I don't really care for the idea that they will be 'forcing' people to use the minis now - hopefully they will still be an option. However, if they truthfully do include the information for BOTH games on the stat-cards, then maybe more people would want to use them.
I remember early on they were talking about some concept with the DDi, where you could get 'extra online material' when you purchased a print product. I think having printable copies of various 'Monster cards' - the ones that go with that sourcebook - would be a great way to put the cards into players hands without them having to buy the minis.
However, I don't think they've worked out yet how that is all going to work - something like a scratch-off code on the book, that will let you access the 'extra material' from the web. How they plan on controlling that, and keeping people from sharing with friends, is beyond me.
Maybe they've dropped the idea altogether, and are just going to include that extra content with the DDi...
which we will have to soon pay for...
Remember when they just called 'em 'Web Enhancements', and gave them to us for free?
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
Agreed on minis. Though I like my old unpainted Lord of the Rings figures from back in the day, they have always been optional in 1e, 2e and 3e combats. Pieces of paper, dice, bottle tops, lollies (sweets to you yanks) etc have all found a place at my table. However, most of the time I've always dispensed with figures and just drawn on the player maps: still effective after all this time...though maybe not with the increased movement focus of 4e...it may clutter everything up just too much.
> Remember when they just called 'em 'Web Enhancements', and gave them to us for free?
Agreed Markus, its a complaint that done the rounds. I thought for many years WotC have been pretty generous with the free material offered on-line, but I think that supposed to decrease to a marketing-focused trickle after the introduction of the DDi. S
"Taste like chicken," says Sapphiraktar the Ancient.
I for one don't mind the subraces not getting the spotlights, given how rare they were supposed to be. Unless you're specifically highlighting the undersea, you shouldn't bother with sea elves, and I for one have no problem with keeping avariels out of player hands at least initially.
Then again, I'm an old fogey who still believes in the 2E limitations that some things should be kept as NPC and story things for the DMs rather than everything open for play.
Now, it's probably not as big a deal to have a PC that can fly at will, but back in the days when that would have given one PC a tremendous advantage over others, that's why we kept avariels rare and as NPCs.
Steven who still hasn't made his mind up re: 4E rules, as he's not seen anything yet, but he's intrigued...
Steven who still hasn't made his mind up re: 4E rules, as he's not seen anything yet, but he's intrigued...
Did you get the preview books (I know guys, I keep mentioning those books, but I like 'em!)? Granted, they don't really tell you about much in terms of actual rules and mechanics, but there is a lot about 4E flavor (which often does tie into rules), and you'll get a good sense of what direction the designers are headed in.
There's nice artwork too.
"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)
quote:Hit points still measure your ability to stay in the fight, but healing’s no longer just the burden of one character anymore. Each character has a certain number of healing surges. Once during each encounter, you can take a standard action called a second wind; this gives you a certain amount of hit points back equal to your healing surge value and gives you a +2 bonus to all your defenses until the start of your next turn.
So now everyone can heal themselves? That removes part of the burden from the cleric, but also means the cleric has just lost a portion of their utility. Also, I know this is a fantasy game, but I still want internal logic. If a cleric needs divine power to heal someone, where does everyone else get their healing power from?
In a way, it also dramatically increases hit points -- in fact, it makes a set hit point value almost superfluous.
This seems to very much be a MMO-inspired (and unnecessary) change.
quote:An extended rest is akin to “camping” and lasts 6 hours. After an extended rest, you’re fully healed, you have a full compliment of healing surges, you have your daily powers back, and you reset your action points to 1.
Fully healed, after just six hours? C'mon, now, that's simply ridiculous. Yeah, the old hp gain for resting needed a bit of an overhaul, but not nearly that much! Not only that, but this makes larger dungeons, like Undermountain, a hell of a lot let dangerous -- just chill out for a few hours, and you're back in perfect shape. And again, this negates part of a cleric's purpose.
Man, other that turning undead, clerics have just become almost useless.
This whole thing of "keep the PCs alive, no matter what!" is an admirable goal, but they didn't have to jump the shark to make it happen.
quote:Saving throws are simple – just roll 1d20. If you roll a 10 or higher, you’ll end the effect. If you roll a 9 or lower, the effect will usually continue until you have to make another saving throw at the end of your next turn.
And once more, tools in the DM repertoire are nerfed, in favor of not inconveniencing PCs...
quote:Most effects that have durations (usually imparting a condition on the target) last either until the target makes a saving throw to ward it off, or until the end of the next turn of the attacker that caused the nasty effect. A few effects have durations that last through the entire encounter. No more tracking rounds to determine when your effect ends!
