? Someone was quoting a blog, so I didn't read that directly, so I'm just looking for some confirmation on this. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Oct 2007 02:48:43 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 19:48:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I believe it has now been revealed that we will be getting NO diety of magic in 4e, because someone assumed the concept was 'broken'? Someone was quoting a blog, so I didn't read that directly, so I'm just looking for some confirmation on this.
I'll bet Boccob, Zagyg, Wee Jas, Nuitari, Solinari, and Lunitari are a little nervous after reading that blog . . . |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2007 : 23:53:35
|
Did you notice the new Design & Development article on the 'Core Mechanics'? I don't like the fact that Saving Throws will become "static" in nature, like AC. I'd hate my DM to declare that "OOPS! He rolled a critical with the Fireball, so all you guys are TOAST!". This seriously affects magic in the game -- most spells either miserably fails (the caster rolls badly) or all of the targets are in serious trouble (if the caster rolls a high result). It may be more "realistic" in a sense, but I see storm clouds on the horizon, because a single spell might result in a TPK and ruin the campaign (in my experience this would a rare result in a well-balanced 3E campaign). Or a single breath from a dragon. Besides, this feels a bit "deprotagonizing" for me -- will my DM roll my skill checks and attack rolls, too?
Before anyone comments on how "Action Points" save the day -- I know guys who have tried this "optional" system, and they pretty much told me that they spent all the points in a single session (in which everyone had rolled badly). This may also have resulted from the DM "toughening up" some of the encounters because of these Action Points.
I liked that getting rid of "Touch AC" will de-emphasize the importance of Initiative. However, "static" Saving Throws may have exactly the opposite effect in the game. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 00:01:52
|
I don't think static saving throws will be any different than the static Armor Class we are all so used to. Would you rather make a defensive roll every time someone attacks you?
I'm all for static saving throws...it allows you to know ahead of time just how tough you are against certain monsters...it speaks to experience in dealing with things. Saving Throws I'm sure will still have the potential to be buffed just like AC...so I don't see this as dangerous.
It actually started (as far as I noticed) in the Conan RPG where spell casters had a Magical Attack Adjustment. In that system you were still required to make a saving throw...but the Magical Attack Roll was the DC for the save. This cuts time in a fight and allows a quicker resolution. Now instead of a fireball doing 30 damage unless you make a save, instead only ONE roll by the attacker is made. Whether this should be against each defender I'm not sure...
I see your point that it could result in the whole group getting a hurting laid on them...but I see the benefit as well. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 00:07:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Did you notice the new Design & Development article on the 'Core Mechanics'? I don't like the fact that Saving Throws will become "static" in nature, like AC. I'd hate my DM to declare that "OOPS! He rolled a critical with the Fireball, so all you guys are TOAST!". This seriously affects magic in the game -- most spells either miserably fails (the caster rolls badly) or all of the targets are in serious trouble (if the caster rolls a high result). It may be more "realistic" in a sense, but I see storm clouds on the horizon, because a single spell might result in a TPK and ruin the campaign (in my experience this would a rare result in a well-balanced 3E campaign). Or a single breath from a dragon. Besides, this feels a bit "deprotagonizing" for me -- will my DM roll my skill checks and attack rolls, too?
Before anyone comments on how "Action Points" save the day -- I know guys who have tried this "optional" system, and they pretty much told me that they spent all the points in a single session (in which everyone had rolled badly). This may also have resulted from the DM "toughening up" some of the encounters because of these Action Points.
I liked that getting rid of "Touch AC" will de-emphasize the importance of Initiative. However, "static" Saving Throws may have exactly the opposite effect in the game.
Your reasoning is based on 3.x maths, therefore completly false. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 08 Oct 2007 00:07:52 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 00:37:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Your reasoning is based on 3.x maths, therefore completly false.
Actually, I was thinking of those 4d6+21 4E Fireballs which were mentioned in one of the designer blogs... yes, critical hits may be "less effective" in 4E mechanics, but I somehow doubt it, because can you make it any *simpler* (one of 4E 'keywords ;) than "doubling" the damage? And it may very well be that Dragon Breath will actually cause less Hit Point damage, but we cannot know about that yet. In any case, it may very well turn out that my "math" is not "completely false" after all! ;)
How about those "static" Saving Throws -- don't *you* think that they'll be "deprotagonizing"? I want to roll whenever I can so that my character's fate lies in *my* hands as much as possible -- we've even discussed about using those optional "defense rolls" (i.e. "dynamic" AC against every attack).
