No, not the spell or status effect. Instead, I am finding some of the previewed 4e mechanics... odd (and given how few mechanics have been leaked, it feels like a high percentage, although low-number statistics caveats do apply). For example:
Elven perception aura. This feels (like has been said, although I cannot be bothered to track down the post) like the Dodge of 4e. The radius is *just* large enough that, most of the time it applies to the full party, except of course for the not-in-fact-uncommon cases of combat, or single-file corridors with large parties. Lets not even get into line-of-sight issues and corners. The bonus is small, and tracking it fairly screams "tedious". It isn't a fluff linchpin ability, so why include it at all? I thought part of the goal of 4e was to clean up such effects, with "effort to track">"reward".
Strict "per-encounter" and "encounter duration" (not, perhaps, as confirmed as the elf thingy). Firstly, I *am* a fan of per-encounter if it can be translated as "fast recharge" a la ToB. I am, however, willing to sign my name to the belief that encounter-as-time-frame-definition will be akin to the AoO of 4e (albeit possibly swapping which group it annoys, with per-encounter annoying the pro-AoO crowd). Defining "encounters" is *hard*. You need to worry about whether encounters occur in parallel or in series (problems with both). I forsee many a Sage Advice about encounter definitions and, more importantly, many a heated argument eating up game-time and gaming-fun about encounter definitions.
I worry even more because the problems with using encounters as durations may not show up in WotC playtesting. I would expect it to be most present in less experienced groups where unclear definitions are harder to handle (such groups are hard to playtest. WotC is certainly aware of the difficulty, but its a problem because it is somewhere between hard and impossible to address). I also expect it to be more of a problem in more adversarial groups. I don't know if WotC's playtesting groups are biased away from more adversarial player-DM relations, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Internal WotC gaming groups being less adversarial would surprise me even less.
Add in the existence of non-subjective per-encounter abilities (yay for ToB!) and you wonder why WotC is opening such a can of worms which, if it does turn into a problem, will seriously impact fun and intra-group relations. AoOs can be house-ruled out. I don't recommend it, but it won't break anything. Per-encounter abilities, on the other hand, seem to be fundamental to 4e.
Elven perception aura. This feels (like has been said, although I cannot be bothered to track down the post) like the Dodge of 4e. The radius is *just* large enough that, most of the time it applies to the full party, except of course for the not-in-fact-uncommon cases of combat, or single-file corridors with large parties. Lets not even get into line-of-sight issues and corners. The bonus is small, and tracking it fairly screams "tedious". It isn't a fluff linchpin ability, so why include it at all? I thought part of the goal of 4e was to clean up such effects, with "effort to track">"reward".
Strict "per-encounter" and "encounter duration" (not, perhaps, as confirmed as the elf thingy). Firstly, I *am* a fan of per-encounter if it can be translated as "fast recharge" a la ToB. I am, however, willing to sign my name to the belief that encounter-as-time-frame-definition will be akin to the AoO of 4e (albeit possibly swapping which group it annoys, with per-encounter annoying the pro-AoO crowd). Defining "encounters" is *hard*. You need to worry about whether encounters occur in parallel or in series (problems with both). I forsee many a Sage Advice about encounter definitions and, more importantly, many a heated argument eating up game-time and gaming-fun about encounter definitions.
I worry even more because the problems with using encounters as durations may not show up in WotC playtesting. I would expect it to be most present in less experienced groups where unclear definitions are harder to handle (such groups are hard to playtest. WotC is certainly aware of the difficulty, but its a problem because it is somewhere between hard and impossible to address). I also expect it to be more of a problem in more adversarial groups. I don't know if WotC's playtesting groups are biased away from more adversarial player-DM relations, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Internal WotC gaming groups being less adversarial would surprise me even less.
Add in the existence of non-subjective per-encounter abilities (yay for ToB!) and you wonder why WotC is opening such a can of worms which, if it does turn into a problem, will seriously impact fun and intra-group relations. AoOs can be house-ruled out. I don't recommend it, but it won't break anything. Per-encounter abilities, on the other hand, seem to be fundamental to 4e.