So, in order to dumb down the game, we are nerfing a whole lot of spells and such... And this also backs up the new uselessness of clerics: anything the PCs get hit with will be gone after the fight is over. A debuff in the middle of the fight isn't really necessary when the PC has a 50% chance of throwing off the effect themselves, and it will be gone anyway after the fight ends.
In summation, if you want to go ahead and play D&D Extreme, go down to Best Buy and pick up whatever MMO catches your eye. Other than the lack of dice, you'll be playing the same game.
D&D 3.x was not so broken that it needed to have all these changes. With a few minor tweaks, the system could have remained in play for a long, long time. And I'm sure it will remain in play for a long time -- because D&D Extreme is only loosely based on D&D. It's not a natural evolution, it's an entirely different beast that has the same name and a few common features.
Did you look at those hit point numbers? The base values are way high, and the healing surges make it worse!
1st Level Paladin: 27 HP, +66 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 93 1st Level Cleric: 24 HP, +48 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 72 1st Level Fighter: 33 HP, +104 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 137 1st Level Ranger: 23 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 53 1st Level Wizard: 20 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 50 1st Level Warlock: 28 HP, +63 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 91
Average effective hit points: 82.67. And that's at 1st level, and not relying on any external healing (clerical, potions, etc). The average HP without healing, for these 1st level characters, is 21.5.
Well they did say they would be it harder to die at 1st level.
"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
Alright, first off, the forcing of the mini's (or the theory of it, since we don't know it will be forced);
On the one hand I do sort of dig using mini's, it's helpful to keep track of things but, honestly, I prefer non-mini gaming, using maps and just imagining it. This is pretty impossible with AoO though so I really feel like 3.x forces the use of mini's.
I do like the 3.x rules, however it does take me FAR more time to make an adventure. I mean, FAR more time and all of that time is making maps and finalizing monster stats. This might just be a problem in how I design my games (so far there have been very few monsters straight out of the MM, I hadn't realized it was such a headache to add levels and templates, etc) and hopefully I'll get better at this aspect of game design (because I get terribly bored crossing the Ts and dotting the Is) I think I probably spend about 10 times as much time writing a 3.x adventure vs a 2nd ed.
As for subraces, I sort of like that they are keeping the aquatic elves and flying elves out. IMO flight just adds too much to a characters maneuverability and aquatic elves are for very specific parties. I'm also of the opinion that the drow should have been kept to a different book but I'd have to say that Markus put that best. I hope that they come out with some "under the waves" type articles or "upon the heights" to help flesh out the rarer subraces but I think that'd be best for something like DDi.
As for what Wooly posted, about the "What you need to know about D&D", well. . . I don't like it, no sir, I don't. And that's putting it about as civilly as I can.
Though I do like the bit about Threatening Reach vs Reach, I think that could be a pretty decent mechanic, though it might mean more bookkeeping in combat.
I don't believe this is a problem, even though the numbers look ominous. One of the bigger problems with 3rd ed, is that you can be have a great adventure, and the party has to stop for the night , because they've run out of spells/hit points etc . With the healing surges. The characters looks as if they have 1 to 3 times more stamina for combat. Which looks fine for me. The increased hp at 1st level is ok. 3E 1st level characters fall over if some farts near them, thats thats a needed improvement. And they've also made it clear that hit points aren't entirely physical damage. Which explains why you don't need healing, and is also reasonable. So overall I don't see much to concern me.
Did you look at those hit point numbers? The base values are way high, and the healing surges make it worse!
1st Level Paladin: 27 HP, +66 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 93 1st Level Cleric: 24 HP, +48 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 72 1st Level Fighter: 33 HP, +104 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 137 1st Level Ranger: 23 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 53 1st Level Wizard: 20 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 50 1st Level Warlock: 28 HP, +63 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 91
Average effective hit points: 82.67. And that's at 1st level, and not relying on any external healing (clerical, potions, etc). The average HP without healing, for these 1st level characters, is 21.5.
What the hey are they doing to our game?!?
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle
Did you look at those hit point numbers? The base values are way high, and the healing surges make it worse!
1st Level Paladin: 27 HP, +66 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 93 1st Level Cleric: 24 HP, +48 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 72 1st Level Fighter: 33 HP, +104 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 137 1st Level Ranger: 23 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 53 1st Level Wizard: 20 HP, +30 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 50 1st Level Warlock: 28 HP, +63 more due to healing surges. Effective HP: 91
Average effective hit points: 82.67. And that's at 1st level, and not relying on any external healing (clerical, potions, etc). The average HP without healing, for these 1st level characters, is 21.5.
