Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Professor Phobos]

You never know when you will be kidnapped by aliens and told that if you can't redo the bathroom on their spaceship, they will blow up the Earth.

Surely if they can kidnap him they could steal him some tools?

 

[HeinorNY]

You mean, like when they said "NPCs and monsters die when they hit 0 hit points, unless the DM decides they don't"?

No. Monsters dying when they hit 0 is a pretty good rule, since that's what gonna happen anyway in 99% of the time a monster is dropped.
Assigning a specific stat to monsters and then saying that rule should not be used in 99% of the situtations is pretty lame.

About those games that claim they provide "everything the game is ever gonna need", man.. I just don't trust those.

I prefer a game (and I believe much more in a game) that gives me the tools I need and also tells me how to make my own tools, when I might need them, or provides me a very simple and customizable system.

 

[VannATLC]

What ainatan said.

The best tools are those that allow you to make your own tools to fit the needs you have.

4e has suggestively indicated the prescence of such tools.

 

[Thyrwyn]

IN theory, a game that had a list of "here are several ways you could handle combat/health/magic/monsters/npcs. . . " would be great. The problem is that they then have to test and balance each and every possible permutation of those options. Realistically, there is no way they could reasonably do so and there is no way they would all balance equally as well.

 

[Crosswind]

It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."

I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.

...what if you had to take them on a backpacking trip? Still going to take 99 heavy things that you don't need?

(The more options you provide, the more cumbersome the rules set. At some point, the marginal utility isn't worth the marginal pain.)

-Cross

 

[I'm A Banana]

These people are there, especially in campaign settings. The old barkeep who used to take it to the goblins, the wicked and mercenary adventurers who are the Belloq to your Indiana Jones, and so on. But even these people are exceptional enough not to be commonplace. They don't fill towns wall to wall.

When we do Eberron stuff, I expect to see rival adventurers as potential villains.

The way I see it, you'll have a lot of ways to make up these types of people, depending on how competent and detailed you want them to be.

Great! I'm very happy with that.

Though it could just be the rediculously pleasant spring weather here in NYC at the moment, I'm gonna run with being very happy with that for a while.

 

[Khur]

It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."

I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.

Hey, I don't know about 100 tools for NPCs and monsters. I can safely say that you actually have more tools in 4e than you did in 3e, and 3e had more than hammer. But I realize, at this point, you'd just have to take my word for it.

 

[Lizard]

Hey, I don't know about 100 tools for NPCs and monsters. I can safely say that you actually have more tools in 4e than you did in 3e, and 3e had more than hammer. But I realize, at this point, you'd just have to take my word for it.

Well, that's impressive, if true -- and while I can take your word on it, I'll need to see the rules. (Like you said) The impression I've got from marketing -- which isn't necessarily accurate, due to either my fault or theirs -- is "3e gave you too many options and possibilities. You don't need all those options and possibilities. (Jedi handwave) We know what's fun, we know what you need, and we're removed all those 'decisions' from you. Making decisions isn't fun."

When marketing says "Easier!", I hear "Dumbed down". When marketing says "Simpler!", I hear "Fewer options". But, hey, you've seen (and written) the rules, and I haven't. If it actually provides more tools than 3x, then, it might be worth it.

 

[Khur]

Well, that's impressive, if true -- and while I can take your word on it, I'll need to see the rules. (Like you said) The impression I've got from marketing -- which isn't necessarily accurate, due to either my fault or theirs -- is "3e gave you too many options and possibilities. You don't need all those options and possibilities. (Jedi handwave) We know what's fun, we know what you need, and we're removed all those 'decisions' from you. Making decisions isn't fun."

When marketing says "Easier!", I hear "Dumbed down". When marketing says "Simpler!", I hear "Fewer options". But, hey, you've seen (and written) the rules, and I haven't. If it actually provides more tools than 3x, then, it might be worth it.

And the truth is, you might disagree with my assessment once you've seen the rules. That's fine, and I'd like to know that and why you feel that way if that ends up being the case. I can say I'm speaking as a DM who sees 4e's tools as providing enough options along with "Easier!", but I know my opinion isn't fact. Also, someone who doesn't know me really can't just take my opinion without considering I'm a Wizards employee.

I just hope that those who still disagree with me when the rules are out, and I'm sure some will, don't color me as disingenuous because of the disagreement. I don't have to be here or say anything at all. And I might be goofy, but even I'm not dumb enough to put something I believe to be false (or even half true) in writing . . . on the interweb . . . in front of fellow gamers.