• 

  Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

  
  D&D 4th Edition News
  EN World member glyfair has compiled a list of relevant quotes from WotC's designer blogs:

• James Wyatt -- And it is a rise, let me tell you. I'm so excited about Fourth Edition I can barely contain myself. Running the Delve in our booth yesterday was awkward—I saw so many of the things I have grown to dislike about 3E come into play. Oh, the poor rogue's useless against all these plants and elementals. Oh, the poor dwarf didn't confirm his crit. Oh, look at all the people forgetting about attacks of opportunity (especially at reach) and getting pummeled as a result. I can't say too much about it, but you can be sure it's not just grapple that got an overhaul.
  

• 
  James Wyatt -- I'm playing a paladin in Andy Collins' monthly game. I love paladins—I seem to keep writing about them in my fiction. (Check out "Blade of the Flame" in the Tales of the Last War anthology for a concise example, or read my other novels!) But I've never liked playing a paladin. At one point during the design of this game, I made a paladin for a game where we were testing out Dungeon Tiles, and it made me so sad. I could smite evil once. Then I was done—down to swinging my sword once per round. I wasn't sad when I died. I love my new paladin.
  
  James Wyatt -- (By the way, if you are at GenCon, the staff is wearing buttons that say "Ask Me About 4th Edition D&D" for a reason. We don't just dig buttons, we want you to ask questions. At this stage, the ball is in your court. What do you guys want to know? We can't necessarily answer every question, but we'll do what we can.
  
  Mike Mearls -- 3e got a lot of things right, but anyone who has played it for a time knows that it gets things wrong. There are also legacy issues with the game that have persisted unquestioned for years. 4e is all about taking the things that work in D&D, keeping them in the game, and fixing everything else.
  
  Mike Mearls -- Design game elements for their intended use. Secondary uses are nice, but not a goal. Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster. If we build a feat, it's meant as a feat, not a monster special attack. If we also want to make it a playable character race, we'll design a separate racial write up for it. We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. The designs must inform each other, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.
  
  As an example, the a theoretical minotaur PC race write up draws on and evokes the feel of the minotaur monster, but it doesn't simply copy over the rules.
  
  BTW, who knew that so many people disliked Vancian spellcasting? The entire audience in yesterday's seminar cheered and clapped when we told them it was (mostly) gone.
  
  James Wyatt -- See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.
  
  It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!
  
  So you get up at 8:00 AM, you have that fun encounter, and you rest "for the night" at 8:15 AM. Repeat as needed.
  
  It was like I was preaching again. I was on a roll. Andy said the people in the front might have been a little scared of me.
  
  Mike Mearls -- The important thing to keep in mind is that we're not necessarily interested in changing things into completely new things. The core lies in making D&D an even better version of D&D, not some other, new game. I've said this a few times at the con, but we have no interest in turning D&D into a miniatures game, a computer game, a game that requires a laptop at the table, or a boardgame. We want D&D to be D&D.
  
  For me, the best moment of this entire process, the real pay off of working on 4e and playtesting, was getting the chance to play D&D for the first time again. For my playtest dungeon, I used the sample map from the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide. As the characters crept down the dungeon stairs and fought the first group of goblin guards, it felt like 1983 all over again. No one was exactly sure what lurked down in the dungeon depths. Goblins were still runty little evil humanoids, but they pulling off little tricks that players had never seen before. Throughout the playtest, I kept thinking back to the first time I rolled dice behind a DM's screen, leading players through the Keep on the Borderlands and (the admittedly forgettable) Blizzard Pass.
  
  Rodney Thompson -- After having played (and worked on, a bit) D&D 4E, I really feel like a lot of things get blown out of proportion. When I play my 4E rogue, I feel like I'm playing what I call "3rd Edition ++" to steal a computer programming colloquialism. My rogue still sneaks around, leaps from the shadows, stabs a bad guy, and retreats just like in 3rd Edition. But my 4E rogue does all that, then leaps over the heads of a line of enemies, waits for an opening when an opponent attacks him and then counterattacks immediately, and twists the knife to create a huge gash in the enemy. I'm still finding traps, unlocking doors, ambushing bad guys, leaping from rooftops, and all of those things, but as I do so I'm far less distracted by the rules than I am under 3E.
  