What the hey are they doing to our game?!?
It looks a bit like pinball to me, every new machine that comes out has higher and higher numbers.
I also hate the mathematic approach to party building. I prefer when a player plays a character, not a frickin "tank".
And it really is ok to have a party that lacks any particular piece, honestly, it really is.
I don't believe this is a problem, even though the numbers look ominous. One of the bigger problems with 3rd ed, is that you can be have a great adventure, and the party has to stop for the night , because they've run out of spells/hit points etc.
I don't understand why stopping for the night has to be so difficult. I mean, when you're in the dungeon then it's a bit of a pain but there's nothing wrong with having to go outside the dungeon to regroup. Basically, these new characters and character abilities sort of destroy what verisimilitude D&D had. I mean, they might find ways to justify the changes (those aren't you're first edition hit points no more!) but it just smacks of MMO, where all that is important is the ability to kill nonstop.
quote:Originally posted by Odysseus With the healing surges. The characters looks as if they have 1 to 3 times more stamina for combat. Which looks fine for me. The increased hp at 1st level is ok. 3E 1st level characters fall over if some farts near them, thats thats a needed improvement. And they've also made it clear that hit points aren't entirely physical damage. Which explains why you don't need healing, and is also reasonable. So overall I don't see much to concern me.
I can see where your coming from, 1st level characters are very fragile but I actually like that. I start characters in my games at 3rd level and allow the PCs to fill in background so that they're playing "experienced adventurers" rather than "starting adventurers" and I like the dynamic.
I'm glad that you seems more accepting of these changes and I truly hope that you enjoy them, I just don't think I'll find them at all palatable. I am totally honest in being glad that you like them, just re-iterating in case it looks like sarcasm.
I'm glad that you seems more accepting of these changes and I truly hope that you enjoy them, I just don't think I'll find them at all palatable. I am totally honest in being glad that you like them, just re-iterating in case it looks like sarcasm.
At first glance the numbers are very big. But there are addressing valid problems, at least for me. So until i've seen the whole system and tried , i'm assuming their maths is good.
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle
quote:Originally posted by Odysseus At first glance the numbers are very big. But there are addressing valid problems, at least for me. So until i've seen the whole system and tried , i'm assuming their maths is good.
I don't think their math will be off, I've seen some pretty hardcore math about die rolls and relative abilities and the like, it's just that the number seem like they're going to go from high to astronomical and we'll end up deal with some pretty huge numbers.
And, of course, this is all conjecture so all of my fears about this could be totally unfounded.
Yeah, I'm not a rules junkie and on top of that, I don't really know the rule details yet, so I can't comment on how silly these characters are at this point.
I would have to agree that making it easier for the PCs to stay alive at lower levels is an admirable goal, because many people (myself included) play games like this to relax and create a story, not worry if the PC they created will die too easily.
"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)
I don't believe this is a problem, even though the numbers look ominous. One of the bigger problems with 3rd ed, is that you can be have a great adventure, and the party has to stop for the night , because they've run out of spells/hit points etc . With the healing surges. The characters looks as if they have 1 to 3 times more stamina for combat. Which looks fine for me. The increased hp at 1st level is ok. 3E 1st level characters fall over if some farts near them, thats thats a needed improvement. And they've also made it clear that hit points aren't entirely physical damage. Which explains why you don't need healing, and is also reasonable. So overall I don't see much to concern me.
That was a problem with all previous editions. But it also was a strength in prior editions... I mentioned Undermountain in one of my posts. Undermountain has always been considered a highly dangerous, quite deadly place. And part of the reason it's so deadly is because there's just so much of it, with traps and monsters and all, that even the most well-provisioned party is going to be running ragged after a while. With healing surges, and full healing in 6 hours, it's not unreasonable to think that PCs could stop to rest twice a day, and be back up at full strength both times. The only way to stop them is to either swarm them or hit them with a TPK.
I don't have a problem with giving first level people some extra HP. I have a problem with giving them that much extra HP, and I have a problem with people healing themselves for more than their max HP. In fact, since all healing previoues came from either divine magic or psionics, I have a problem with all characters being able to automatically heal themselves.
Yeah, I'm not a rules junkie and on top of that, I don't really know the rule details yet, so I can't comment on how silly these characters are at this point.
