D&D 4E David Noonan on 4E "Cloudwatching" (Added Dave's newest comment from his blog)

[Grog]

Again, self-identifying is fundamentally different than WotC identifying you because it sees an advantage in doing so. Moreover, if said blurbs came out after the books had gone to print, there wouldn't be any real loss for WotC that I could see.

Well, at that point, the books would be coming out shortly (plus many more detailed previews would be available) and we could all decide for ourselves whether or not we liked them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, at that point, the books would be coming out shortly (plus many more detailed previews would be available) and we could all decide for ourselves whether or not we liked them.

Mr. Noonan can chime in and tell me if I'm wrong, and why.

(Unless you are suggesting that WotC is going to clam up the minute the books go to the printers, rather than continue to hype/advertise them.......?)

RC

 

[Grog]

Okay, I can see this is pointless. Catch you later.

 

[WizarDru]

That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it?

It certainly was at the time, yes.

And, since some of those house rules are better than the kludges in the book, finding out how they work in play is worthwhile (to me, at least).

Obviously, just as everyone doesn't agree that the rules need changing, there are people who don't agree that some folks house-rules or kludges are superior to the official solutions. Upper Krust, for example, spent a great deal of effort creating an alternate CR/EL system that was of no value to me at all. It worked well for him and for some others, but I found it caused more confusion and work than the system in the book. And that assumes that solutions have been found and put forth...which I can say from personal experience that they haven't, for me, at least.

That leaves aside the argument that all DMs actually want to be bothered designing tons of alternate systems to cover the gaps in 3e...or for that matter that we can even agree what problems exist (which this thread clearly shows we don't all agree upon). I don't have the same amount of free time I did 20 years ago. If WotC can develop solutions for the parts of the game that my players and I don't enjoy, then I'll welcome it. If they make the game worse, then I'll vote with my dollars.

When 3.5 was announced, some people met it with a large amount of negativity. I was somewhat skeptical, but found that (with the exception of Darkness), all the changes were for the better and my game benefited. So WotC has a track record with me of improving the game quite well twice now. The announced features they've mentioned have all been things that jibe personally with me and my game, so I've gone from guarded to optimistic. I understand other's skepticism, I merely don't share it.

For many DMs, I suspect, it will seem as though the reward for solving the problems of 3e is having to solve the new problems of 4e, if they switch.

A valid point. But then, they don't have to switch if they find the new edition doesn't work for them. Whether 4e is like 3.5 or like 2e remains to be seen, but I know where I'm placing my odds.

I'm not asking for detailed specifics; I'm asking for an overview of what they are thinking, specifically: What sorts of abilities would be per encounter for a wizard? No mechanics required, just a general idea. Likewise for the cleric. A general idea of how they're tackling one or two of the current "resource management" classes ought to give us a much better idea as to whether or not we're going to like it.

Those sound like detailed specifics to me, but obviously our opinions differ on that point. However, I think you've already gotten this information. They specifically reference the Reserve Feats from Complete Arcane and the maneuvers and stances of Book of Nine Swords as being inspirations. They've already been quite clear that the cleric will be able to do things like do minor healing while fighting (or other actions, to prevent him from spending all his time JUST healing). The 4e info page has a lot of these simple examples of what they're trying to do and the logic behind their goals.

Stuff like this sounds like exactly what you were asking for, to me:

"Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly."

 

[Raven Crowking]

WizarDru, you may be right. I may just be looking for some reason to think that the parts I see that I like are not hopeless lost in the parts that I see that I do not like.

OTOH, I hadn't initially expected to see anything I liked, so that says something good, I suppose.

RC

 

[Brewhammer]

As many times as they want? The fact that Grappling grinds my combats to a halt doesn't make Expedition to Ravenloft any less of a quality product.

If grappling rules are grinding your combats to a halt then that's extremely poor DM'ing.

I also enjoy Ravenloft - I just don't want to have to keep buying the damn thing over and over.

 

[Glyfair]

According to David Noonan, they're also going to include a clause preventing people from even admitting that they are playtesters. I believe that this was done in previous playtests as well.

I'll will say that was in my playtest experience as well. The only reason I even mention I'm a playtester is because I was credited as a playtester in the rules for several of the games.

This couldn't happen, because if this naysayer became a playtester, he or she would be under an NDA and couldn't talk about their experience at all. In fact, it's been said that the NDA will prevent people from so much as saying that they are playtesters.

PLus, I would be very surprised if a known naysayer would be chosen as a playtester. It wouldn't be because of fear of negative comments in the playtest reports, but because a disgruntled player is a huge threat as a playtest leak.

 

[Glyfair]

They have stated that they pretty much shut the office down for a month just to intensely playtest the game for that month. If that's not "working hard at working all the kinks out internally" then I have no idea what is.​

I'm talking about outside playtesters. Internal playtesters follow different rules (largely because they can easily check with the "powers that be" to see what they are allowed to say.

Plus, there are exceptions. However, they are pretty rare.

 

[BadMojo]

If grappling rules are grinding your combats to a halt then that's extremely poor DM'ing.

I also enjoy Ravenloft - I just don't want to have to keep buying the damn thing over and over.

I don't think that's really fair.

The grappling rules are very cumbersome and I can see it slowing combat down quite a bit of you have a lot of creatures using the grapple action as part of their primary method of attack.

If a DM or player doesn't use the grapple rules often, it can definitely take time to work through it when it comes up.

 

[Brewhammer]

I don't think that's really fair.

The grappling rules are very cumbersome and I can see it slowing combat down quite a bit of you have a lot of creatures using the grapple action as part of their primary method of attack.

If a DM or player doesn't use the grapple rules often, it can definitely take time to work through it when it comes up.

It's entirely, 100% fair to say that. Ultimately it's the DM's job to control the flow of the game. If something's clunky then it's time to find a work around or to simplify it - or even to wing it in the middle of a game. If a game is slow or clunky then that all comes back to the DM.

Please don't take that as a defense of the laughable grappling rules -heh.