  Don't get me wrong, I love 3rd Edition. But I think of 3rd Edition kind of like a first generation console video game in that sometimes it isn't programmed very efficiently. Ever played a first-gen game and seen the "slowdown" effect, where the system can't keep up with the graphics or the number of bad guys on screen? That's how I feel about 3E these days. I like what it's trying to accomplish, but it just doesn't happen very efficiently and things slow to a crawl. 4E on the other hand is like a late-gen game; the programmers have learned better ways to do things on the console, and as such you have even better games that don't experience as many slowdowns. When you think of the roleplaying gamer as the console, you can see what I mean. 4E benefits from many years of game design, and I think people will see that they still will be doing the same things, they will just be able to do them faster.
  
  Going back to some 4E specifics, one of the the things I have enjoyed about 4E is that it's very much a "yes you can" game. It lets people do fun and exciting things, and it lets them do them without much complication. My character is Thicket, a brawny-dextrous rogue that's not too up on social graces and has some friends in low places (I can't believe I just quoted that song). At one point out tougher fighter-types and gone down and I was the #1 target for the monsters. While the other players whittled the enemies down, I was leading them around in a chase across the battlefield, running up walls and flipping over bad guys to keep them from laying down the inevitable smack. I'd built the character to be kind of a mobile combatant and it worked to my advantage. Thanks to one of my magic items I would occasionally dash across the battlefield when an enemy got too close, and we barely made it out alive. It was very exciting, and I essentially played the defensive role in the party once the fighter-types were down, just in an unusual way.
  
  Rodney Thompson -- Last night at dinner Andrew Finch and I had an interesting discussion about the way magic items are going to work in 4th Edition. Since I was busy running Star Wars games and hosting my own seminars I didn't get to go to any of the D&D panels, so I don't know how much they revealed about magic items. Anyways, Andrew and I were having a bit of a disagreement about the way magic items contribute to the D&D experience. (As an aside, Andrew and I have had many such conversations back at the office, especially in a Star Wars context where loot and gear are almost meaningless). We both agree on this: finding a magic item is a tangible player reward that helps keep the game moving forward for the players. While XP may be its own reward, it's a delayed reward. When I conclude an encounter, I get XP, but I don't get its effects for another few encounters. The presence of magic items provides an immediate reward (or, at least, the potential for an immediate reward) at the conclusion of the encounter. You don't have to actually get a new magic item for the potential for reward to be there, and in many cases you'll feel as though you've been rewarded when someone else gets an item. In 4E, I think there is going to be a very interesting dynamic between magic items and players. I believe it was mentioned that some traditional things about magic items were going the way of the dodo, and that magic items aren't going to be required to do cool things at high levels. While that may be true, I think people are still going to want magic items because they are going to provide some cool and exciting effects. There's going to be a new dynamic where players are going to want new things but not necessarily need them as much to remain competitive, which I'm thinking is going to actually cause the "I'm happy for someone else when they get loot" mentality to spread. If I don't get new magic items for a while, I'm not becoming underpowered per se, so it's much easier for me to feel rewarded when someone else picks up a new magic item.
  
  Rodney Thompson -- So, since the convention is over, I think it's safe to reveal my secret to the world now. When someone came up to me to talk about D&D 4th Edition, I was allowed to share this secret with them: Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells. Maybe some of the other guys will share their secrets with the world now too. Thanks to everyone who came to talk to me at the show, though!
  
  Christopher Perkins -- Scott Rouse (my roommate at the show) and I chatted with Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona from Paizo to discuss 4th Edition plans. We also met with other d20 publishers throughout the show, first to assure them that the OGL would be continuing under 4E, and that we're interested in working with them to iron out things that didn't work so well with 3E. Very exciting!
  