I would have to agree that making it easier for the PCs to stay alive at lower levels is an admirable goal, because many people (myself included) play games like this to relax and create a story, not worry if the PC they created will die too easily.
While I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning story weaving as key to an enjoyable gaming evening, I believe that dying too easily shouldn´t be an issue (barring full brunt player stupidity) with a competent GM. But that´s beside the point
But healing surges...sound like URGH! Sorry, but seriously part of the charm of low-level chars is playing in adventures that suit them, and IMO that´s a fun challenge as DM, too. Weave an adventure that´s exciting, while still suitable for low levels. Awaken a sense of being in danger in the players, without just thrashing them around.
They should have gone the way Hackmaster went...give every character a 20 HP kicker bonus and be done with it
Or just recommend people start off at 2nd or 3rd level. Which allows you some pretty good opportunity for backstory. Being an ex-mercenary isn't very convincing if most folks can stand toe to toe with you. ;)
Starting at second makes gaining a level a feat level, which is exciting and starting at 3 makes 4 an ability level, which is also exciting.
It also gives room for players who want to play a LA character.
Regardless, it may very well end up being quite the fun game. But it doesn't look much like D&D to me (though it took time for me to warm up to 3.x, so that's not a surprise) and it sure doesn't look like FR to me.
Awaken a sense of being in danger in the players, without just thrashing them around.
It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger. The new healing methods make it much harder to kill a PC... Except in extreme cases, all they have to do is wait 6 hours and they're fine. So we're getting nearly immortal PCs in D&D Extreme...
quote:Originally posted by Wooly Rupert It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger. The new healing methods make it much harder to kill a PC... Except in extreme cases, all they have to do is wait 6 hours and they're fine. So we're getting nearly immortal PCs in D&D Extreme...
Agreed.
I also wonder how they'll handle diseases and poisons...
quote:Originally posted by Wooly Rupert It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger. The new healing methods make it much harder to kill a PC... Except in extreme cases, all they have to do is wait 6 hours and they're fine. So we're getting nearly immortal PCs in D&D Extreme...
Agreed.
I also wonder how they'll handle diseases and poisons...
Spend a healing wind action for the day and be done with it?
First off, I'll be honest here: I do not like the way any of this looks. Too many hp's for my liking and this healing surge stuff imho, is overboard.
quote:Originally posted by ShadezofDis
I don't understand why stopping for the night has to be so difficult. I mean, when you're in the dungeon then it's a bit of a pain but there's nothing wrong with having to go outside the dungeon to regroup. Basically, these new characters and character abilities sort of destroy what verisimilitude D&D had. I mean, they might find ways to justify the changes (those aren't you're first edition hit points no more!) but it just smacks of MMO, where all that is important is the ability to kill nonstop.
The above quote was right on the money, imho. Couldn't have said it any better.
quote:Originally posted by ShadezofDis
I can see where your coming from, 1st level characters are very fragile but I actually like that. I start characters in my games at 3rd level and allow the PCs to fill in background so that they're playing "experienced adventurers" rather than "starting adventurers" and I like the dynamic.
See, I like that fragility as well. A 1st level PC, while not all powerful can be very interesting personality wise and gives DM's the ability, imho, to make a gritty exciting campaign from the get go BECAUSE of a PC's fragility. Every sword swing counts, and every number on that die is regarded with rapt attention when it comes to saving throws. This is applicable to any edition of the game, btw. Ok, maybe not the new one :) And yes, I believe if what a group wants is a campaign to start off with tough guys who are competent, make high(er) level PC's. There you go.
But of course none of this has been done for the benefit of veteran sword & sorcery campaigners. It is to attract and usher in new gamers, who are as of yet unfamiliar with D&D or pen and paper RPG's in general.
The game does seem like it may be a fun one, but for me it does not have the right tone and feel (based off what I have seen thus far) that I am accustomed to in a game of D&D. Certainly not a flavour I would deem appropriate in the Realms!!!! When it comes out I will play it and give it a go. I will not purchase it, however.
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner
quote:Originally posted by Wooly Rupert It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger. The new healing methods make it much harder to kill a PC... Except in extreme cases, all they have to do is wait 6 hours and they're fine. So we're getting nearly immortal PCs in D&D Extreme...
Agreed.
I also wonder how they'll handle diseases and poisons...
