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

[Snapdragyn]

Three reasons I hope they do NOT go through with flipping saves to being rolled by the attacker:

1) Averaging of damage to foes. If the wizard in the party lobs a fireball into a room of orcs, there's a good chance some will fail their save & go down, reducing the damage the party takes in the next round. If the wizard in the party lobs the same fireball but has to make an 'arcane attack' roll -- & fails it -- the party could still be facing a room full of orcs in the next round. That's going to hurt.

2) Averaging of party damage. If the party takes a fireball, one roll counts against each of our individual 'resist DCs'. If the DM rolls high, we're probably all screwed (at least in mid-levels). Previously we had the chance that at least someone would roll high and make the save (though granted, there was always the chance of rolling a 1 & failing something 'easy', too).

3) Believability. A reflex save vs. a fireball (or lightning, or similar spell) can easily be viewed as representing the character ducking, dodging, or just falling to the ground so that only their back gets burned -- thus, HALF damage. A reflex-based 'arcane attack' roll just doesn't fit as well conceptually IMO. Does this mean the wizard flubbed his fireball targeting so badly that it half-missed all of us? Or targeted so well that even the most nimble of us still got hit full-on? Blegh. >p

 

[AllisterH]

The "flipping saves to attacks" though has more advantages for a DM though.

One of the things I've noticed is that they are really wanting to make 4E, more DM friendly. The current system where the DM has to make a roll for EVERY orc in the room is a pain in the butt for a DM.

Furthermore, even though there will be cases of where EVERYONE will either make their SAVE or not, over the course of a campaign, this should average out that in effect, you get as many scenarios where the outcome is simply averaged.

 

[William Ronald]

The "flipping saves to attacks" though has more advantages for a DM though.

One of the things I've noticed is that they are really wanting to make 4E, more DM friendly. The current system where the DM has to make a roll for EVERY orc in the room is a pain in the butt for a DM.

Furthermore, even though there will be cases of where EVERYONE will either make their SAVE or not, over the course of a campaign, this should average out that in effect, you get as many scenarios where the outcome is simply averaged.

Heck, in large games, I have seen DMs let players role saves for monsters. I have even done so in large games with large number of foes. Possibly, if players role the saves for multiple foes, this will speed up player. (One simple technique is to have players role saves for smaller groups of foes. So, if the party is facing 20 bandits, each player could roll the saves for some of the bandits.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Looks like the 'attacker always rolls' from SW:SE has made it into 4E. Another step into a larger and more elegant world.

Hrm. If this is true, it's the first (and so far only) detail of 4E I'm not fond of. I prefer saving throws being rolled by the target.

That said, it's not a big deal for me. I don't hate the "attacker always rolls" model. It's just not my preferred means of dealing with it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Hrm. If this is true, it's the first (and so far only) detail of 4E I'm not fond of. I prefer saving throws being rolled by the target.

I think it is more that they are removing one step to making a spell work.

First roll the ranged touch attack, then roll to break through spell resistance, then roll the saving throw. I know not all spells have these, but using a weapon does't have to deal with this mickey mouse stuff. So many rolls to make a spell work when a warrior just makes a single attack roll to do damage (not counting incorporeal miss and concealment, but spellcasters have those to worry about too).

 

[marune]

Another good news !

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it is more that they are removing one step to making a spell work.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I fully understand the mechanical advantage to such a system, especially when dealing with multiple foes on a side. Particularly if 4E is geared toward making things easier on the DM, it may even be the "right" way to go.

It just doesn't appeal as much to me, personally, on a thematic level.

But as I said, it's not a big deal to me. I don't look at it and go "Yuck, that's awful!" I just look and go, "Hm, I'd prefer it the other way."

 

[Hammerhead]

I think it is more that they are removing one step to making a spell work.

First roll the ranged touch attack, then roll to break through spell resistance, then roll the saving throw. I know not all spells have these, but using a weapon does't have to deal with this mickey mouse stuff. So many rolls to make a spell work when a warrior just makes a single attack roll to do damage (not counting incorporeal miss and concealment, but spellcasters have those to worry about too).

Using a weapon doesn't generally totally screw someone either by turning them into a squirrel or paralyzing them either. And spellcasters generally aren't that affected by flying enemies, mirror images, or displacement.

 

[Horacio]

Many interesting informations about D&D Insider and Gleemax in Randy Bluehler's blog :
http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement013.html

I'll start with the basics: D&D Insider is a monthly subscription package that gives subscribers access to 1) online Dragon and Dungeon magazine content (three updates per week that then have the best parts collected into monthly issues), 2) a suite of digital applications that includes DM tools, a Character Generator, and the D&D Game Table. Check out this video if you haven't already as we've got parts of the application functional and I think the fly-through will go a long way toward explaining what we're up to. Note that the game table does not enforce any game rules. Instead, it connects players via voice chat and lets the DM run things just like you were all gathered around the kitchen table. The idea is to use the computer to take away a lot of the busywork and also to connect folks who can't physically get into the same room.

D&D Insider will be in free preview mode from now until the release of 4th Edition in the first half of next year. Once we start charging for it, it will cost "more than a magazine but less than an MMO" (which I did hear officially translated at least once as $8 - $12 / month). You certainly don't need an Insider subscription to play D&D - technically, you don't even need to upgrade to 4th Edition to play D&D - but in both cases we think we're giving you enough value for your dollar that you'll want to. In addition, even if you aren't a subscriber you can still access the digital tools in a "pay as you go" mode which we'll have more details on later. The idea is to allow folks to pay a smaller price for, say, one session at the Game Table or some such.

Another digital offering that we're making in conjunction with 4th Edition is that we're putting codes into all of our books. If you come to the website and put in the code you get two things: 1) You get an e-version of the book that can be read and searched on your computer. This will cost a nominal fee (probably a dollar) and will not require an Insider subscription. 2) If you are a subscriber, then putting in the code will unlock all of the content from that book in all of the databases that are available through Insider. For example, without the code for the relevant book you would see only a one-line description of a feat during character creation. With the code you see the full rules. Similarly, without the code you would see only a one-line description of a monster on the game table but with the code you can see the full stat block, etc.

The biggest difference between Gleemax and D&D Insider is that Gleemax is free. Gleemax provides a bunch of tools that the community can use to really get the most out of their Insider subscription. For example, Gleemax will have campaign pages that DMs can use to coordinate with their players between sessions at the D&D Game Table, whether the DM wants to show off the world in more detail, explain the house rules that are being used, or just schedule the next session. Gleemax will also have character pages that players can use to tell the world (or just their friends) about their character and the home-brew feat that they talked the DM into letting them use. Our hope is that these tools will encourage folks to post lots of fan-generated content that other gamers can then incorporate into their own campaigns.

 

[RFisher]

Right so 75-80% of the market is still purchasing machines w/Microsoft OSes on it. Still more than enough reason to focus on Windows first. Remember, they don't say it will never come to lInux or OSX, just that it won't be there at first.

I've got a decade of experience that says the Linux or OS X ports are probably either never going to happen, are going to be crappy & unsuccessful, or are going to cost Wizards much, much more than they should. That says they're also going to be spending more money over the years keeping up with changes in Microsoft's OS & APIs than they would with the cleaner design cross-platform development would require.

Sure, there's the possibility that they create a really good, clean, portable design even though they're only targeting Windows initially. Can you guess how often I've seen that actually happen despite the best intentions?

Do you know how hard sales organizations will work for a 5% increase in sales? How much they'll spend? In my experience, the extra sales you get from minority platforms is always greater than the marketshare numbers being quoted at the time.