D&D 4E Two Questions for the 4e Designers

[Keenath]

I had a pair of questions about comments way-back-when in the podcast (and maybe elsewhere). Now that the book is at the printers', maybe we can get some answers about these!

First, with reference to something Dave Noonan said in an old podcast about designing magic items... Did you end up going with the "more expansive" or "more constrained" concept for what "rod" items do, and what was the other option?

Peter Schaefer: What was the change to one of the races that you said would "raise some eyebrows around the office", and did you end up using it?



Or should I just hang on to these questions until June?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I'd like to get an answer to the race question, as well.

In the event WotC people see this, the context for the race question is here.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Peter Schaefer: What was the change to one of the races that you said would "raise some eyebrows around the office", and did you end up using it?

Female dwarves have beards again, and dwarven combat styles are directly tied to beard length.

 

[Gargazon]

I bet the race thing was related to Dragonborn being tail-less and having breasts.

 

[DandD]

Nope, I speculate the Dragonborn to have tails, just on the wrong side, and having breasts, no matter if male or female.

 

[Gargazon]

Nope, I speculate the Dragonborn to have tails, just on the wrong side, and having breasts, no matter if male or female.

Thanks for that. I may never sleep well again.

 

[mearls]

Peter Schaefer: What was the change to one of the races that you said would "raise some eyebrows around the office", and did you end up using it?

I can't speak to the rod issue, but this one I can sort of tackle, but probably not in a way you expect.

I frankly can't remember which race Peter is talking about. One of the interesting things about the 4e process is watching issues morph from hot topic issues of debate to things that are simply part of the game.

Looking back, it was easy to tell what parts were good changes that we'd keep, and what parts were bad changes that we'd undo after playtesting or change in a different direction.

Almost every change was met with some level of opposition from someone, but the good changes were ones that, after playing with the change, people couldn't really remember why there was a fuss about it.

For bad changes, basically stuff that we had to do more work on, people complained even more after playing the new rule.

FWIW, I think Peter was talking about the half-elf, but I really can't remember.

I hope that means we got all the races right...

 

[smathis]

Almost every change was met with some level of opposition from someone, but the good changes were ones that, after playing with the change, people couldn't really remember why there was a fuss about it.

So...

After we've cleverly lured you into our thread....

What change (if you can say) met the most opposition?

What change did you stick up for the most? Did it make it into the final product?

And lastly...

What change did you fight hardest against? And how did you feel about the change after trying it? Were you still opposed? Did that change make it into the final product?

Oh, and can you PLEASE do a 4e update of Darkness & Dread?

 

[mearls]

So...

After we've cleverly lured you into our thread....

What change (if you can say) met the most opposition?

What change did you stick up for the most? Did it make it into the final product?

And lastly...

What change did you fight hardest against? And how did you feel about the change after trying it? Were you still opposed? Did that change make it into the final product?

Oh, and can you PLEASE do a 4e update of Darkness & Dread?

I was really, really opposed to standardizing advancement. And now, after playing the game, I really, really like it. IMO, on the surface it's neat that people get powers at different rates. At the table, nobody notices that, though. It puts a burden on classes to do different stuff (which is good - an RPG's structure should pressure designers toward good design), so that when you play the game you see stuff like the fighter using his warhammer to crack one orc over the head, shift, and then shatter another orc's arm, while the warlock conjures a giant demonic claw that grabs a bandit, crushes him in its grasp, and then flings him across the room.

Both of those are level 1 powers, but the effect in the story and at the table is really, really different.

I was part of a group that stuck up making sure clerics and fighters were fun to play. There was one early version of them where the fighter was just a damage sponge, and the cleric got to let other people have fun, without doing much himself. We spent a lot of time early last summer working on those classes to get them right. I wanted to make sure that "defender" meant "the dude who kicks ass" and not "the guy who gets attacked."

Probably the most opposed changes were things that aren't in the final game, but that's a cheap answer. I think that the thing that saw the most opposition, but that won people over, was the entire concept of at-will/encounter/daily powers. The first year of the game's design and development focused on getting that right. Once we released a version that got playtesters to set aside 3e and start using 4e for their home campaigns, I knew we were on the right track.

As for Darkness & Dread, I doubt I could do work directly on that book, but I do like dark horror/fantasy.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It is always neat seeing the development process. I actually would be slightly intrigued to buy another "Wizard's Presents:" book after June 6th that goes through the entire development process; when ideas were thought up, what stayed, what went, why, etc.

Hmm... Your a fan of dark horror/fantasy, does that mean any chance of a interesting and engaging fear/sanity system in D&D? Or atleast a supplement?