For the first time... apprehension

[BadMojo]

On the contrary, BadMojo, I think there indeed will be saving the world stuff in there.

I guess I was thinking about the adventures mentioned in the playtests and the new "H" series. They seem very old school. I guess they may not be as representative of the game as I thought they'd be.

I wonder what something like Red Hand of Doom would be conisdered in 4E? Paragon? It has a definite "save the world" vibe.

 

[Doug McCrae]

They don't have the Bard spell list nor the Illusion school's interesting spells (the Images, Hallucinatory Terrain, Mislead, Mirage Arcana, Phantasmal Killer, the Shadow spells...).

The images (silent, minor, etc) and mislead are on the beguiler's list. Also the advanced learning class feature can be used to learn any illusion or enchantment spell.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The images (silent, minor, etc) and mislead are on the beguiler's list. Also the advanced learning class feature can be used to learn any illusion or enchantment spell.

I want ALL of the illusion school available, not grabbing a couple of spells on the side. The images may be in, but the terrain illusions and shadow spells aren't, IIRC, and I love those.

... Wha?

Since when has D&D not been about combat and wargaming?

I must concur in confusion with this person. How has D&D not always been combat focused?

 

[Najo]

Possibly. I looked at Races and Classes and decided not to buy it (just tonight, in fact). My reading of it at the bookstore implied that they are going very much toward the wargaming aspect which is in fact much more like WoW than I would have preferred. I'm still interested because I don't have a lot of attachment to 3E, but they seem to only care about combat in 4E.

This is plain wrong.

I own it, and am reading the book. I have flipped through it in pieces too. I do not understand where you get they are focusing on the wargaming aspect. If anything 3.0 and 3.5 did. 4e is loaded with story, role playing and adventure.

They specifically mentioned that they are pushing the DM as storyteller over the DM as opponent. All of the races are loaded with history, adventure hooks and cool stories. Each race has collections of legends and myths that may or may not be real, depending on your DMs wishes. There is so much to play off of in this book alone and it is all role playing focused.

Fluff driven mechanics, Paragon and Epic paths, all the work they put into cleaning up the myths and lore, the chosing of the races and eliminating ones that hurt the role playing of the game, character roles and their fluffy, action driven class abilties. The game is loaded with more fantasy adventure than it ever has had. It is unreal

With all of that, I really do not know how did you come to the conclusion that they are turning 4e into a wargame? It sounds like you didn't read the book.

 

[Banshee16]

I'm not liking these "control" type abilities (from how they sound, so far). Like the ones allowing fighters etc. to issue a challenge or whatever the mechanism is, that force opponents to fight them. I always thought that's what attacks of opportunities and threat ranges were for.

As GM, it should be *me* who determines whether a particular opponent sticks around to fight the fighter or whichever character. Not some ability. Any ability to force opponents to fight should be intelligence linked or something. I could see a fighter having an ability to force a goblin with 8 INT to fight...but it might not work against an INT 15 Drow, for instance.

Banshee

 

[Simon Marks]

I'm not liking these "control" type abilities (from how they sound, so far). Like the ones allowing fighters etc. to issue a challenge or whatever the mechanism is, that force opponents to fight them.

Which one?

Because the only one mentioned so far was an effect of an Epic level Smite from a Paladin.

I've yet to hear of a control type ability that forces an opponent to fight them aside from this (divine) one.

**Edit; sorry Rechan, I'm faster on the type!**

 

[Rechan]

I'm not liking these "control" type abilities (from how they sound, so far). Like the ones allowing fighters etc. to issue a challenge or whatever the mechanism is, that force opponents to fight them. I always thought that's what attacks of opportunities and threat ranges were for.

Which powers are those? I haven't seen those powers get dropped on the fighter.

I've seen them suggested that the Paladin will be getting, as they are Divinely-powered compulsions. But not the Fighter.

The fighter gets the monsters to stick with him because he's got all the AoOs to beat them in the skull if they try to get past him, or maybe other hindering abilities like tripping/disarming, making terrain difficult to move through by getting in their way, etc.

 

[Gloombunny]

Which one?

Because the only one mentioned so far was an effect of an Epic level Smite from a Paladin.

Which is magical, and resisted by Will. Magic that beats someone's Will can make them do all kinds of crazy things, and that's always been a part of D&D. (Ok, it used to be "save vs spell" rather than "Will", but you get the point.)

 

[Dormammu]

With all of that, I really do not know how did you come to the conclusion that they are turning 4e into a wargame? It sounds like you didn't read the book.

The best example I can come up with from memory is the intention to make Sneak Attack usable versus almost anything (ie, they are removing immunity from constructs and undead and so forth).

Now some people may think "Hey, great! Rogues now don't struggle in those fights!" But all I see is that it made sense before and there's nothing wrong with Rogues struggling in those fights. I see the difference between an RPG (even an über war-gamey one like D&D) and a computer or miniature wargame is that RPGs are reflecting fiction and storytelling. If you look at stories, the idea of foes that tax the abilities of the character are a fundamental point.

Spider-Man cannot beat the hell out of the Juggernaut. Conan cannot strangle a ghost or hack it to pieces with his sword. Why can't the inability for a Rogue to "backstab" a stone golem be a place for the Rogue to use brains to help the party in another way? Maybe he just has to rely on his companions more in that fight. It's ok, when they need to get into the fortress and they wait for him to scale the wall and let them in he'll get to pay the favor back.

There are other decisions similar to this. The "fire elementals aren't immune to fire" discussion elsewhere on the boards come to mind. The idea of Clerics being healers who don't have to spend actions to heal so they can still kick ass is another case. They're just dumb imo because its the designers balancing combat to the point where commonsense story elements are being sacrificed. It's also making the roles of the different classes more generic. How is it cooler to make sure every character can attack to do damage every round all the time? There was a time when that's what defined Fighters.

 

[KingCrab]

I'm not liking these "control" type abilities (from how they sound, so far). Like the ones allowing fighters etc. to issue a challenge or whatever the mechanism is, that force opponents to fight them. I always thought that's what attacks of opportunities and threat ranges were for.

I agree, because those abilities aren't very fun when they're used against the party. If a party of NPC villains repeatedly uses those powers the PCs might not be able to make many decisions in combat, since their hands will be forced by the NPCs. That doesn't sound like fun. Making decisions is fun.