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

[Mallus]

So based on a single post SHARK made, you think he should drop D&D and start playing Warhammer RPG?

Where did you get 'drop' from? I said 'read'.

I was thinking along similar lines a few months ago, and decided to investigate WHFR 2e. I really liked what I saw, but that didn't mean I stopped running my upper-mid level D&D game. In fact, I'm not sure I'm going to use WHFR, but I can appreciate that it's a well-designed system.

Brand loyalty doesn't mean all that much to me. Unless the brand is 'Porsche', in which case I'd be very loyal, if only I could afford one...

Sorry, but I always find responses like this arrogant.

You have an odd definition of arrogant. One that seems untethered to the actual meaning.

Someone says, "I play D&D this way" and the reply comes back, "Try playing a different game."

I advised looking into a different game who's default assumptions are closer to the one the poster described. This is wrong somehow? Do you own a lot of WotC Hasbro stock?

 

[Grog]

If the party lacks effective means of in combat healing, then they need to adjust somehow. Use more defensive buffs, do battlefield control spells to manage the number of enemies, or simply more offense - depending on what class they have instead of a cleric. I've had groups work fine with no dedicated healer. Sure, you do need healing items for between combats and a few 'in case of emergency' potions, but altering tactics to fit the different group make-up can be effective.

First, I'm guessing you only played at low level, if potions were your group's only method of battlefield healing.

Second, all the methods that PCs can use to avoid taking damage in combat can be gotten around in many different ways. Defensive buffs can be dispelled. Battlefield control spells are ineffective against certain types of enemies (Evard's Black Tentacles, one of the popular ones, doesn't work against flying enemies, for instance). Building high-AC characters works fine - until you run into enemies who use spells or supernatural abilities or touch attacks.

The point is, there is no tactic that you can rely on which will prevent damage in combat all the time. If there were, every party would use it. So if your group never found themselves sorely missing a primary healer - well, either you got very lucky, or your DM specifically chose not to use any of the methods available to counter your damage-avoiding tactics. In other words, your DM tailored the campaign to the characters you were playing - and that option will work just as well in 4E as it does in 3.x.

 

[Nebulous]

I've heard the same cries. I've never agreed with them as I find D&D to be a pretty simple game. The GM controls how much complexity he's going to use. And 4E will end up being the same. Sure the core books will be simple (just as the 3E core were) but then each successive book will add more and more until 4E will be in the exact same condition that many feel 3.5 is in.

Yup. They'll make some things better, muck others up, we'll end up house ruling the game the way we want it, and a truck load of supplements will bloat it no matter what.

 

[Glyfair]

Perhaps this idea of a wider range came from two things:

1) the "must gain a new ability at every level" mandatory paradigma in 4e
2) an attempt at making metamagic cost less than in 3e in terms of slots used

3) "magic missile is too powerful for a 1st level spell" and "magic missile isn't powerful enough for a 2nd level spell' (fill in whatever spell is being discussed as too power, or reverse it if it's considered not powerful enough)

Also, although we are used to the multiple meaning of levels in D&D (fortunately we rarely discuss the "level of the dungeon" any more), it can be tricky for a new player. Directly mapping spell levels to character levels actually might be easier conceptually for new players. You learn 2nd level spells at 2nd level, 9th level spells at 9th level, etc.

If he had said 11th or 12th level spells I would have assumed an extension of the level chart. 25th level is pretty high for an extension with only 30 character levels.

 

[Nebulous]

Why not just change the word "level" to something like Rank? Or Magnitude? Although having 30 "levels" of spells is a neat idea and seems logical. The whole level-based scheme is so intricately familiar to me since 1st edition that i don't think about how it might trip up a new player.

 

[Felon]

They can't use their sneak attack, but sneak attack damage is a bonus, an extra, a nice thing when you can get it, not a guarantee to ever count on. If you're playing a Rogue, you shouldn't ever count on being able to get Sneak Attack off, it's nice, but it's gravy, not meat.

This assessment is altogether incorrect; sneak is not a nice little extra. It is not gravy. It is the meat. Or to use a more apt analogy, the rogue's weak little dagger or rapier is the delivery system, and the sneak attack is the payload. Without it, the rogue has no teeth.

On the other hand, when the rogue does get his sneak attack dice, it's extremely gross. Some folks think this extreme discrepency is a form of balance, which always struck me as odd. How can "lopsided" be a synonym for "balanced"? I welcome the notion of a sneak attack with a consistent but reasonable damage yield.

 

[Felon]

The point is, there is no tactic that you can rely on which will prevent damage in combat all the time. If there were, every party would use it. So if your group never found themselves sorely missing a primary healer - well, either you got very lucky, or your DM specifically chose not to use any of the methods available to counter your damage-avoiding tactics.

There is a third option: the party got by fine without a dedicated healer because they take down their foes effectively. If you kill something, it cannot hurt you anymore. Dedicating yourself to healing is one of the worst things any character can spend their resources on. Healing is reactive. It is bailing water out of a sinking ship. Far better to use one's actions aggressively to put the opposition on the defensive.

Even granting that there is no foolproof tactic for avoiding damage all the time, the fact is you don't need to avoid damage all the time. You just need to avoid going to zero.

 

[Felon]

Also, if I were Wizards, I'd be considering this:

Tom: "Hey, let's get the old college group together again via this virtual game table!"
Dick: "They'd be great. Sorry I can't join in though. It isn't worth the hassel to set up dual-boot for that."
Harry: "I'm out too. Ever since we switched to Mac, the wife has baned Windows from our house."

Dick: "OK, Tom, are you really trapped in a hellish marriage with a shrew that has unilateral control over the household, or are you just doing that thing guys do where they play the 'whipped' card as a way to get out of doing things that their buddies want them to do? Either way, stop being a wimp."

Seriously, though, I don't think Wizards is trying to compete with utilities like WebRPG. They're trying to provide the masses with a toolset to get together and game, not achieve some kind of dominance in the tabletop emulation market. Let the Mac-only users fend for themselves. They're used to it.

I've got to wonder how material from supplements willl be incorporated. The feats will have to replicated in the game, yet to do so would effectively mean giving you the feat without you having to buy the book.

 

[Glyfair]

Ouch. That was bad, bad, bad.

Yeah. It just goes to reinforce the gamer stereotype of having no life and no social skills.

 

[Grog]

There is a third option: the party got by fine without a dedicated healer because they take down their foes effectively. If you kill something, it cannot hurt you anymore. Dedicating yourself to healing is one of the worst things any character can spend their resources on. Healing is reactive. It is bailing water out of a sinking ship. Far better to use one's actions aggressively to put the opposition on the defensive.

This assumes that the party always faces foes which they can take down before taking significant damage from them. Unless you're consistently fighting under-CRed enemies, that won't be the case. Even if you go full-out offense, you aren't always going to be able to drop your enemies before they put out some serious hurt. Some enemies are just too strong for that.

Plus, just as there are lots of counters for damage-avoiding tactics, there are lots of counters for damage-dealing tactics as well. The wizard likes to throw empowered fireballs? He's in trouble when the party encounters fire-resistant enemies or enemies with high SR. The barbarian likes to use Power Attack to get in big damage with his greatsword? That's not going to work too well against high-AC enemies. The rogue hits hard with sneak attacks? High AC shuts that down, too, and so do crit-immune enemies.

The point is, unless your DM specifically chooses not to take advantage of the myriad of options at his or her disposal, a party's offensive tactics aren't always going to work as well as they'd like. And when that happens, they're in big trouble if they don't have a primary healer.