Based on the Spined Devil stats, I'd dare to guess that poisons inflict HP damage to 'non-Bloodied' characters until you succeed in a saving throw on your turn (10+ for all effects). 'Bloodied' characters suffer some extra effects, such as becoming Slowed. I'm just a bit puzzled why they have added the saving throws into the system (confirmed at DDXP), but maybe they only apply to "ongoing" effects? It is weird that it doesn't matter whether it's a Medusa's gaze or a Pit Fiend's Aura of Fear -- your chance is always 50% no matter what level you are and how powerful the effect is (or should be). Maybe they just wanted to easy the burden of DMs having to roll against Defenses each round? In any case it feel "off-sync" with the rest of the system.
And speaking of Defenses -- apparently STR/CON "feed" into Fort, DEX/INT into Ref, and WIS/CHA into Will (you always use the higher modifier of the pair). Then you add the Class Bonuses. Also, apparently your b]Ref modifier[/b] is calculated into your AC instead of Dex! This means that a character with INT 20 could have AC 15.
"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
quote:Originally posted by Odysseus At first glance the numbers are very big. But there are addressing valid problems, at least for me. So until i've seen the whole system and tried , i'm assuming their maths is good.
I don't think their math will be off, I've seen some pretty hardcore math about die rolls and relative abilities and the like, it's just that the number seem like they're going to go from high to astronomical and we'll end up deal with some pretty huge numbers.
And, of course, this is all conjecture so all of my fears about this could be totally unfounded.
I, too, have seen evidence that there are whole new tactical *layers* added into the combat system. They mave removed *some* die rolls, but they've still not managed to tone down *complexity* -- quite the opposite, it seems. For example, it may be a real pain to keep track of 'marking' and 'combat advantage'. Not to mention that casting a Fireball (or any other Area Effect spell) still results in a roll-per-target -- it's just the player now who rolls against every target's Defense.
So, every class is now capable of dishing out pretty much the same anmount of damage, and *triple* that by using those 'Per X' powers. No wonder they've tripled everyone's HPs (including those of kobolds!). I'm just a bit baffled why they mentioned that one of the reasons why they're toning down the Crit damage is because the "math" was "too hard", and yet there are effects in the game that require you to do *equally* "hard" math.
"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
While I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning story weaving as key to an enjoyable gaming evening, I believe that dying too easily shouldn´t be an issue (barring full brunt player stupidity) with a competent GM. But that´s beside the point
No, I think that's a perfectly fair point.
quote:But healing surges...sound like URGH!
I am rather wary of every character being able to heal himself like that.
"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)
It seems to me that they're specifically trying to remove the sense of danger.
I don't know if you read one of the recent Dragon articles about PCs being able to do brave-to-the-point-of-being-stupid things in 4E and basically being rewarded for it (don't recall the name of the article), but one could say it reinforces your statement.
"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)
No more alignments... "yea, my paladin wants to kill a gold dragon" ... hmmm
Encounter scaling, truth be told, I never gave a real frak about CRs and stuff, I just toss whatever I think feels right at the party, sure sometimes I need to fudge a roll or so, but in all honesty a fighter lvl 7 (=CR7) is really not enough to make a party of 4 level 7 characters quake in their boots anyways.
I've decided to move away from the "every 13th encounter a level" thingy a long time ago because it just doesn't feel right... actually I never gave a frak about it and moved to (rather will move t) the Unearthed Arcana progession WITHOUT adjusting the XPs for the monsters... this way I can give story-awards anyways and spending xp on magic items does not really hurt as much anymore.
For me, having GMed d6 Star Wars for roughly a decade the entire DC issue has never been one, I always improvise on numbers when people try a stunt that is not covered by the rules.
Plus I do not like the idea of characters being the duracel-bunny-type of .. well .. characters
GM: "No, seriously, there´s an arrow sticking right in your throat!" PC: "Ach, tish-tosh, I´ve still got hp and endurance to spare. I´m gonna bounce over there and..."
But I must say I agree, I´ve always been more or less "winging" encounters (encounters are generally based more on the story, less on the party´s level, besides if the encounter is too heavy there´ll always be more than enough options to avoid combat)and xp and I never had a problem if a character waned to try anything that wasn´t covered in the rules (even before feats came along). You can work something out.
And on the alignment thing...why does it seem that everything, that makes a player have to put thought into his char´s actions is "restrictive" to the game. Why bother with classes or anything, then? "Why, here´s my psychotic Half-Dragon/Half-Tiefling-Vampire-Paladin-Assassin-Warlock. Uh...and he´s called Pinky."
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
Posted - 20 Feb 2008 : 00:13:09
