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

[DonTadow]

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.

Why? I'd rather eleminate all the multiclass crap from the get go and make a way for those mix classes off the back.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

Why a 'bad thing'? It's not like they are going to outshine your specialists any time soon.

 

[SSquirrel]

Now, it's fair to say that neither of these are the kinds of magic you'd like your wizard characters to be able to cast - but they're not ipso facto silly. They only seem that way when you mischaracterise/b] casting a spell as using it and forgetting how to use it.

Thanks for all that, but that is basically the description over the years in D&D books. Not the exact words, but over the years I've just gotten sick of the "fire and forget" style of casting. There are different (and obviously IMO better) systems available in any number of games. I swap things around as I need to when I run, but I don't run as often as I play. Heck, I haven't even played in a year except for a few games a few months ago.

Never read the Vance books, they honestly don't sound all that appealing to me either. It may well be that in Vance's books it was a far greater achievement to store the knowledge in your head, but it's always just been an hour of study in D&D. By the time you're 10th level, that hour of study gets you dozens of spells. That doesn't strike me as exceedingly difficult verging on the impossible.


Warhammer FRPG>I snagged this from a used bin for $5 a few months back (1st Ed) cuz I had always heard good things and of course, almost as death friendly as Rolemaster heh. I immediately noticed all the things I hated about 2E that were gone in 3 like random race/class restrictions and such. I don't mind that a 1st level guy w/ a spear and a series of lucky rolls can kill a L15 champion of whoever. He should get a buttlaod of XP for it too

 

[William Ronald]

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.)

You forget to add, then resurrected by Asmodeus, who has ascended to godhood, who will kill it again for good measure.

I think monks will appear in some form as well. I think that archeypes are likelier to survive than any given mechanic.

 

[Glyfair]

Never read the Vance books, they honestly don't sound all that appealing to me either.

To each his own. If you like Gygax's prose you'll love Vance.

It may well be that in Vance's books it was a far greater achievement to store the knowledge in your head, but it's always just been an hour of study in D&D. By the time you're 10th level, that hour of study gets you dozens of spells. That doesn't strike me as exceedingly difficult verging on the impossible.

In earlier editions memorizing spells was a more arduous process. There was a set amount of time to memorize each spell based on level. High level characters spent a long time at their spellbooks if they exhausted their spells.

 

[SSquirrel]

To each his own. If you like Gygax's prose you'll love Vance.



In earlier editions memorizing spells was a more arduous process. There was a set amount of time to memorize each spell based on level. High level characters spent a long time at their spellbooks if they exhausted their spells.

Eh Gygax prose is so-so. I know I'm a heretic

Been playing 20 years, but haven't played a single bit of 1e or 2e since at least when 3E came out and I would have to wake up my wife as I dug in a series of boxes to unearth my copies heh. Reducing the study time needed was yet another thing D&D did right w/3E. Here's to them doing more things right in 4E

 

[SSquirrel]

If you are of the opinion that any single platform must be done first. Okay. Whatever. Other developers do they at the same time.

My problem is not just that they are not doing Macs/Linux/smartphones now, it is that they are choosing to use an engine powered by DirectX that darn nearly ensures an expensive crossplatform transition. Okay, understand they made an expedient choice to just get-r-done and out the door. They don't say they won't deliver a cross platform option, but they have as good as signalled it won't happen for years, likely never.

I'd like then an option for D&D Insider where I don't have to pay for features that are not designed to work for my platform and I won't then have to "subsidize" someone else.

I never said I think they have to choose one OS to go for first and get the others later if they can. WotC always seems to do some pretty good research before taking steps tho, and they likely found it would be in their best interest to go ahead and get a Windows product done and see about the others later. It's a valid business decision if the option to go dual platform and something not DirectX would have delayed them a significant amount of time beyond their target date.

I'm sorry you get burned in the choice they made. This is just another in a long line of examples since the 80s of a bit of software available on the PC w/no version on the Mac. That was always called a selling point for the PC market Heck, I sold computers at Best Buy in 95 the week Windows 95 came out. We would explain about all the different brands, but basically, unless they were doing home desktop publishing or music or happened to have several friends who were already using macs, we would steer them to pcs. When they saw how much more software was for the PC side, that was definitely a clincher for which way they went. *shrug*

 

[Henry]

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.

No offense meant but -- A Warhammer PC with 12 to 16 careers is roughly equivalent to a 50th or 60th level D&D character! No wonder they start to look the same, D&D characters will too, at that level. Most Warhammer characters I've heard of usually max out at 3 or 4 careers, at most, considering it can take anywhere from 5 to 10 adventures to max out one career...

 

[SHARK]

No offense meant but -- A Warhammer PC with 12 to 16 careers is roughly equivalent to a 50th or 60th level D&D character! No wonder they start to look the same, D&D characters will too, at that level. Most Warhammer characters I've heard of usually max out at 3 or 4 careers, at most, considering it can take anywhere from 5 to 10 adventures to max out one career...

Greetings!

*laughs* Thanks, Henry! Well, true. I should have elaborated more. In Warhammer, there are lots of beginning careers that offer a few skills, profile benefits, and Career exits. As you advance, however, and if your character already has the profile advance, and most of the skills, it becomes rather swift and easy to move through many careers. Indeed, most games accumulate fewer careers, but it depends on how often and how long you play, and how the players strategize and use their experience points.

I suppose my point though was that Warhammer, if you play it aggressively, and really move through the careers, the game does tap out, if that makes any sense. However, I should also note that depending on choices, for example, the game can reach a "ceiling" of sorts even with three to six careers, depending on the choices. Do you see what I'm saying though?

Good to see you Henry!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SSquirrel]

Heh I feel at least moderately out of step here in some ways. I'd never heard the Gish term in reference to fighter/mages. I think all my friends still love to reference the highly overpowered Bladesinger "Oh yeah he made a Bladesinger type. Yay". Monks in 3E were ok, but I was never too big a fan of them. I remember the Psionics Handbook came out not long after Crouching Tiger and you had all these psionic combat feats that seemed like they would blend perfectly with a monk for some crazy fun. Except, to stack enough to recreate something that felt like that, you really had to combine the psi classes together. I think somewhere around here ...ah yes here it is:

Psi-Monks
as Psi-Warrior except as listed below
Bonus feats at 1, 2, 6, 11, 16, 20 *total 6 instead of 8*
HD: d8
Monk Unarmed AB based on 4's so has attacks at 5/1, 9/5/1, 13/9/5/1...follows monk's progression...4 total attacks instead of 5
Damage: 1-4: d6, 5-10: d8, 11-15: d10, 16-20: d12 *no d20 damage*
Unarmored speed: 1-5: 30 ft, 6-10: 40 ft, 11-15: 50 ft, 16-20: 60 ft

My Psionics Handbok is probably packed up at this point tho, I think I wrote that up like 5 years ago heh. Seemed a reasonable blending that would allow for more of the wuxia-inspired psi feats

I have no problem with multiclassing, but basically it has to be less powerful than 2E multiclassing and easier to merge than 3E. In 2E, you would basically be 1 level behind in both classes, but be fully capable in both and that was strong enough that most of my friends were always multi heh. Not to mention the mounds and mounds of kits. I still love the Battlerager tho. Did a decent 3E prestige ever get made of that?