And I don't mind combat taking longer, because physical conflicts and battles *should* last for a very good reason -- they are violent in nature and most often have 'lasting' results (i.e. someone is killed), and thus they should not be taken lightly. If combat is made simple and fast, your PCs won't hesitate to use violence in every situation -- role-playing aside, it might seem very lucrative (in 4E) for the players to kill the gate guards or the town mayor if they get in your characters' way. |
"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 - 08 Oct 2007 : 01:07:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
How about those "static" Saving Throws -- don't *you* think that they'll be "deprotagonizing"? I want to roll whenever I can so that my character's fate lies in *my* hands as much as possible -- we've even discussed about using those optional "defense rolls" (i.e. "dynamic" AC against every attack).
I would suggest to have the DM trowing dices before the players eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
And I don't mind combat taking longer, because physical conflicts and battles *should* last for a very good reason -- they are violent in nature and most often have 'lasting' results (i.e. someone is killed), and thus they should not be taken lightly. If combat is made simple and fast, your PCs won't hesitate to use violence in every situation -- role-playing aside, it might seem very lucrative (in 4E) for the players to kill the gate guards or the town mayor if they get in your characters' way.
D&D is a combat-heavy RPG, D&D4E won't change that. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 01:48:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
I would suggest to have the DM trowing dices before the players eyes.
But how does that change the fact that it gives less control to players? Don't you find that deprotagonizing? What about the DM rolling everything else, too (i.e. attacks, damage, skill checks)? Besides, if the DM rolls it "openly", he won't be able to "fudge" rolls, which probably results in many more TPKs.
quote:
D&D is a combat-heavy RPG, D&D4E won't change that.
Yes, but note that "slow" and time-taking combat is a "metalevel" effect which encourages players to fight only those battles that *matter* to them and their characters. Still, I agree that it was a bit silly that you could only earn XP by killing things in 3E (I liked the XP table in 2E). Hopefully 4E will give XP for "social encounters" as well. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 02:53:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Hopefully 4E will give XP for "social encounters" as well.
Actually one of the recent news articles on ENworld was about 4e social encounters and how they now, sometimes, give exp. It was posted not more then a week ago, or maybe sometime last week.
Edit: Fnd it
David Noonan's latest update discusses non-combat challenges and how (and when) they end.
Today's work is mostly spent on the end state: How do you know you're at the end of the encounter, and what are the consequences (both game and narrative) for success and failure?
Those end-state elements are so obvious in most combat encounters that we take them for granted. Most of the time, you know when the fight is over, and you know what the consequences were for both the winners and losers.
It's a little muddier for noncombat challenges. The successful end state of a wilderness trek is pretty obvious--you reach your destination. But the failure end state? It should probably be something more satisfying than "you all get lost and die of exposure." The failure should hurt, absolutely--but it shouldn't be a narrative dead-end (on a one-way street, no less).
And just like real life, things get muddier still when you're talking social interactions. At what point does the Duke make up his mind and no amount of further talk will sway him? (And if you think the players naturally stop talking at that point, well, you have very different players than I do.) If you tick off the Duke, what's the consequence of that, both in a game-mechanics sense and in terms of the narrative?
Those are tricky questions. Fundamentally, they're questions whose answers get generated at your table, not in the DMG. But we're going to lay down some principles that guide challenge design--whether you're designing ahead of time or making it up as you go along. Right now, the manuscript suggests five principles for noncombat challenges.
Right now, the principle I'm working under is "Success and failure have both game consequences and narrative consequences." One of the implications is that success isn't just its own reward in a narrative sense. Success also gets you the same cool stuff that a combat encounter would get you. If you engage in a big debate with the Duke and convince him to help you secure the borderlands, you earn experience and treasure just as if you'd faced a combat challenge of equivalent difficulty.
Whoa. Treasure? Yes--sort of. In a lot of noncombat challenges, there's no way to directly provide treasure at the challenge's conclusion. To use the wilderness trek example, it would be a little weird to say, "You've reached your destination...and there's a big pile of gold there, too." But any DM worth his salt will defer that treasure and sneak it back into the adventure in a spot that makes sense.
