Designers are intelligent people. I am sure there are reasons as to why they are trying out what they choose to try out. We can have a little more faith in their ability to envision the big picture, and trust the design process. What I read in that post already seemed to indicate some differences from what I played at DDXP (I'm not sure if 1.0 was pre or post DDXP). Nothing is set in stone yet, nothing is published, if they get massive negative feedback on an issue, they will change it.
Something Awful leak.
- Thread starter WarlockLord
- Start date
- Status
This of course assumes a 2 to 1 score to mod conversion, as you pointed out. But truth be told... having now read these "leaked" playtests... it sounds a lot more likely that these modifiers are probably 1 to 1 up from 10 (which is a theory someone else put forth here on the boards several months ago, which I now crib.)
Evidence:
If your ability score matches or is higher than a DC, you succeed automatically. If we assume 10 is a +0 and everything goes up 1 to 1 (so that a 16 has a +6 mod for example)... then your ability score equals Taking 10 on something. So any check that you can Take 10 on (aka Passive Perception, or Insight et. al.) should succeed automatically by definition. If you can't Take 10 on it... it means you HAVE to roll to attempt it. But like you said, if mods went up 1 point every 2 ability points, then the math goes wonky. If they go up 1 to 1, then it just becomes like any other mod check. Forex a DC 18 Dex check for a PC with a 13 Dex... that's a 1d20+3 to hit DC 18. Makes all the logical sense in the world.
Rolling for ability scores and the race/class +1 score bonuses. The problem with rolling scores and those +1 bonuses was the 'odd number' problem in 3E-- where a character had a better chance of being gimped compared to others depending on how many odd numbered ability scores showed up, and some racial adjustments not actually being bonuses because it just raised a score from the even number to the odd number (with no bonus to mod). By doing point-buy... you could get as many even numbers as you wanted (along with their beneficial mod bonus), and 4E's +2 racial modifiers meant you always got a mod bonus from your race.
However, if you raise mods 1 to 1... then the odd-number problem goes away, because EVERY score you roll is valid from a modifier point of view-- odd or even. That removes some of the stigma of rolling for ability scores. It also means that a +1 from your race or class also impacts your modifier. Those minor bonuses are all worthwhile.
Doing 1 to 1 also gets us closer to the idea that many people had wondered about for a long time about whether we should have just gotten rid of the 3-18 ability score format sacred cow and just did the modifiers themselves (which Blue Rose did I believe) seeing as how the 3-18 scores really didn't serve a purpose. A 1 to 1 modifier (thereby creating automatic Take 10 numbers) does make the 3-18 sacred cow actually viable and worthwhile.
*****
I'm not saying this theory is definitely correct... but it just seems to make more sense from the evidence we have thus far seen.
FireLance
Legend
Well, speaking as both a 4e fan and someone who doesn't want to go back to "linear warriors, quadratic wizards", nothing in the supposed leak actually worries me very much.
At the fairly low levels that the playtest seems to be focused on (up to 2nd-level spells, so probably not more than 3rd or 4th level PCs), knock is a pretty serious commitment. You're spending one of your best spells to open a lock once per day. There's also some implied scaling with spell level for the other spells mentioned (invisibility as a 2nd-level spell provides an apparently fixed DC 17 concealment, and 1st-level and 2nd-level versions of shield were described). This suggests to me that as a 2nd-level spell, the Open Lock or break DCs (for chains) can't be too high. I'm fairly sure that if you want to use knock to get past the doors you should encounter as an 18th-level character, you'll have to cast it as a 9th-level spell.
From the looks of things, the key difference between fighters and wizards is that wizards have better control over when they spike. Fighters can spike - they apparently get bonus damage on a crit without needing to confirm, and can then roll for more damage like everyone else - but are more dependant on dice. "Daily" powers (so far) seem limited to an extra action once per day and "encounter" powers seem limited to the "slayer" style.
So, it appears that the wizard will have lower baseline effectiveness but better control over spikes while the fighter will have a higher baseline effectiveness but random spikes. They might have different resource structures, but it seems to me that neither would strictly dominate the other. Even if they aren't always perfectly balanced, there are sufficient trade-offs that it is seldom an obvious decision to favor one or the other. That's balanced enough in my book.
