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

[Glyfair]

David Noonan has a lot of teasers in his blog:

Daily Work: Plus I had a nice, meaty design assignment to work on. Suffice it to say that I'm working on a significant customization choice your character makes midway through his or her career--and it's a choice that'll evolve over, say, ten levels or so. More on those when I get 'em written.

The Gish: Gish lovers (and those who are, um, gish-curious), I've got your back.

Terminology Note: When I say "gish," I'm not referring specifically to githyanki fighter/wizards. Nor am I talking about a really good Smashing Pumpkins album, Gish. I'm talking more generally about characters who are capable melee combatants and reasonably good arcane spellcasters, too.

One of the things I'm working on is some character-building pieces to support the archetype. And as I write, I wonder, "I'm not sure the gish needs the help. He might be OK with just our crazy new multiclassing rules."

Multiclassing: New multiclassing rules, you ask. Yep, we've got 'em. Multiclass characters are running at a couple of our internal playtest tables right now. Early results are promising, but we're talking about only a couple of characters, so we haven't seen broad proof of concept yet.

It's easy to critique 3e multiclassing, but it's also important to remember that they represent a massive, double-quantum leap from multiclass/dual-class rules in 1e/2e. We really like the configurability and freedom of 3e multiclassing, the way it's extensible even when you add new classes to the mix, and how it respects (to a degree, anyway) the changing whimsy of players as their characters evolve.

But it's got some problems--and in particular, it doesn't tackle the gish very well. There's the arcane spell failure problem, which takes some levels of the spellsword PrC, a little mithral, and some twilight enhancement to take care of. But beyond that, the low caster level can be just crippling for the fighter/wizard who wants to blast the bad guys into oblivion, rather than use his spellbook as a really good utility belt.

So that's one big problem--the caster level situation. In 3e, we've cemented over that with some prestige classes and feats. But there's another problem: Your journey through the "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness." For the gish, it's hard to truly be, well, gishy at low levels before you've figured out a reasonable answer to the armor problem. You can't really wade into melee like a fighter, because you're gonna get creamed. So you have to take an "I'm basically a wizard for now" or "I'm basically a fighter for now." That works, but you're just biding your time until you get to play the character you want to play.

And for the gish's cousin, the wizard/cleric, his "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness" isn't quite as deep, but it lasts a little longer--until he qualifies for mystic theurge, anyway.

So the improvement we're seeking from the multiclass system is something that solves some specific math problems (the caster level thing) and some specific career-path problems (letting you feel like a blend of classes from the get-go).

The Gish, Today: So what does this mean for our gish PCs at the playtest tables? Well, from very early levels, he's weariing armor, stabbing dudes, and casting spells. He's not as good at stabbing as the fighter, nor as good at casting as the wizard. But he's viable at both. In theory.

In theory? Well, like I said, the gish characters don't have a lot of mileage on them yet. And creating hybrid characters involves a careful balancing act. Multiclass characters can't be optimal at a focused task (because that horns in the turf for the single-class character) and they can't be weaksauce (because then you've sold the multiclass character a false bill of goods and he doesn't actually get to use the breadth of his abilities). There's a middle ground between "optimal" and "weaksauce" that I'll call "viable." But it's not exactly a wide spot of ground.

Finding that viable middle ground isn't a problem unique to 4e. The 3e designers (myself included) took lots of shots at it; the bard, the mystic theurge, and the eldritch knight are all somewhere on the optimal-viable-weaksauce continuum. And any WoW shaman, druid, or paladin knows firsthand the sorts of continual rebalancing they've undergone as Blizzard tries to keep their hybrid classes in the middle of that continuum.

 

[Glyfair]

From Logan Bonner's blog:

On the same topic, I find a lot of the 4E threads at this point are kind of unproductive, just because people are in a 3.5 mindset and not talking about things that translate directly to 4E. For example, somebody was talking about how the monk should get a version of ki strike that upgrades to become effective against different types of damage reduction. Well, that assumes that there will be monks, that they have ki strike, and that DR exists. Now, at least one of those is true (you can probably figure out which ), but the idea has a pretty unstable foundation compared to what the rules will actually look like.

 

[Umbra_Kaitou]

From Logan Bonner's blog:

This scares me as while it seems to be referencing something I wrote, or at least was amung those asking.

So what do you think the chances are that Monks are in and DR is out >_> *clings to frail hopes*

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm betting DR is in

Re: Noonan: Good multiclass discussion, but for one thing. Gish. I hate that ^&%(&* term, unless it is used to talk about githyanki fighter/wizards.

 

[Mark Causey]

If dragons have AC 49 and 500 HP, I doubt that DR is still in.

 

[Glyfair]

TSo what do you think the chances are that Monks are in and DR is out >_> *clings to frail hopes*

He did say *at least* one was in. Maybe DR is in, but monks are awaiting playtesting (or the monkish replacement).

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm betting DR is in

Re: Noonan: Good multiclass discussion, but for one thing. Gish. I hate that ^&%(&* term, unless it is used to talk about githyanki fighter/wizards.

What he said. The term "gish" should die a horrific, painful death.

Then be resurrected and killed again, just for good measure.

Then damned to Hell.

Then killed by devils.

(And I still believe that we'll see monks reappear in a future PHB, along with other classes with a "ki" power source.)

 

[Glyfair]

Re: Noonan: Good multiclass discussion, but for one thing. Gish. I hate that ^&%(&* term, unless it is used to talk about githyanki fighter/wizards.

Ditto, I prefer "arcane fighter," but since he used it...

Also note Dave's first brief entry. Maybe he's talking about what will be essentially the 4E prestige class.

 

[blargney the second]

Monks will most likely work their way back in eventually. In the meantime, there's a good chance that we'll get a class that can do something similar and be plenty of fun.

It's sort of like going from having bikes all your life to getting your first car and hoping that the car has a good derailer.
-blarg

 

[Klaus]

What he said. The term "gish" should die a horrific, painful death.

Then be resurrected and killed again, just for good measure.

Then damned to Hell.

Then killed by devils.

(And I still believe that we'll see monks reappear in a future PHB, along with other classes with a "ki" power source.)

Agreed.

Back to the... ahem... warrior-mage... David has valid points... if we forget the existence of the Battle Sorcerer, from Unearthed Arcana, which is a perfectly balanced warrior-mage class. I applied those changes to the Sorcerer table to effectively see how much was being given up, and the class is good at combat while remaining good enough at spellcasting.