D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Originally Posted by Sadrik
Warlock appears to get:
+1 will
+1 ref
+1 AC!!!
Quote:
I think the +1 AC is a class feature of some kind.
I've been going back and forth on this one too.
It doesn't "feel" right, that a Warlock would get a +1 AC, especially since the Defenders don't, and the Warlock has a few powers to aid in their defense (Eye Bite, for example). Perhaps it is a Fey Pact benefit, something like a weak, permanent Bark Skin? This is perhaps a little more feasible.
The pregen Warlock's AC has lead me to take another look at the armor values for leather and hide. Currently, we have leather at +2 AC, and Hide at +3 AC, which seems to make intuitive sense, from a 3.5 perspective. However, I'm wondering now if perhaps the other interpretation I've seen on the boards may be more likely, where Hide and Leather may both be +3 AC? There is very little mechanical reason why someone would wear leather instead of hide, except for (I assume) a little difference in cost and weight, which seem pretty weak counterbalance for an additional +1 AC. In 3.5, you had the additional drawback of -10 movement (2 squares), but that is absent in 4.0 it seems. Maybe the difference is less about mechanics and more about flavor? But why have two entries in the armor table if that is the case?
I'd like some more feedback on this issue before I make a change, so chime in.
I will note, and object, that a number of the blue section titles amount to saying "Wow! 4.0 is so much better than 3.5."
Could we remove the cheerleading? It certainly won't be a part of the actual books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
I also object to this objection. I believe this "cheerleading", as you call it, comes directly from the DDXP source material. It also serves to draw attention to important changes between 3.5 and 4E, and as such is useful.
To Verys: Please keep the "cheerleading". You should stick as close to the source material as possible.
Hi David, thanks for the feedback. I can understand your perspective, and you are likely right that titles like these wont appear in the PHB (although I would wager that there is a fairly positive "Why a New Edition?" section in the preface). Usually I do my best to incorporate as many of the suggestions as I can that are posted in this thread, but like a dwarf in this instance, I'm going to stand my ground.
A) As Fifth Element says, the text is a direct quote from the original source material from DDXP, and I'd like to keep as close as possible, where ever I can.
B) The Pre-Release Rules Compendium, or PrRC (aka PHB-Lite), is based on Wizard's promotional material, or derived from it. It is unsurprising that the tone is therefore 'positive'. Further, I believe one reason this project has been allowed to continue is that it is a form of viral, fan-to-fan, marketing for 4e. Every time someone reads the PrRC, they are exposed to Wizard's promotional material in a way they may not have been if they had just used Wizard's website. The DDXP material isn't exactly the easiest to find there anyway. The PrRC is generating attention, discussion, excitement, and probably increasing fans' desires to finally get their hands on the full PHB.
C) I am unabashedly biased towards 4e, and if it comes off as "cheer leading" then my first feat will be in Dual Wielding Pompoms.
Just a quick note - I believe I spotted an anomaly. Rapiers appear to be a accurate weapon in 4e (as per the "Weapon Proficiency" section right below the weapon table) but this is not reflected in the table of weapons.
This is an anomaly, you are correct. The text under "Weapon Proficiency" was copied from a thread (I cannot find it now unfortunately - if you know tell me!) where a DDXP participant was talking about accurate weapons. He/she gave the examples, but I do not think we have any evidence to point to directly. I would assume, as he did, that Rapier will be a +3 weapon, but until we see more evidence I am loath to fill up the weapon table with 'best guesses'. If I were a DM though, I would go through the table and enter what I felt was appropriate for now.
I will remove "rapier" from the Accurate Weapon Proficiencies example list for now.
Thanks,
Verys
I did the math on the defenses a while ago and found that the PHB Lite system predicts a Will defense too low by 2 points for the Cleric and Paladin. I came to the following conclusions:
- The Cleric and Paladin get +2 Will rather than +1 to all.
- There is no human bonus to defenses.
- Good-aligned characters get +1 to Fort, Ref, Will.
That looks more unified and makes more sense. All classes now give a net +2 bonus to defenses, except for the ranger, who does not get any bonus (this could be a mistake in the pregen characters).
I did the math on the defenses a while ago and found that the PHB Lite system predicts a Will defense too low by 2 points for the Cleric and Paladin. I came to the following conclusions:
- The Cleric and Paladin get +2 Will rather than +1 to all.
- There is no human bonus to defenses.
- Good-aligned characters get +1 to Fort, Ref, Will.
That looks more unified and makes more sense. All classes now give a net +2 bonus to defenses, except for the ranger, who does not get any bonus (this could be a mistake in the pregen characters).
Opinions?
Nice idea, but it was already stated that alignment would have nothing to do with character mechanics. This may have changed though.
I did the math on the defenses a while ago and found that the PHB Lite system predicts a Will defense too low by 2 points for the Cleric and Paladin. I came to the following conclusions:
- The Cleric and Paladin get +2 Will rather than +1 to all.
- There is no human bonus to defenses.
- Good-aligned characters get +1 to Fort, Ref, Will.
That looks more unified and makes more sense. All classes now give a net +2 bonus to defenses, except for the ranger, who does not get any bonus (this could be a mistake in the pregen characters).
Opinions?
This is how I see the calculations using PrRC (make sure you are using the newest versions of the pregens).
Corrin (hafling paladin)
AC 20 (10 + 2 heavy shield + 8 plate)
Fort 13 (10 +2 Str, +1 paladin)
Ref 14 (10 +1 Dex, +2 heavy shield, +1 paladin)
Will 14 (10 +3 Cha, +1 paladin)
Erias (human cleric)
AC 16 (10 + 6 chainmail)
Fort 13 (10 + 2 Str +1 human)
Ref 12 (10 + 1 Int + 1 human)
Will 17 (10 + 4 Wis + 1 human +2 cleric)
The one I'm still not sure about is the Warlock's mystery +1 AC.
C) I am unabashedly biased towards 4e, and if it comes off as "cheer leading" then my first feat will be in Dual Wielding Pompoms.
You, sir, are great.
Let it be noted that I will be the second to take DWP (Dual Wielding Pompoms) as my human bonus feat. Maybe I can get a morale bonus - "Rah, rah, 4-e, rah!"
__________________
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Interesting. Do you think that the halfling doesn't get any AC benefit from his small size now then?
Cheers
Hmm... 3e had the +1 AC canceling out the +1 to-hit. If they don't give the Small qualifier the to-hit in 4e, then there would nothing to balance the AC boost.
Does that mean, aside from qualifying for feats, there is no gain to being Small any longer?
__________________
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Hmm... 3e had the +1 AC canceling out the +1 to-hit. If they don't give the Small qualifier the to-hit in 4e, then there would nothing to balance the AC boost.
Does that mean, aside from qualifying for feats, there is no gain to being Small any longer?
Let me ask you this... ARE halflings "small"?
Something to ponder.
Wanted to let you, and any other interested parties, know that I have started a thread called "Original Creations Compilation". Its going to be a set of anthologies of all the homebrew stuff I can get permission to compile. Thought I'd ask for a link from you, if you don't mind.
Let me ask you this... ARE halflings "small"?
Something to ponder.
That is a good question. Wasn't there an announcement somewhere that halflings are getting a size boost up to around 4'? That could bump them up to the lower limit of Medium.
I am still stuck thinking of a lot of things in 3.x terms.
__________________
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
