Wire Fu Demonic Magical Superheroes

[jollyninja]

I don't believe for a second that they'd let it wither and die and drag WotC along with it. Rather, we'd get a 5E in two years that does go "Back to Basics". That's what I meant.

I think it far more likely that they would simply try to sell the IP for whatever they could get then risk any money on a "back to basics" relaunch. D&D is pretty isignifigant as far as revinue for WotC goes. It's really not worth their time financially to try and save it if it fails. They have hasbro to worry about. That said, they're nerds like we are and it would probably make them sad to not have D&D in their stable.

 

[Zurai]

It's that, but it i also resource management (out the window with per encounter abilities)

I must have missed the part where per-encounter abilities can't be resources to manage; obviously, questions such as "Do I use my <ability A> now, or should I hold it in reserve to counter <potential abilities B and C>?" will not exist in 4.0, by your decree. Also, I appear to have missed the retraction of WotC's statements that there are still per-day abilities.

it is tension (out the door with killing save or die effects)

Because God knows, you can't have a tense diplomatic negotiation, a tense sneak-through-enemy-lines scenario, or a tense fight against an ancient dragon who doesn't have any SoD spells memorized.

 

[Stone Dog]

It's that, but it i also resource management (out the window with per encounter abilities),

Except for the valuable per day abilities that will still need managing and any charged items that they may or may not have. I'm playing a pretty solid SWSE game right now and while I know that 4e isn't going to be as much like that as people think, there is still plenty of tactics and resources to figure on. I've got three Jedi in there and having force powers that regenerate between encounters means NOTHING when you've used them and a better moment comes up later. Resource management is still looking pretty strong.

it is tension (out the door with killing save or die effects)

I've never once used poison or save or die effects in my games. I hate them completely. While I don't care if they are in there or not, my games have never lacked for nail biting moments and the dread of death. Tension does not hinge on save or die.

and it is puzzles and tricks and other "player oriented" challenges (the jury is still out on this one, but there is a little hope).

No rule can stop this.

What's more is that the "D&D experience" is one that embraces a lot of currently-in-line-to-be-slaughtered sacred cows, in favor of a new paradigm and reimagining of D&D. Again, I understand why, but I don't have to like it.

Or those things are window dressing and changing the curtains isn't going to make a bedroom a barn.

 

[Rechan]

seem to recall Wyatt saying something along the lines of, instead of your lower level Barbarian asking "Should I rage this combat, not knowing what we face later", he may ask "Should I rage this turn?'"

 

[Zurai]

seem to recall Wyatt saying something along the lines of, instead of your lower level Barbarian asking "Should I rage this combat, not knowing what we face later", he may ask "Should I rage this turn?'"

"This turn" vs "this combat" is still a resource management question. The only thing that changed in the question was the length of time.

Not to mention that, past the first few levels, Rage was essentially a per-encounter ability anyway.

 

[Stone Dog]

seem to recall Wyatt saying something along the lines of, instead of your lower level Barbarian asking "Should I rage this combat, not knowing what we face later", he may ask "Should I rage this turn?'"

Extrapolating from SWSE (a dangerous past time! I know...) rage may only last a round unless an action point is spent to push it to the whole encounter. At least, that is how Dark Rage worked out last night.

 

[Xyl]

It's that, but it i also resource management (out the window with per encounter abilities), it is tension (out the door with killing save or die effects) and it is puzzles and tricks and other "player oriented" challenges (the jury is still out on this one, but there is a little hope). What's more is that the "D&D experience" is one that embraces a lot of currently-in-line-to-be-slaughtered sacred cows, in favor of a new paradigm and reimagining of D&D. Again, I understand why, but I don't have to like it.

I don't think resource management is going away. Sure, they have added per-encounter abilities, but there are still per-day abilities as well. It's a good bet that the per-day abilities will be better than per-encounter abilities, so if you blow them all on your first fight, you won't have any for the rest of the day.

I don't think tension is going away. Perhaps tension of the the-life-of-your-character-depends-on-one-die-roll sort is going away, but is that really the tension you want? There's a brief moment of suspense, you roll the die, and then your character is dead or nothing happened. What about the tension of fighting a monster you're not sure you can beat, the tension of rushing to the aid of a nearly-dead character surrounded by enemies, the tension of wondering whether the dragon will breath this round and kill you all...? They're not going away.

I don't think puzzles and tricks and player-oriented challenges are going away. There may not be rules for them, but there weren't rules for them in third edition either. Getting rid of player-oriented challenges is simply not something the designers can, or will try to, do.

I see a lot of people stressing over the fact that vancian spellcasting, and 1d6/level fireballs, and bugbears with 3 hit dice, are being changed. These are details. The important question is whether the essence will remain the same. Will it still feel like you are playing Dungeons and Dragons? Will it still be fun? It's perfectly fine to take a wait-and-see-attitude, but don't assume you're no longer in the same forest just because you don't recognize any of the trees.

 

[hong]

It's that, but it i also resource management (out the window with per encounter abilities), it is tension (out the door with killing save or die effects) and it is puzzles and tricks and other "player oriented" challenges (the jury is still out on this one, but there is a little hope). What's more is that the "D&D experience" is one that embraces a lot of currently-in-line-to-be-slaughtered sacred cows, in favor of a new paradigm and reimagining of D&D. Again, I understand why, but I don't have to like it.

When one thinks inside the box too long, the box will disappear.

 

[Counterspin]

I don't. i want that stuff where it belongs -- in optional, supllementary materials, not in the Core.

This does not answer my question. Whatever you're fixated with, whatever you consider D&D, has already clearly been done. So why do you care what happens now? You've already got what you want. Meanwhile, there's a lot of us who want new stuff. Why shell out ninety buck minimum for the same thing, fluffwise or crunchwise?

 

[FourthBear]

It's that, but it i also resource management (out the window with per encounter abilities), it is tension (out the door with killing save or die effects) and it is puzzles and tricks and other "player oriented" challenges (the jury is still out on this one, but there is a little hope).

From all accounts, they aren't removing per day abilities. Just making them a much smaller piece of wizard's and cleric's magical pie. In fact, you could make a decent argument that 4e will see *more* per day resource management, since now *all* classes will have per day abilities. Right now, it's pretty trivial to generate a party in 3.5e with no per day abilities. Having DMed such a party, let me tell you that there's plenty of resource management going on.

So now, per day abilities will be concern for all classes, not just the primary spellcasters. But the intended power distribution is intended such that the absolute power of the party doesn't drop as precipitously after expending these.