D&D 4E 4E tidbits from WotC blogs (Updated:David Noonan on Social Interactions)

[Abisashi]

Okay, maybe I'm looking at D&D from a completely different perspective, but the game is a lot more than battles, and just because you're not useful. A rogue is the guy who picks the locks, scouts the dungeon, and does lots of non-combat stuff. When it comes to swinging weapons, that's why we have fighters, when it comes to sneaking around and knowing people we have Rogues, and we have Wizards so they know lots of stuff and can cast a lot of spells, and Clerics to heal people and hurt the undead.

What if all characters could be useful in all situations? I'm sure there will still be some variance, but making all characters at least mostly useful in every situation seems like it would make the game more fun.

 

[Remathilis]

If the party is fighting a Golem then the Wizard is probably just as useless in that fight as a Rogue in a fight with an Elemental, since Golems are usually immune to all but a scant handful of spells (which usually have limited effect on them). Are Golems going to lose their massive magic immunities?

There is still plenty of things a wizard can do against a magic immune/high SR creature. Buff spells, summoned creatures, spells that ignore SR (acid arrow still works on a golem, check it out). And Golems are one category of monster out of many. High SR monsters can be overcome via feats, spells (assay SR), or even action points. In short, most smart wizards have a contingency against the few things their magic cannot hurt.

The rogue? He can't SA plants, elementals, constructs, or undead. My rogues damage potential drops from 1d6+2+5d6 (26 damage) to 1d6+2 (5) against them. SA requires a number of conditional modifiers (flank, surprise or with a feat, a crit). SA is much easier to negate than magic (compare light fortification armor to spell resistance armor) and, unlike the wizard, the rogue has no secondary attacks or buffs to fall back on, just some extra defenses and the hope his arrows do SOMETHING in the grand scheme.

As a rogue player, I loathe any dungeon that has high undead count or such because the night is pretty much going to be "Hey Remathilis, check that door for traps" all night long...

 

[MerricB]

Okay, maybe I'm looking at D&D from a completely different perspective, but the game is a lot more than battles, and just because you're not useful. A rogue is the guy who picks the locks, scouts the dungeon, and does lots of non-combat stuff.

Take it from me: a lot of time is spent in battles.

"Picks the locks"... ooh. I get to roll the die once (or take 20). Takes 20 seconds. Not quality fun.
"Scouts the dungeons"... ooh, I get to get 15 minutes of 1 on 1 time with the DM. Not fun for the other players.
"Lots of non-combat stuff"... you need to come up with interesting examples.

Battles are great because everyone gets involved. They are the highlight of many - if not most - games.

Also, lots of combat situations rule out sneak attack, in my experience it's the sort of thing that comes up occasionally but not often. If you're fighting across a 30 or 40 foot chasm trading ranged attacks, Sneak Attack is right out

IME, it comes up in nearly every battle. It's not so important at levels 1-3, but by level 10? You see it all the time. Improved Invisible Flying Rogue. That's a sneak attack every attack.

if you're fighting 200 orcs swarming you in a lair then sneak attack damage is moot if the orcs are dropping in one hit anyway.

Yeah, and the rogue isn't tremendously disadvantaged in that situation anyway.

A fight where a rogue gets to get in flanking position and start hammering on a creature for several rounds to help drop it is the exception and not the rule, at least in my experience.

You haven't seen quite enough 3.5e play then. Flanking can be one way of doing it (especially in 1 on 1 fights), but Improved Feint, Invisibility, Hide (and sniping) and a bunch of other things allow sneak attack to function in fights.

If the party is fighting a Golem then the Wizard is probably just as useless in that fight as a Rogue in a fight with an Elemental, since Golems are usually immune to all but a scant handful of spells (which usually have limited effect on them). Are Golems going to lose their massive magic immunities?

