D&D 4E 4E: What we think we know

[Greylock]

A small request to MerricB:

For those of us who haven't been following this thread blow by blow, could you edit your OP to reflect any new tidbits that have been confirmed?

Thanks,

G

 

[ogre]

Who actually believes that PCs need to have defined roles in any given encounter?

Yeah, good point. I can see it being relavant for DMs and encounters, but for PCs? I can't remember a game where PC roles had anything to do with the games I play in. Players just make whatever PC they want and we let happen whatever happens! ;-)
This concept seems too storybookish for me. I hope it's not a necessary concept for 4e.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

4 groups of roles...

defender (fighter, paladin)
leader (cleric, warlord)
controler (wizard, ?)
striker (rogue, ranger)

Hope, I got it right... please watch and correct it if necessary... Sounds great. Thanks James!!!

That's what I was hearing there, too.

I read that the sorcerer was still in, but haven't read anything about a mage.

I don't think that any of them will be any more a warlockish class than the rest, because it read that all classes will have /will, /encounter and /day abilities. No need for the warlock any more, at least not for his mechanics, because the mechanics are an integral part of the rules.

I hope most of those we haven't heard about will still be around:

Barbarian
Druid
Bard (well, the mechanics suck right now, but the concept is great.)
Monk


Well, I guess the barbarian, if it's no longer a class, could be merged into the fighter, with a path of abilities (manoeuvres, talents, whatever), and so could the monk (the mystical aspects could be a another path of abilities, and if there will be manoeuvres like in the Tome of Battle, we'll already have the funky martial arts stuff that is the other part of the monk's concept). I could even see bardic abilities for a rogue, stuff dealing with music and knowledge.

Only the druid is, in my opinion, too dissimilar to the cleric for the two classes to merge.

 

[wayne62682]

I haven't slogged through the entire thread, but here are some thoughts:

- Not really sure how I feel about the "defined roles" thing. I thought the point of 3.x was that there were no defined roles, and you could play whatever you want? If 4E is designed with the assumption that you're going to have one of each role, isn't that basically forcing people to play things? e.g.

Player 1: I was thinking of playing a Dwarf Fighter with <insert various specific things>
Player 2: Oh... sorry, but Bob here is already playing the "defender" role. We don't have a "controller" role yet, so you can play the Wizard.
Player 1: ...

Hopefully that won't be the case, but it sounds close to requiring archetypal roles in the group.

- Similar train of thought with the racial differences. It sounds like they're going away from the "any race can be anything" and running dangerously close to the old "Only members of races x, y and z can be this class" nonsense in the bad old days. Again, it's too early to be sure, and I'm certain they won't do something like that, but it was a point of concern with some of my friends.

- Finally, regarding the VTT. It would be possible, given that the DI is going to have a MySpace aspect to it, to have "groups" and do a check allowing everyone access to the group's pooled online content. For example, if the DM has two books that the player's dont, and has paid the unlock fee, anyone who is listed in his gaming group can make use of them with the character generator. Same if Player A has a book that nobody else has; members of his/her regular gaming group can access them for games if he's paid the fee. Obviously this would require a permission-based "Join Group" feature of the site, so the DM and his/her players are all linked together as being a regular gaming group who regularly plays online. That said, I doubt they'll go this route and either everyone will have to unlock their own copy (thus forcing you to purchase more books...) or have a license fee for multiple licenses like in the software industry.

 

[Greg K]

Yeah, good point. I can see it being relavant for DMs and encounters, but for PCs? I can't remember a game where PC roles had anything to do with the games I play in. Players just make whatever PC they want and we let happen whatever happens! ;-)
This concept seems too storybookish for me. I hope it's not a necessary concept for 4e.

I don't think they should be telling us the roles. It's up to the DM to decide whether to set race and class limitations and make any tweaks to them with house rules based upon the campaign world and the players to build their characters within those limitations (if any).

 

[Alnag]

The roles are mostly about the roles in fight. Defender, striker, leader and controler. It is not about a personality of the character but about the powers the class has. They will diversify above these roles outside the combat and even more in the individual presentation. It is just a way to graps mechanically the problem of design. Not something restrictive. Listen to the video with James Wyatt (link above).

 

[catsclaw227]

Well, really, it's quite a bit more than just the VTT for 120 bucks a year. It's a twin subscription to Dungeon and Dragon, online extras AND the VTT, with all the Dungeon adventures being VTT supported out of the box. That right there is a FANTASTIC resource. Being able to get something like an Adventure Path and use it right away in a VTT would be great.

QFT --

I was paying:

$95.20 - 12 months of Dungeon and Dragon
$74.80 - Battlegrounds VTT and 3 floating player licenses
??????? - HOURS and HOURS spent converting my non-pdf (i.e. Dungeon mags, non-SRD gaming materials) stuff into electronic info for use at the gaming table. I DM with a laptop and DM Genie.

$120 for a year of DnDI sounds like a bargain to me, especially if they adopt a policy that allows 3rd party publishers to create DnDI content from their works. Heck, that sounds like a strong 3rd party company already.... converting your old 3rd ed adventures into DnDI compatible modules.

 

[Particle_Man]

Perhaps the DMG will have things such as "how to construct a fun campaign for a 'no controller' or 'all defender' party" or some such.

 

[catsclaw227]

Perhaps the DMG will have things such as "how to construct a fun campaign for a 'no controller' or 'all defender' party" or some such.

I think this would be essential to maintaining flexability within the sytem of roles.

Hmmm... which gives me an idea about a 3rd party gaming supplement. I should start writing these down now...

 

[Cake Mage]

Player 1: I was thinking of playing a Dwarf Fighter with <insert various specific things>
Player 2: Oh... sorry, but Bob here is already playing the "defender" role. We don't have a "controller" role yet, so you can play the Wizard.
Player 1: ...

Don't we do that now anyway? When a new player joins the group with, say, a party of 3 people already
there is a fighter wizard and rogue

There is no cleric so new guy has to be a cleric or druid. But druids suck so play a cleric new guy.


Same thing really. Now it just spells it out.