D&D 4E 4e Monster Manual excerpt

[Charwoman Gene]

So it's a whole new crowd working on 4E.

Mearls is a Crowd on his own.

 

[hong]

Mearls is a Crowd on his own.

Did you just call Mearls fat?

 

[D'karr]

I agree. I know the designers seem to take a lot of pride in having been able to "minimize" the power descriptions/stats, but the simulationist in me seems to be lost with most of them... I understand how the power functions mechanically, but not how it happens in the story. And I've never had this kind of confusion with any previous edition of D&D. I can only imagine how it feels to "newbies". I get the same feeling from other excerpts as well, since those 'monster customization' rules make sense to 3E veterans, surely, but if I think back to my teen years, I'm not sure I would have understood how they work (especially as english is not my native language). I hope that the rulebooks will have more concrete examples, because now it feels to me (on the basis of these 'excerpts') like the books are written for people who're intimately familiar with the 3E rules.

I can understand that using those keywords/"tags" must make a lot of sense to the designers, and they're probably so "into" the system that it all makes sense to them in the story as well. I'd say, however, that it takes an exceptionally good DM to convey this same kind of "understanding" to the players -- at least to my group (and we're all "veterans" with some 20 years of gaming experience under our belts). Or maybe the new generation is better in handling the combat as an "abstraction" from the story, concentrating on the mechanical effects and thinking about the story only after the combat is over?

As for the 'exception-based' design... some DMs will shine with it, while others will struggle to master it even moderately. I probably belong to the latter group, because it's a "hybrid" system which is not completely 'trait-based' -- I just don't like the way it combines so much 'crunch' with those freely-determined "powers". Not to mention how differently the system treats the PCs. If it were a completely 'descriptor/trait-based' system (like many Indie RPGs I've run), I think it would work far better, at least for me and other DMs like me. Or, if your players, as I mentioned above, do not care about the mechanics (i.e. they are not cynical 'simulationists' who always ask for logical explanations for every rule in every situation or want to imitate/learn "monster powers") but focus on the story and come up with the explanations in their own heads.

I've been running 4e demos using the available rules for the past few weeks. This is for a group that consists of 2 veterans (20+ years playing), 2 newbies (6 months playing) and 1 Experienced player (3+ years playing).

It took longer for the veterans and the experienced players to get into the proper mindset than it did the newbies. They all liked it but there were some stumbles as the veterans kept trying to view things as in 3.x It still did not take as long for any of them to get into the 4e mindset than it did for the newbies to get into the 3.x mindset.

So I think that the newbies will do just fine and veterans just need to stop trying to fit everything into the same box.

This actually leads me to what I think will be a major issue with 4E. When every DM starts developing their own "variants" (say, Bugbear Shurikenmasters or Orc Shaman Firebreathers) I think there will be a lot of arguments over the choice of "powers". Comments like: "No, you should have used Range 4 Fire Attack that causes 2D10+CON damage... take a loot at Drgaonblood Flamebrother" or "That's a stupid power for a city guard captain... he should have something like 'Aura of Loyalty' instead of that stupid pseudo-magical 'Summon the Troops'-ability. And it should recharge whenever an opponent is bloodied, *not* on 5 and 6!" or "That's how you stat an experience NPC cleric? Change that 'Heal like Hell' ability into something more appropriate like 'Lead the Masses'!". And so on. I hope there will be a list (and a lot of examples) of "logical" ability choices for different types of your own variants, because otherwise I can see a lot of arguing taking place (especially on the forums) over how DM X or Designer Y should have given NPC/Monster Z ability W and Q instead of O and P. And try running a game to another DM, and I'm quite sure that he can't resist commenting on some of your NPCs and monsters, and even though he did it in private, I'm sure it is as annoying nonetheless ("You know, that elven scout we encountered... I think you should have based him on the Human Deathbow Archer in DMG, and not Elven Skirmisher. And I would have given him a rechargeable encounter power like 'Triple Shot' instead of 'Unlimited Energy Arrows'.").

Who are the DMs designing these "variants" for? If it's for their own groups who the hell cares if they put two at-will powers or one encounter power.

If they are designing for "rules forums" then criticism comes with the territory.

And if they are designing for published books, then the criticism is mostly moot. You either use the stuff as is, change it to suit what you want, or don't use it at all. Not much difference from how it works now.

 

[Primal]

Did you just call Mearls fat?

I think he did.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Did you just call Mearls fat?

I thought it was more along the lines of meaning he's a 'one-man army,' but I guess the fat interpretation is possible, too ....

 

[keterys]

Serving a chaotic god of evil and destruction? I suppose that might not be a problem for some people. But my campaign would be a trainwreck if I tried to reboot it to 4e... one of the NPCs is one of a handful of tieflings on the whole plane, my CE elder evil had a succubus for an emissary, the party's halfling recovered the legendary arms and armor of a gnome paladin, frost giants were battled, and there is no Feywild (IMC, the fey's origin is the primordial Material Plane). Several spellcasting NPCs are capable of shapeshifters, and impersonation has been a common theme.

So yeah, a lone succubus, not a big deal. But if you want to have succubi and demons running together, that's an issue.

How would it be a trainwreck?

1) There are less tieflings on your world.
Okay, no problem there. You've got stats for the ones you need, you can ignore 'em the rest of the time.
2) CE Elder Evil uses Succubi.
No problem, you've got stats for succubi. Carry on.
3) legendary arms and armor of gnome paladin
I don't even see how this could be a problem, but since arms, armor, gnomes, and paladins are all in 4e, I'll assume this is covered too.
4) frost giants were battled
Will they be battled again? How soon? Cause if they'll be battled again within a year, you'll have to take about 15 minutes to make up some new stats for them (less if you just take the existing giants and alter them slightly -or- go crazy and just use some from the internet). If longer than that, you'll have stats available, carry on. Either way, almost no problem.
5) no Feywild.
Guess a section of the new books isn't useful for you, but should be fine. Cosmology changes are pretty par for the course for D&D. I didn't see anyone's campaign break when they added -or removed- the Great Wheel from FR, for instance.
6) NPCs can shapeshift and impersonate
They still can, no problem.

I think you and I have different feelings about what a trainwreck is.

 

[MerricB]

Jonathan Tweet is still at WotC, isn't he?

His blog on Gleemax is frequently interesting.

Cheers!

 

[pawsplay]

How would it be a trainwreck?

Visualize the 4e fluff and my campaign colliding head-on. Insofar as my campaign differs from standard 3, it also differs from 4e, and insofar as 3e differs from 4e, my campaign also differs. It would be like trying to use Races of Eberron in Dragonlance. You certainly could, but it changes... everything.

 

[DandD]

So your campaign difers from whatever Wizards of the Coast put out anyway, be it 3rd or 4th edition?
Where's the trainwreck?

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Visualize the 4e fluff and my campaign colliding head-on. Insofar as my campaign differs from standard 3, it also differs from 4e, and insofar as 3e differs from 4e, my campaign also differs. It would be like trying to use Races of Eberron in Dragonlance. You certainly could, but it changes... everything.

Then don't use it. Or change it in the same way you've already changed 3rd edition.