Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[PeterWeller]

Being geared to dealing with mooks is just another way of saying side kick. So no I don't want to see that for any class. Every class should have its role in taking down the real enemy in the fight, not just playing cleanup while the hero of the tale takes on the boss.

Oh totally, but I don't see the difference (if there indeed is a difference) ever becoming so great as to make this noticeable. More that fighters are slightly geared towards large fights, while paladins are slightly geared towards fighting a big bad.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

I'm having the opposite reaction. It's totally my laziness kicking in but I'll use miniatures in 3e because people move only occasionally as a way to say I'm attacking that orc. If people and monsters moved every round because they want to do super move roll through the legs hamstringapalooza um I am not busting out the miniatures its too much work and I'll just wing it.


Ok I'll probably use miniatures a bit but mainly because one of the players creates a bajillion miniatures. But they will probably be used much more abstractly and mainly for cool factor.

 

[Ahglock]

Oh totally, but I don't see the difference (if there indeed is a difference) ever becoming so great as to make this noticeable. More that fighters are slightly geared towards large fights, while paladins are slightly geared towards fighting a big bad.

I hope you are right, i just don't want to see a couple classes being the anti-boss classes while everyone else gets to play whack-a-kobold.

 

[PeterWeller]

I hope you are right, i just don't want to see a couple classes being the anti-boss classes while everyone else gets to play whack-a-kobold.

I'm watching Kill Bill right now (God bless you, IFC), so I'm thinking like this: the fighter does slightly better against the Crazy Eighty-Eight, while the paladin is a little better suited for fighting O'ren. That, I think would be frikking cool.

 

[Imp]

Three words for you

"Plus One Sword"

Having a completely out of game character description contain information on a character's role (which has pretty much always been the case) is fairly minor compared to having the in game name of an item contain game mechanics information (even if you like most people probably found another name for it).

"Plus One Sword" is crap, too, of course. But everybody's used to it. The distinction is between "some out-of-character jargon" and "more out-of-character jargon." The game has a ton of jargon already...and some stuff that engages the imagination. I would rather not have more jargon front and center. I would definitely rather not have characters saying to each other in-game "Merloc, don't we need another striker for this adventure?" even if they're already calling things plus-one swords or whatever. It's not a binary issue, it's cumulative.

 

[Green Knight]

"Plus One Sword" is crap, too, of course. But everybody's used to it. The distinction is between "some out-of-character jargon" and "more out-of-character jargon." The game has a ton of jargon already...and some stuff that engages the imagination. I would rather not have more jargon front and center. I would definitely rather not have characters saying to each other in-game "Merloc, don't we need another striker for this adventure?" even if they're already calling things plus-one swords or whatever. It's not a binary issue, it's cumulative.

The difference, though, is that the former is jargon which impacts the game, while the latter is jargon which doesn't impact the game. If a +1 sword and a +2 sword pop into your lap ingame, you have to come up with some way for your character to explain the power of those weapons and to differentiate them from each other, without actually saying "This one's a +1 Sword and that one's a +2 Sword" (I.E. "This sword has a faint magical aura, while that one has a weak magical aura". "So what does that mean? They both sound equally weak" "Faint is worse then weak, so sell the one with the faint magical aura and keep the one with the weak magical aura").

But with class roles, however, that's not something that'll ever come up in a game. I doubt Sir Oglethorp is ever gonna ask the party Warlock why he's a Striker and not a Controller. That jargon is purely for the players, and doesn't impact roleplaying in the slightest.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But with class roles, however, that's not something that'll ever come up in a game. I doubt Sir Oglethorp is ever gonna ask the party Warlock why he's a Striker and not a Controller. That jargon is purely for the players, and doesn't impact roleplaying in the slightest.

While I agree that it is beneficial if a "Role of the Class" chapter in every class description makes it very clear to the player what the underlying concept of it is (in order to avoid things like "What do you mean, my Wizard is not good in toe-to-toe melee?? ), I'm a 100% certain that, if there should EVER be a 4E OotS, you will see exactly that happening. Not that I mind, you see.

 

[WhatGravitas]

"Plus One Sword" is crap, too, of course. But everybody's used to it. The distinction is between "some out-of-character jargon" and "more out-of-character jargon." The game has a ton of jargon already...and some stuff that engages the imagination. I would rather not have more jargon front and center. I would definitely rather not have characters saying to each other in-game "Merloc, don't we need another striker for this adventure?" even if they're already calling things plus-one swords or whatever. It's not a binary issue, it's cumulative.

On the other hand, what's the alternative. We already have roles and always had. But if we step back from that "Ivory Tower Game Design", in what other way do you want to convey the information to the reader?

I definitively think that a step away from that "here are the rules"-approach is good, as it makes easier for everyone to play the game and conceive the underlying principles.

See, these roles were always there, and now, the designers are just laying them out explicitly. In what way is that different from the Behind the Curtain-sidebars, except that the players get some love too.

I mean, I'm not too keen on the names as well, but they're fitting, and I don't know of another alternative - and for your example: In what way is that different from "we need a cleric" (aka healbot)? If that's happening, that's an issue with the players, because they want to fill each role.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

About the +1 sword problem: our group came up with a way of dealing with this stuff in character, we just said "this sword was enchanted once, this sword was enchanted twice"
I guess it sounds a bit better in german...

@Michelle Carters Playtest: I'm pretty sure now that the mystery race is Goblin. Pete Schäfer mentioned a Goblin Ranger in his playtest, and now Michelle Carter confirms that the class of the mystery race in Chris Perkins is Ranger! It fits with all the other hints we got and it adds another small race to the PHB lineup!

 

[Khaalis]

@Michelle Carters Playtest: I'm pretty sure now that the mystery race is Goblin. Pete Schäfer mentioned a Goblin Ranger in his playtest, and now Michelle Carter confirms that the class of the mystery race in Chris Perkins is Ranger! It fits with all the other hints we got and it adds another small race to the PHB lineup!

I'm not convinced of this logic. I get the impression the Goblin Ranger is an option of "Monster from the MM played as a PC" not that someone goofed up that bad and let the "Mystery Race" out of the bag.

I think its still a mystery race. My personal bets, from the hints so far are currently on Hobgoblin or Half-Dragon to fill the "beefy race" role that went MIA with the Half-Orc. JMHO.