  Christopher Perkins -- In case you're wondering, Asmodeus won't be joining Orcus in the new MM because, as I previously hinted, the Lord of the Ninth is getting a promotion to god status in 4E. His holy (unholy?) symbol will be among those appearing in the Player's Handbook. I'm thinking we should get rub-on tattoos of the various holy symbols in time for next year's show. lol Also, I'm thinking how much fun it would be if R&D folks, myself included, actually ran some 4E D&D game sessions next year at Gen Con.
  
  David Noonan -- Daily Work: Plus I had a nice, meaty design assignment to work on. Suffice it to say that I'm working on a significant customization choice your character makes midway through his or her career--and it's a choice that'll evolve over, say, ten levels or so. More on those when I get 'em written.
  
  David Noonan -- The Gish: Gish lovers (and those who are, um, gish-curious), I've got your back.
  
  Terminology Note: When I say "gish," I'm not referring specifically to githyanki fighter/wizards. Nor am I talking about a really good Smashing Pumpkins album, Gish. I'm talking more generally about characters who are capable melee combatants and reasonably good arcane spellcasters, too.
  
  One of the things I'm working on is some character-building pieces to support the archetype. And as I write, I wonder, "I'm not sure the gish needs the help. He might be OK with just our crazy new multiclassing rules."
  
  Multiclassing: New multiclassing rules, you ask. Yep, we've got 'em. Multiclass characters are running at a couple of our internal playtest tables right now. Early results are promising, but we're talking about only a couple of characters, so we haven't seen broad proof of concept yet.
  
  It's easy to critique 3e multiclassing, but it's also important to remember that they represent a massive, double-quantum leap from multiclass/dual-class rules in 1e/2e. We really like the configurability and freedom of 3e multiclassing, the way it's extensible even when you add new classes to the mix, and how it respects (to a degree, anyway) the changing whimsy of players as their characters evolve.
  
  But it's got some problems--and in particular, it doesn't tackle the gish very well. There's the arcane spell failure problem, which takes some levels of the spellsword PrC, a little mithral, and some twilight enhancement to take care of. But beyond that, the low caster level can be just crippling for the fighter/wizard who wants to blast the bad guys into oblivion, rather than use his spellbook as a really good utility belt.
  
  So that's one big problem--the caster level situation. In 3e, we've cemented over that with some prestige classes and feats. But there's another problem: Your journey through the "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness." For the gish, it's hard to truly be, well, gishy at low levels before you've figured out a reasonable answer to the armor problem. You can't really wade into melee like a fighter, because you're gonna get creamed. So you have to take an "I'm basically a wizard for now" or "I'm basically a fighter for now." That works, but you're just biding your time until you get to play the character you want to play.
  
  And for the gish's cousin, the wizard/cleric, his "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness" isn't quite as deep, but it lasts a little longer--until he qualifies for mystic theurge, anyway.
  
  So the improvement we're seeking from the multiclass system is something that solves some specific math problems (the caster level thing) and some specific career-path problems (letting you feel like a blend of classes from the get-go).
  
  The Gish, Today: So what does this mean for our gish PCs at the playtest tables? Well, from very early levels, he's weariing armor, stabbing dudes, and casting spells. He's not as good at stabbing as the fighter, nor as good at casting as the wizard. But he's viable at both. In theory.
  
  In theory? Well, like I said, the gish characters don't have a lot of mileage on them yet. And creating hybrid characters involves a careful balancing act. Multiclass characters can't be optimal at a focused task (because that horns in the turf for the single-class character) and they can't be weaksauce (because then you've sold the multiclass character a false bill of goods and he doesn't actually get to use the breadth of his abilities). There's a middle ground between "optimal" and "weaksauce" that I'll call "viable." But it's not exactly a wide spot of ground.
  
  Finding that viable middle ground isn't a problem unique to 4e. The 3e designers (myself included) took lots of shots at it; the bard, the mystic theurge, and the eldritch knight are all somewhere on the optimal-viable-weaksauce continuum. And any WoW shaman, druid, or paladin knows firsthand the sorts of continual rebalancing they've undergone as Blizzard tries to keep their hybrid classes in the middle of that continuum.
  
