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

[Howndawg]

I absolutely hated that in 2ed. I usually played well armored clerics in 2ed (not necessarily magically armored though). I was hard to hit even at low levels. The only time a lot of creatures could hit me was on a 20. Every single hit against my character was a crit in 2ed. That gets boring fast, doesn't make sense, and isn't fair.

I was so thrilled they fixed that in 3ed. If they remove it (like I suppose they will) that's such a step backward.

I suspect what they might do is to have either class abilities or feats which allow characters to activate crits a set number of times per encounter. Thus, for example, if Mighty Hrothgar rolls a 20 against a measly goblin warrior who is probably going to bite it anyway, he can save his crit for when he is up against the badarse goblin warlord.

Howndawg

 

[Branduil]

If they can minimize the Vancian system that makes me greatly happy. I know I'm tired of situations where the party is basically forced to rest even though it makes no sense in-game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

(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.

Oh, that's nice. We're not going to tell you anything that isn't on this list of things we've already told you, but ask us anyway, because denying you answers is a good marketing tool.

They're taking a page from 01/18/07. Nothing but teasers.

 

[Glyfair]

More from 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.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is also important to highlight the fact that the game table can be used for any RPG purpose. It will be particularly well suited to 4th Edition, of course, but not restricted to it.

Most important words in the thread.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is interesting, and kind of cool. I've DBized many RPG things before, and it does take a commitment to do it; making sure all the data structures relate properly is a serious task. Damn that would be a cool data architect job.




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.

Doesn't Windows have something like 96% market share? I'm no spring chicken, but I've been using Windows since about 1992, when I finally switched over from Amiga.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, don't forget, in 4th edition, "encounter design" has changed. So you will no longer be able, under the RAW, to stage combats in which any character can't do something useful every round.

 

[stonegod]

Oh, that's nice. We're not going to tell you anything that isn't on this list of things we've already told you, but ask us anyway, because denying you answers is a good marketing tool.

Or, as before, they're still under an NDA and prefer having their job to not having it.

Lots of details not flushed out in the main releases have been coming out on the blogs and such, and as long as the question does not relate to items that they have been told as an employee not to answer (such as which classes get the axe), I'm sure they would be willing to talk with you.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Doesn't Windows have something like 96% market share?

If you include corporate locked-down terminal-PCs, yes.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

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.

A designer was quoted as saying that each class has abilities that will be usable at will, per encounter, and per day. For wizards I suspect it'll work out like this:

At will: something like eldrich blast or reserve feats (without needing the reserve), as well as possible defensive mage armor-like effects, and maybe minor (current 0-level) spell effects.
Per encounter: Tactical spells which refresh like SW Saga force powers or Bo9S maneuvers, and out of combat spells that can be used at will without breaking the game.
Per day: Spells used mainly out of combat (teleport, scry, etc) as well as tactical spells that are too powerful to be used in every single combat.

They'll probably be called different things, to keep it clear. Per-day could be called "spells" and per-encounter could be called "incantations" (or some other name that doesn't have warlock baggage).