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

[Li Shenron]

The articles about multiclassing sounds promising. The problem is being addressed so there' good hopes that it will lead to solid results... at least if the playtesting time is enough (6 months is not that long).

Usually I don't like half-half characters, I find it a bit disappointing when in a game of roles some players always want to cover more roles at once, but apparently lots of players like that. Whatever they come up with, I only say that if the result is unbalanced, then I hope it's going to be underpowered and not overpowered. Just because I don't want to go back to when everyone wanted to be an Elf

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, I think it is important to maintain a certain threat level from lower-level characters towards whatever classes of adventurer the players are--this is somewhat addressed in 3E, as that whole problem existed in 1E/2E. Thus, I certainly hope they do not enforce some kind of across-the board mookism in favour of the "heroes". It's good to hear that Star Wars Saga allows you to make better "Stormtroopers" in this regard. Personally, I always found it entirely frustrating and dull that the "heroes" in Star Wars films--yes, it's fine to be heroes--but they always slaughtered the hapless stormtroopers, to the point where the "stormtroopers"--the vaunted machinery of the all-conquering Empire looked consistently *INCOMPETENT*. That is not a style that I enjoy having in the D&D game.

As for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay--yes, I'm quite familiar with the game. I played Warhammer for probably six years straight, and I discovered the limitations of the game system. When it comes to relatively low-level, gritty "realistic" fantasy--Warhammer has D&D beat like a jackhammer working jello.

However, and from reviewing the new edition of the Warhammer game as well, I tend to think that the same flaw in the system exists now as it existed in Warhammer from before:

Namely, that the Warhammer game breaks at higher levels. There is also a diminishing point, for example, where every character at higher levels--"levels" being loosely used here, as Warhammer uses "Careers"--the characters all begin to flatten out and look virtually indistinguishable from each other after about 12-16 careers. In that regard, as well as skill resolution, the Warhammer game system essentially reaches a "ceiling" of sorts, where the characters have topped out, and there just isn't much more that they can do to change or improve their characters; as well as the growing towards sameness effect that I mentioned earlier, generally reaches a point where the game is broken and less fun, because there is essentially nothing more mechanically--ability wise, power wise, or skill wise, that the higher "level" character can do. Thus, in my view, Warhammer while certainly attractive and even quite elegant, especially at lower, gritty levels of play, has as it's salient flaw of not embracing a more open-ended power structure like Rolemaster, or D&D 3E/3.5E and now 4E. A good game, but certainly a game system that has limitations.

Great discussion, everyone.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[jasin]

Agreed.

Back to the... ahem... warrior-mage...

That's my preferred term, actually. I might switch to warrior wizard if there's a mage class but not a wizard class in 3E, as some have suggested.

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.

What do you mean applied the changes to the sorcerer table? Wrote up a complete table for the battle sorcerer, rather than looking at the sorcerer table and than subtracting one? I did that when I was playing one.

The battle sorcerer is a good class. Too bad there was never a "battle wizard", and that the battle sorc never got the treatment it deserved, as a stand-alone class, with some specials (killing the duskblade and taking some of his stuff would be appropriate), rather than just being a footnote on the sorcerer.

But I hope for good things in 4E!

 

[Felon]

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.

Well, you seem to feel sufficiently satisfied with the battle sorcerer to state your opinion matter-of-factly, but a lot of folks find it to be a pretty stifling variant. One of the annoying things about warrior-mages is that, as Noonan points out, one invariably resigns oneself to filling those Known Spells slots with buffs and other "nifty utility belt" spells. That's because 3e has reached the point where getting decent HP and BAB is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to being a viable warrior. Pity the poor, clueless soul who thinks a weapon should just be doing its base damage plus a mediocre, unamped STR modifier. With nothing else contributing to his damage payload, he's weaksauce. So when the fighter is pumping his payload up with feats and the barbarian is getting his rage on, the sorcerer is realizing that his one 3rd-levle spell should not be lightning bolt or fireball.

"Payloading" is one of the issues that any martial class (core or prestige) has to address. The duskblade and spellsword ahieve through arcane channeling, stacking a spell and a stab together.

 

[Prodigal_Sun]

Gish! Wohooo GO Smashing Pumpkins!

First post here on ENworld, long time lurker that is looking forward to fourth edition.
I'm sure it will be worth the long wait

 

[Klaus]

That's my preferred term, actually. I might switch to warrior wizard if there's a mage class but not a wizard class in 3E, as some have suggested.


What do you mean applied the changes to the sorcerer table? Wrote up a complete table for the battle sorcerer, rather than looking at the sorcerer table and than subtracting one? I did that when I was playing one.

The battle sorcerer is a good class. Too bad there was never a "battle wizard", and that the battle sorc never got the treatment it deserved, as a stand-alone class, with some specials (killing the duskblade and taking some of his stuff would be appropriate), rather than just being a footnote on the sorcerer.

But I hope for good things in 4E!

Yes, I copied the Sorcerer entire entry from the SRD and applied the changes described in UA. Seeing the thing in its entirety really helps get the feel of the class. And I agree with killing the Duskblade and taking its stuff. When I wrote up the Battle Sorcerer, I ended up taking away the familiar and giving Eschew Materials (house rule: all Sorcs get it) and Heritage feats as bonus at 1st and other levels.

 

[hafrogman]

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.

Well, you seem to feel sufficiently satisfied with the battle sorcerer to state your opinion matter-of-factly, but a lot of folks find it to be a pretty stifling variant.

I think the key, whether or not you enjoy the battle sorcerer, was to allow the creation of something similar WITHOUT having to resort to creating a new class (or making a variant of an old one). The idea is to be able to use the existing classes, plus multiclassing rules to create the fusion you desire. With any luck, you'll be able to adjust your balance on a per-character basis, too. That would be my hope.

 

[frankthedm]

Because Fantasy butt-kicking should not be about the trinkets I carry.

That is well and good, but a living pile of goo SHOULD take something extraordinary to deal with with it.

Sticking a weapon in it should go unrewarded. Having it chase you down into a trap you left ready to spring is good, damaging a vital spot on something that has no vitals is bad.

 

[DonTadow]

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

Fighter with a advanced class levels for hand to hand

 

[RFisher]

These "gish" PCs seem like a bad thing to me. I hope there will be a better way to prevent them than the DM just forbidding them.