  Logan Bonner -- On the same topic, I find a lot of the 4E threads at this point are kind of unproductive, just because people are in a 3.5 mindset and not talking about things that translate directly to 4E. For example, somebody was talking about how the monk should get a version of ki strike that upgrades to become effective against different types of damage reduction. Well, that assumes that there will be monks, that they have ki strike, and that DR exists. Now, at least one of those is true (you can probably figure out which ), but the idea has a pretty unstable foundation compared to what the rules will actually look like.

• 
  
• EN World member Someone compiled a list of rules information gleaned from various sources so far. This includes specific data, like "attacks of opportunity dissapear or are thoroughly revamped" instead of general statements like "combat is streamlined". Of course, nothing here is definitive (or even confirmed) given that playtesting still continues.
  
  Races:
  

  • Mentioned some race disappearing from core (bets go for the Gnome), possibly to be included in an early supplement.
  • Tiefling included, and they look much more demonic than now (almost half-demon).
  • Changeling from Eberron may be included.
  • "Dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence" mentioned as racial traits.
  • Classes can be improved by racial feats, in a similar way to how current racial substitution levels work.
  • All classes have at will, per encounter and per day abilities.

  
  Classes:
  

  • Levels go up to 30, instead of 20;
    Level division:
    • 1-10 Heroic - foes are orcs and ogres, some giants, small dragons. Adventures tend to be local.
    • 11-20 Paragon - on par with the current low to mid teens right now. Bigger threats are faced that might threaten a kingdom.
    • 21-30 Epic- World or Planar threats.
  • The goal is to have the levels play in a similar manner - they don't want a 25th character overwhelmed with 80 abilities. The main differences should be in the story, not how they play.
  • From GamerZer0's interview with James Wyatt: There are four "roles".
    • Defender: fighter & paladin classes
    • Leader: cleric & warlord classes
    • Controller: wizard class
    • Striker: rogue & ranger classes
  • Although two PCs may serve the same role, they may do it in different ways. (Like fighters with different styles.) The roles are geared towards combat; a PC's non-combat aspects can differentiate him further. He also said that they are still considering the possibility of there being a class or two that doesn't quite fit the four "roles"
  • Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard definitely stay (multiple mentions and examples). Also mentioned Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. Mentioned that wizard and sorcerer won't merge. Sorcerer will be different from wizards in more ways than just resource management.
  • Mentioned that paladins can be of other alignments other than lawful good.
  • Mentioned a warlord class
  • Druid mentioned in D&D's seminar's summary
  • Backstab mentioned.
  • Fighter's "powers" depend highly on the weapon they chose as primary - spears have different "powers" available than axes; swords and greatswords are very flexible in terms of said "powers"
  • Wisdom helps with power selection.
  • Mentioned a "rain of blows" power or maneuver for swords; mentioned making a choice between taking the abilities "Supreme Cleave" or "Massive Strike".
  • More on martial abilities: "A skilled halberdier can hack a foe with his weapon’s blade and spin around to smash a second foe with the haft. A fighter with a longsword disarms her foe with a flick of her wrist, while a battle hungry axeman cleaves through shields, armor, and bone." "Rogues have a similar relationship with skills. A nimble rogue dives through the air to tumble past an ogre, while a charismatic one tricks an enemy into looking away just before she delivers a killing blow with her dagger. Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs."
  • Cleric mentioned creating a "surge of healing power" alongside a critical hit. This hints (yet unconfirmed) to mechanics similar to some Crusader maneuvers, from Tome of Battle.
  • Some current base classes disappear; classes yet to be mentioned and therefore good candidates are Monk and Bard. Classes that don't appear in the PHB will appear in future products
    Psionics not to be included in core, though they'll have support.
  • Prestige classes stay.

  
  Feats and skills:
  

  • Move silently and hide rolled into one ("Stealth?")
  • Some of the more obscure or less used skills disappear (mentioned tailor and rope use)
  • Mentioned that Sage should be "considered a preview [of the skill system]"
  • Feats won't form long chains.
  • There will be rules akin to the retraining rules in PHBII - they don't like the idea of people planning their careers from level 1 to 30.