As 3.5e has gone on, that Golem has gotten less and less effective at resisting magic, alas! Even if the Wizard doesn't have Melf's Acid Arrow, there are still spells like Haste that cause the Golem to have a bad time. (And once you add SC and the Orb spells... eek!)

Sure, there are times when the Wizard isn't quite as effective, ditto the Fighter, Cleric and Rogue. However, a design goal of 4e seems to be that there will *still* be something they can do, rather than hanging back and doing nothing for 60+ minutes.

 

[grimslade]

Okay, maybe I'm looking at D&D from a completely different perspective, but the game is a lot more than battles, and just because you're not useful. A rogue is the guy who picks the locks, scouts the dungeon, and does lots of non-combat stuff. When it comes to swinging weapons, that's why we have fighters, when it comes to sneaking around and knowing people we have Rogues, and we have Wizards so they know lots of stuff and can cast a lot of spells, and Clerics to heal people and hurt the undead.

Also, lots of combat situations rule out sneak attack, in my experience it's the sort of thing that comes up occasionally but not often. If you're fighting across a 30 or 40 foot chasm trading ranged attacks, Sneak Attack is right out, if you're fighting 200 orcs swarming you in a lair then sneak attack damage is moot if the orcs are dropping in one hit anyway. A fight where a rogue gets to get in flanking position and start hammering on a creature for several rounds to help drop it is the exception and not the rule, at least in my experience.

If the party is fighting a Golem then the Wizard is probably just as useless in that fight as a Rogue in a fight with an Elemental, since Golems are usually immune to all but a scant handful of spells (which usually have limited effect on them). Are Golems going to lose their massive magic immunities?

It comes down to what is fun. If there is a battle vs. undead, the rogue can do very little beyond swing my sword, throw some holy water, aid another. The rogues contribution and immersion is very little. Spectator vs. Participant. Same thing for BDFs in a social situation.
If they go with the SW Saga edition skill system BDF can contribute to social situations.

It leads to the player thinking 'let's get to the good part". This should not be. I don't want SAs vs undead, but I want some option other than what a 1st level commoner can take. Maybe SAs dice to a penalty against movement for corporeal undead. Maybe a bluff like feature that can distract a Negative Energy attack, No Lifeforce for you! Some option that is based on the class, not a bag o' stuff or the handy first level commoner (aid another).

I don't want golems dumbed down. I want characters given option to be the character. Maybe a wizard with his understanding of magic can find weak spots in the golems makeup overcoming DR for one strike for another player. Mechanically, it is not much more than aid another but thematically it is a whole lot more satisfying.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

My group just allows Sneak Attack to work on Undead, Oozes, Plants, Constructs and Elementals. These above monster stypes can also be critted, so...Rogues are always useful for us!

 

[3catcircus]

I've seen cries on this very board, for the past four years, about making the game simpler.

Making things simpler should not mean that the game becomes simplistic. If the game becomes a PnP version of WoW or Diablo, then I won't be buying it.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

Interesting bit from Chris Perkins' blog, don't know if it's been posted anywhere else:

I had a lot of people approach me with 4E questions. One of the most memorable ones was, "Will 4E have paladins that aren't lawful good?" The answer is yes. Hell, you can have evil paladins of Asmodeus in 4E. More on that later.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Because Fantasy butt-kicking should not be about the trinkets I carry.

Well that is certainly one view point. But also certainly not the only valid one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That is ... not so cool. A major mistake, IMO. Another sign, I think, that they're targeting the younger crowd, and not the older VW-driving, Mac/Linux-using folks. Too bad, too.

Given how many teenagers and college students I know who have their own Linux boxes -- and that Macs are still shoved at students like silicon pot -- I don't think you can really make this an ageist issue.

I agree it's pretty short-sighted, and it suggests the person in charge of hiring these computer whizzes let them down, but there you go.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Innnnnnnnnnnteresting!

Perhaps they're ditching the Code and going with an alignment requirement only...

....that would rob some of the coolness of the class, but it would add a lot of playability...