Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[Green Knight]

Making the challenge a divine ability gets rid of a lot of my complaints about the power as well.

Yeah, doesn't make much sense for an orc to stop attacking the pasty wizard and go rushing at the heavily armored knight just cause he called him a name. Makes much more sense when that orc is being compelled by the power of the Paladin's god.

 

[MerricB]

Ugh, it looks like the "controller," "striker," etc. . . language is going to actually be in the PHB. Blech.

It's been implied before - it's part of getting rid of the "system mastery" fallacy that 3e was designed with. A new player (or even an experienced player) will be able to read the description of a class and have a good idea of what it does.

Cheers!

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Given that the knight came out in PHB 2, I suspect it's more "the knight was a preview of the 4e paladin."

And to continue this, I think that if you take a dragon shaman, give it an ability/power choice every odd level and a bonus feat every even level, then you'll get something that looks a lot like the 4e cleric.

I wonder if the Duskblade and Beguiler were tests of other 4e concepts? If so, they don't seem to be in the 4e PHB1.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Ugh, it looks like the "controller," "striker," etc. . . language is going to actually be in the PHB. Blech.

I think it's fine. I don't know better names, do you? I mean, "controller", "defender", "leader", and "striker" are not very fancy and precise descriptions. I like it.

It's better than artillery/crowd control/debuffer, tank, healer/buffer, and dps/damage dealer, isn't it?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Andor]

The 'combat advantage' term stuck out for me. Have we seen that before? It's clearly akin to the 'defender is flat-footed' condition in 3.x since it let's the rogue sneak attack, although possibly not as powerful as it's implied that flanking is rolled into it. Perhaps it's a blanket +X bonus to attack and allows the use of abilities that require combat advantage. I like it, it's elegant. Although possibly confusing since in 3.X combat advantages is kind of a blanket term for things that grant a circumstance bonus for combat like being on higher ground. they'll need another term for that stuff then.

I also like the tern Combat Advantage because it seems more active. It's not just that I caught him with his pants down, but I am better over broken ground because I studied cappo ferra. I know something you do not know...

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The overwhelming impression I get from every single one of these playtest reports is that movement and positioning have become central aspects of the gameplay. Perhaps even THE central aspects.

Rogues as a class require positioning and have abilities related to positioning, warlocks can move creatures as a side-effect, the entire controller role seems to be built around movement, the defender role around restricting movement and targeting, dragons can move targets with a tail slap, etc.

Star Wars Saga Edition makes movement in combat more viable and attractive, but doesn't include as many abilities related to it in the full book as we've heard of in just the relatively mechanically sparse early reports on D&D 4e.

Personally, I think this is great. D&D has the core of a really good position-based tactical engine, and making movement absolutely central to it is playing to its strengths - tons of almost entirely untapped design space there, much of which is likely to produce better gameplay.

 

[el-remmen]

I think it's fine. I don't know better names, do you? I mean, "controller", "defender", "leader", and "striker" are not very fancy and precise descriptions. I like it.

It's better than artillery/crowd control/debuffer, tank, healer/buffer, and dps/damage dealer, isn't it?

Cheers, LT.

I don't see the need for "role names" at all. Just describe what the class does and we'll figure out how best to use it.

 

[Rechan]

we'll figure out how best to use it.

Except Wizards don't want to do that, and I'm commending them for it. They don't want people to stumble around blindly with the system until they figure out what works and what doesn't.

They want everything to work and it to be easily recognizable.

 

[Rechan]

The overwhelming impression I get from every single one of these playtest reports is that movement and positioning have become central aspects of the gameplay. Perhaps even THE central aspects.

The only part about that is that for someone who games Online, this sucks.

 

[EATherrian]

These tests are making it look more and more like what we are going to get is a fantasy tactical simulator. If I wanted to play wargames, I'd play wargames. I want to play D&D, and I want to not have to use miniatures, so it's looking less and less like I'll enjoy 4e.