What about social stuff? Does that mean you earn experience and cold, hard cash just for talking to NPCs as a matter of course? No. The point is that a noncombat challenge has to be a challenge. The situation must be meaningful, the outcome must be in doubt, and there must be some element of risk. If those elements aren't all present, you're just talking. You might be learning useful stuff, and you might be having fun. But no XP for that.
And just for fun, here's another one of the five principles: "Noncombat challenges test multiple PCs in multiple ways." Not exactly shocking or radical, but it's something we're taking seriously. To use the social encounter example, it's useful if the party has a "face man," but a face man alone isn't a "We win" button. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 08 Oct 2007 03:01:43 |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 12:21:27
|
As a student of Amn, I'm intruiged at whether the Spellplague will benefit Amn's magic-unfriendly society as a major player in Faerun. The people of Amn eschew magic, so they'll be delighted. Whether the bursting of the Weave will translate into to any sort of advantage for the nation is anyone's guess, I suppose.
Given that other other dominant civilizations in Faerun that have relied on magic will be severely weakened by the collapse of magic, it might embolden Amn as a major power. Amn has never been militarily hegemonistic, choosing instead wielding power economically. But as I muse about this, I can envision the following scenario:
A charismatic heir to the vacant Amnian throne emerges. This individual manages to restore the Amnian monarchy as the true power in the land, with the Council of Six functioning as the royal throne's puppets. The new king achieves this by stirring a powerful identification in the people with their Calishite ancestral roots. He idealizes Ahmal Shoon VII, a brilliant military strategist who distrusted magic and led mage purges, and uses him as a model for what a true Calishite forebear of Amn is really all about. So it is definitely a kind of revisionist history (something that can easily be accomplished in Amn given its lack scholarship). He contends that the Calishites would easily have ruled the planet had they not succumbed to the temptations of magic. That to rule the planet is their birthright, and so forth.
Yes, I know this is derivative of real world mid 20th century history. But it's also archetypal. ;) Throughout history (in RL) leaders with an unquenchable thirst for conquest often share a lot of similar personality traits, and use the same stypes of devices, etc.
Sorry for running wild with an idea, maybe I should have posted in in Questions for Steven Schend. But mainly, I'm just offering it up as an example of the types of interesting changes that can arise from the dramatic impact of the Spellplague. |
Edited by - Lemernis on 08 Oct 2007 12:45:52 |
|
|
|
lycurgus33
Acolyte
13 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 02:23:23
|
So all wizards will have either a staff a wand or a giant marble? And they'll be stuck in some kind of Hogwarts' academic department of magic? Have I heard this correctly?
I really didn't like Vancian magic preparation, but then there's always the Sorcerer option which was great. But changing what a wizard looks like across all genres with these clunky artifacts *shakes head* it's tacking too much on to the system itself which should be setting-neutral, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Ranak
Learned Scribe
USA
190 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 08:33:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by lycurgus33
So all wizards will have either a staff a wand or a giant marble? And they'll be stuck in some kind of Hogwarts' academic department of magic? Have I heard this correctly?
I really didn't like Vancian magic preparation, but then there's always the Sorcerer option which was great. But changing what a wizard looks like across all genres with these clunky artifacts *shakes head* it's tacking too much on to the system itself which should be setting-neutral, don't you think?
WoTC has indicated that Wizards will still have memorized spells, just fewer, in addition to the powers which they project through their foci, which seem rather elegant (not clunky) to me. See their comments below.
"Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options."
Specifically regarding the orbs and staffs that people seem to deride as Harry Potterish:
the level of importance attached to these items has not yet been finally decided ("The pendulum has swung around a lot during design on the implement issue... Right now the pendulum is resting somewhere in the middle.")
"...it might be worthwhile to think of a wizard's implements as analogous to a 3e fighter's weapon choice--if you assume that the fighter hasn't deeply, deeply specialized in that weapon through feat choice. Mid-level Tordek prefers axes, sure, and he probably has an advantage with an axe that's substantial but not overwhelming. You put a polearm in his hands, though, and he functions just fine. And he's accessing the salient properties of the polearm--reach, for example."