  
  Combat and encounters:
  

  • Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.
  • Saves mentioned
    AC mentioned, apparently with the same function as it has today.
  • Free, immediate, move and standard actions mentioned. (it stands to reason Swift actions will be present too).
  • Critical hits mentioned.
  • Attacks of opportunity gone or greatly changed/simplified: a fighter charges a dragon and no AoO is mentioned.
  • Grapple greatly simplified.
  • Confirmation rolls for critical hits possibly go away.
  • Combat still uses a square grid

  
  Spells and magic:
  

  • Vancian system survives, but it's ony a "fraction" of the magic (or magic options) available to characters: "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
  • "Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells."
  • Fireballs don't deal 1d6/level damage any more. Also, game breaking spells (spells that fundamentally change the gaming scenario, like etherealness, scrying, and save or die effects) "have been addressed as well".
  • Mentioned a "ray of freezing cold".

  
  Magic items
  

  • Magic item creation doesn't use XP or require a feat.

  
  Monsters:
  

  • The monsters will have their own roles and their own abilities- the orc will have orc abilities, not fighter or barbarian abilites
  • Monsters no longer drain XP (implied no draining of levels?)
  • Vulnerability to energy likely to work differently in 4e, with additional effects (like slowing in the case of cold) instead of (or in addition to?) extra damage.
  • "The ettin, for instance, has the whole two-heads thing, so it can go twice in one round, and take unrelated actions."
  • Ancient (red?) dragons apparently now can do a lot of things:
    • An inferno aura, useable as a free action.
    • A tail slap attack with an added pushback effect, useable as a free action.
    • Two claw attacks, useable as a standard action.
    • A fireball spit that sticks to the target dealing extra damage, useable as a standard action.
    • A breath weapon, but we don't get to see what kind of action it normally takes - a free one like the inferno aura, as different uses of the same ability?
    • A special action granting an extra standard action.
    • They may take an immediate action to use their breath weapon when reduced blow half damage.
    • They may take an immediate action to use their tail slap when about to be flanked.
  • Said dragon would have around 1000 hit points.

Difficult to explain, even for me (and it would take a lot of time to explain it right anyway). I'll give a little try.
What makes D&D ? Vast question. Most of what you said is too generic to represent D&D. Elves, dwarves, trolls, kobolds, dragons... have been there forever in legends and fairytales. I seem to recall that AC and hit points concepts existed before D&D (they were part of the wargames rules that Gary Gygax used when he created D&D IIRC).
D&D was built on a few pillars like mythology (monsters, deities, legends...) , classic fantasy (Leiber, Moorcock, Tolkien, Vance...) , french/english/germanic medieval history. The anime/CRPG/MMORPG turn the game seems to be taking is a large departure from what was D&D. Until the mid-nineties, CRPGs would draw inspiration from (or even copy) D&D. Things have changed and now the game is trying to follow CRPGs, and not only CRPGs (especially when I hear about things like fighter special manoeuvres. Street fighter 2 anyone ?) ... Sad when you think of it.
Rules have an importance too. It looks like combat will be even more wargamy, DDM-y could I say. Not being able to solve combat situations without a map and miniatures is a large departure from what was D&D, too. Don't get me wrong, I love minis (or else I wouldn't be on this site), but they shouldn't be mandatory to play D&D.
Another example : take the vancian spell system. This is iconic of D&D. From what I read, it is going to more or less disappear in 4.0. This could POSSIBLY make a better game (it will depend upon how the new system is implemented) because the vancian system was a pain in the neck for low-level wizards, but its disappearance is a large departure from what was D&D.

Of course all this is only my opinion...

Of course I'll wait to have the 4E PHB and hopefully play it a bit...

But for now I have the strong feeling that 4E is too much of a change to still be "dungeons and dragons" for me. We'll see.

And I'll repeat again : I'm not saying that 4E will be a bad game, I even think it may be far better than 3E. But it won't feel like MY D&D.