At the fairly low levels that the playtest seems to be focused on (up to 2nd-level spells, so probably not more than 3rd or 4th level PCs), knock is a pretty serious commitment. You're spending one of your best spells to open a lock once per day. There's also some implied scaling with spell level for the other spells mentioned (invisibility as a 2nd-level spell provides an apparently fixed DC 17 concealment, and 1st-level and 2nd-level versions of shield were described). This suggests to me that as a 2nd-level spell, the Open Lock or break DCs (for chains) can't be too high. I'm fairly sure that if you want to use knock to get past the doors you should encounter as an 18th-level character, you'll have to cast it as a 9th-level spell.
From the looks of things, the key difference between fighters and wizards is that wizards have better control over when they spike. Fighters can spike - they apparently get bonus damage on a crit without needing to confirm, and can then roll for more damage like everyone else - but are more dependant on dice. "Daily" powers (so far) seem limited to an extra action once per day and "encounter" powers seem limited to the "slayer" style.
So, it appears that the wizard will have lower baseline effectiveness but better control over spikes while the fighter will have a higher baseline effectiveness but random spikes. They might have different resource structures, but it seems to me that neither would strictly dominate the other. Even if they aren't always perfectly balanced, there are sufficient trade-offs that it is seldom an obvious decision to favor one or the other. That's balanced enough in my book.
delericho
Legend
Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...
If it's true, they have a slight problem, because they can't disavow it, and they can't just stay silent (because that amounts to confirmation, and because of the negative reactions to it). Their best bet is to demonstrate that they've moved on beyond that point, and that really needs them to get the current thinking on mechanics out there, and quickly. Of course, doing that pretty much means getting the playtest going ASAP.
It's all rather unfair, of course. While I don't like waiting, this is WotC's process, and it is them that are taking the risks. They really should be free to proceed at their own pace. Sadly, that may now not be an option.
(If this isn't a hoax, of course - I'm still expecting a fairly swift shooting down.)
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
JosephBear said:
Well, I'm no psychiatrist, but it seems your problem is then pessimism, if you assume that all future releases will go like that.
It's good to be skeptical, but lets not try our hand at fortune telling. The Little Raven said:
I don't think it speaks of an incredible bias so much as it speaks of a "where we've done some work already, and where we haven't."
4e is the most recent edition. Everyone on the design team has probably been tinkering with 4e for the last 3-5 years. They have an idea of how they might want to use the 4e information already. They've done a bit of work on it, so it looks different.
They haven't gotten to futzing with the earlier edition stuff too much, and that's because it's farther away from them chronologically. Like, with the 20 status conditions that the poster rants about -- that's pretty much what 3.5e had (and Pathfinder has). It seems to me like it's smart to throw them all in and see what actually gets used in the early playtests, so they can identify what status conditions to cut.
Or like the spell text. Toss in the most powerful version of the spell (read: probably not the 4e version), and see how it plays in practice, and what might need to be scaled back.
A lot of 4e fans seem to have some sort of pre-emptive persecution complex about the next game, which is kind of understandable given 4e's flash-in-the-pan duration, but I probably don't need to remind 4e fans that a lot of 3e fans had the same reaction to 4e, and a lot of them were hyperbolic and paranoid, too.
Hangfire
First Post
If this is real, and not a fake, then why not just post the document rather than posting what he remembers. He mentions not having the document in front of him "now" as he begins to write, which makes it seem as if he's got something, a document, he was able to walk away with. If that's true, post it. Let us judge for ourselves.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I would suspect the following are true:
- 4e uses a lot of specialized language, and needs to be re-written more than the other editions
- the writer has a very strong bias towards 4e, so minor variations in 4e text stand out more to him than from other editions
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
Well, for one, it might be an actual meat-world document.
This certainly must be fake or trolling.
To ditch all the innovations of 4e and regress to some stunted idiot version of 3e would be suicidal for a brand attempting to reunite a fractured customer base.
WotC knows 3.5 still exists, and a more polished and balanced version of 3.5, Pathfinder, also exists - and many people play it.
It would be simply insane to ignore all 4e players, and create some degenerate version of 3.5 that nobody would play.
Wait for the public betatesting before going nuclear I say.
To ditch all the innovations of 4e and regress to some stunted idiot version of 3e would be suicidal for a brand attempting to reunite a fractured customer base.
WotC knows 3.5 still exists, and a more polished and balanced version of 3.5, Pathfinder, also exists - and many people play it.
It would be simply insane to ignore all 4e players, and create some degenerate version of 3.5 that nobody would play.
Wait for the public betatesting before going nuclear I say.
- Status