I think all in all, combined with the new system allowing offensive spells to crit just like attacks, the implements will work out well for many players. Dyed-in-wool types who insist that polymorph must be a 4th level spell, and their Wizard must be able to teleport out of trouble as soon as they hit L9 might cry and moan, but I think it could be fun to play. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 13:52:54
|
| I'd like to see magic-users being able to use anything they want as a focus for their special powers, there is a potential for comic-abuse, but wouldn't it be cool if the wizard had to use one specific item, like a loaf of bread, and then have the party starve...the loaf would be old, dry as hell, and well...dusty, no, I'm joking, of course, but the entire idea is so WOW that it isn't even funny, and I dunno if WOW got it from Harry Potter... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Aewrik
Seeker
80 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 17:18:56
|
If they remove the orders and just put the "wizards' unique implements" as props for different descriptors, I'd be less against this.
I mean, for high-level wizards to take that feat "eschew implement" which removes the need for Harry Potter stuff. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 17:32:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'd like to see magic-users being able to use anything they want as a focus for their special powers, there is a potential for comic-abuse, but wouldn't it be cool if the wizard had to use one specific item, like a loaf of bread, and then have the party starve...the loaf would be old, dry as hell, and well...dusty, no, I'm joking, of course, but the entire idea is so WOW that it isn't even funny, and I dunno if WOW got it from Harry Potter...
WoW did not invent the concept, nor did J.K. Rowlings - a wizard using an object to focus his eldritch energies through is as old as time.
As far as P&P RPGs go, Chivalry & Sorcery (published in 1977!) used the idea FIRST. When done correctly, it adds quite a bit of flavor to a game. Although Wizards tended to use Staves and wands, and Elves used Tiaras and amulets, etc, just about everyone could use a different item if they wished. There were bonuses involved in using the item correct to your class/race, similar to the D&D sytem for 'favored class', but there were still options available (Wood Elves being able to use their bows as Foci I found VERY flavorful).
The 'Magical Traditions' in 4e seem to be VERY similar to the system used in C&S, so it will probably be excellent.
You see, I know that much about the game because I used to work for Fantasy Games Unlimited, the publisher of C&S. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Oct 2007 17:33:01 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 18:25:14
|
| I won't be happy with this item-based magic system, unless it's based on some sort of feat. Say, if you have this feat, and your chosen implement, then you get a +2 bonus of some sort on your spells (DC, damage, both, whatever). But, if you have this feat and lose your chosen implement, then that bonus becomes -2. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 18:39:31
|
You know they have said.
They want to get away from wealth based play, that equipment will not be as important as it was a 3.X or prior editions.
Not sure how they will do this with spellcasting when a +3 or +6 wand makes a difference.
Of course they also say all spell casters will always be able to use some magic. It is not well explained yet though.
Perhaps level 0 spells can be cast at will (if 0 level spells even exist), maybe some other inate ability of being a class. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 18:40:33
|
Thats pretty much how it worked in C&S, Wooly. You could still cast spells, but not nearly as well as when you had your focus.
Hopefullly it will work that way in 4e - if they go with some sort of 'Spell Points' sytem (Mana?), then magical artifacts that add to or even multiply available spellpoints become viable as well.
EDIT: I don't see how they can possibly lessen the importance of gear - the aquisition of better equipment and magical items has been a staple of the game since the beginning. What would be the point of Dungeon-delving, then? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Oct 2007 18:44:31 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 19:09:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
What would be the point of Dungeon-delving, then?
For the scenery? "And on the left, you can see the torture chambers of Mad King Hoozebain. It's not known how many innocents died here, but rumor has it that this is the most haunted area for several days' travel in any direction. Ooh, look! Here comes one of the tortured spirits now!" |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 19:11:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'd like to see magic-users being able to use anything they want as a focus for their special powers, there is a potential for comic-abuse, but wouldn't it be cool if the wizard had to use one specific item, like a loaf of bread, and then have the party starve...the loaf would be old, dry as hell, and well...dusty, no, I'm joking, of course, but the entire idea is so WOW that it isn't even funny, and I dunno if WOW got it from Harry Potter...
You are thinking of Pratchett's 'dwarven battle bread', aren't you? 
I agree that althought there *would* be those occasional "funny" implements (loaves of bread, old musty robes, mushrooms, etc.) but if it has worked in Ars Magica for ages (i.e. any item qualifies for a 'talisman'), why couldn't it work in D&D? |
"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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
