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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

And if the game becomes Parcheesi, we can all use our DDM miniatures on the board!

Let's not go too crazy with hyperbole, here.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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...

Nothing will stop groups from having their own paladin codes. I know we will -- I'm actually picking up Love & War as one of my last 3E purchases to flesh out the Order of St. Chausle in my home campaign. Adding this flexibility is a good thing, though, IMO. If the order has both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral knights, there's going to be some natural tension in the system, which will make being a paladin more interesting, IMO, not less.

 

[jasin]

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.

Meh. I don't mind evil champions of faiths or causes, but a) calling them paladins somehow cheapens the image of the "true" LG paladin; and b) just making them all work alike but with switched alignments is exceedingly silly, because alignments aren't (shouldn't be) just alliance tags.

IMO, an Evil (and, to a lesser extent, Chaotic) unwavering champion of alignment makes much less sense than a Good or Lawful one, because being unawevering and championing others are what Law and Good are all about. Evil and Chaos, on the other hand... not so much.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Maybe alignment will be a special quality? Paladins have alignment where most common folks do not. Having an alignment might for be weal or woe. So Good characters might be able to smite Evil and be smote by Evil.

 

[jasin]

You know, I was originally going to write some more about the ups and downs of announcing a new edition of D&D but really, who cares? Let's talk game design.

When working on 4e, there were a few principles that emerged and guided our work. I talked about one of them at the D&D Q&A seminar yesterday, and here it is for your edification:

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.

I remain neutral until I see exactly what he's talking about here, but it won't be difficult for the suspicious to interpret this as "Here's a book for running a minotaur as a DM... and here's a book for playing a minotaur as a player! Hooray, one monster for the price of two!"

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.

But I remain hopeful, because of the "mostly", and the comment from some other WotC person that said much the same thing but phrased it in the opposite way (along the lines "Vancian spellcasting is still here, but there's a lot more for wizards to do even when they've spent their prepared spells"), and the fact that different people have different ideas of what constitutes Vancian spellcasting...

But I so hope they're not making the wizard into a warlock. I want my scryings and my planar bindings, my ritual spells with long casting times and the drawing of arcane scribbles on the top of my tower. I want the wizards to be the logistics guys, not the ranged damage guys with alternate visuals instead of bows and arrows.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the Vancian system will survive in the "per day" powers that Wizards have. There will be a few bombastic explosion kabooms that Wizards are capable of -- these will use slots. Nothing else will, and it will all refresh in a manner of rounds or minutes.

 

[Baron Opal]

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...

Other way around. The code is what is important, the alignment is just a guideline. And with how alignment is structured in 4e it really will be a guideline and not a straitjacket.

Just a guess.

 

[Baron Opal]

... it won't be difficult for the suspicious to interpret this as "Here's a book for running a minotaur as a DM... and here's a book for playing a minotaur as a player! Hooray, one monster for the price of two!"

I expect that's how they are describing the entry for "Minotaur: 8 HD brute" vs. "Minotaur: +2 Str, -2 Int, this level talent tree." Still, we did have that very situation in 3.x; Monster Manual vs. Savage Species.

But I remain hopeful, because of the "mostly", and the comment from some other WotC person that said much the same thing but phrased it in the opposite way (along the lines "Vancian spellcasting is still here, but there's a lot more for wizards to do even when they've spent their prepared spells"), and the fact that different people have different ideas of what constitutes Vancian spellcasting...

I'm expecting a situation where the wizard has innate powers that he gains every third level and half the number of spell slots (for example). He'll always be able to throw a magic missle at 1d6 + 1/2 levels, but if he casts magic missle then he can toss 1 missle / 2 levels.

 

[marune]

But I so hope they're not making the wizard into a warlock. I want my scryings and my planar bindings, my ritual spells with long casting times and the drawing of arcane scribbles on the top of my tower. I want the wizards to be the logistics guys, not the ranged damage guys with alternate visuals instead of bows and arrows.

I heard James Wyatt or Andy Collins saying that the wizard's role in combat is a controller, which means he try to control the battefield. That doesn't mean that outside of combat, he won't keep his "logistic" role, with spells like Teleport, Scrying, etc.

 

[jasin]

I heard James Wyatt or Andy Collins saying that the wizard's role in combat is a controller, which means he try to control the battefield. That doesn't mean that outside of combat, he won't keep his "logistic" role, with spells like Teleport, Scrying, etc.

Those two together would make me a happy camper.