I begin to worry...

[KingCrab]

Sure, locking down an opponent is fun. But, it also sucks when the wizard drops a second level Web spell and nerfs your entire encounter.

So then the solution is to weaken web just a bit, not to change what wizards do.

Save or sucks spells are fun. They shouldn't be overpowered, but they shouldn't be removed either.

 

[Fifth Element]

The idea that the designers were contemplating an aggro system is worrisome to me. I will not have my players telling me how I should run intelligent monsters because a game designer decided to include aggro rules like those in World of Warcraft.

Let me know how your players react when you tell them you're removing all enchantment [mind-affecting] spells from the game. Can't have them using charm spells on your intelligent monsters, after all.

And not to dredge up the other thread, but there were no examples given of the "aggro" system they experimented with, then rejected. Your assumption that it would be similar to WoW's system is merely your assumption, with no evidence to support it.

 

[Fifth Element]

As long as the abilities designed have a strong story element first and a mechanic second, I won't mind too much. But one thing that will definitely turn me from fourth edition will be any kind of aggro mechanic. I don't want that at all. Who an enemy attacks will be determined by the individual enemy's level of intelligence, their awareness of the capabilities of the players, and the best strategy available to them. None of this crud aggro system taken straight out of WoW.

A. The only mention of an aggro system from the designers was to say that they tried one out and rejected it. It will not be in 4E. So relax.

B. There is no evidence that the system they experimented with was directly ported from WoW. The term "aggro" was used because Mr. Mearls' post mentioning it was in response to another post mentioning it. Any assumption that the aggro system they tried is the same as WoW's is merely an assumption. No details were provided.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No, because the wizard has poor HP and armor selection and doesn't have near the defenses against magic and melee that the cleric does.

Also, because he's going to cause the greatest impact on the fight. The fighter is going to be doing the crossword in a Maze spell.

That would be meaningful if the wizard had anything to do with the remaining movement action than trying to stay out of melee because the first big hit by a creature like a troll would take him out.

Its not about movement./ Its about being able to move. Fighters, abrbarians, etc in 3.5 virtually require pounce to be effective. Fights last but a few rounds at high levels. If your targets are remotely spread out, the fighter isnt going to be pulling his weight, since he has to spend part of his action closing, and thus only getting a single attack. Simply moving around during a fight severely neutres a fighter, since he's going to be losing his full attack. Fortunately 4e seems ready to do away with this aggravation.

A commoner isn't going to mop up enemies like a fighter is.

And a fighter isnt going to mop up like the other "real" classes.

I'm a little confused about what else you expect the fighter to do. The progress options for a fighter allow him to swing his weapon really good. If you don't like what being a fighter entails, I'm genuinely confused what you expect out of a fighter.

Maybe be better in combat than every single other class? Hands down, the god of all combat enouncters, both offense and defensively, since he . He's not, since he's stuck playing second fiddle to casters in combat, and an utter joke outside of combat.

Or they could actually increase the fighter's non-comabt contribution to be meaningful. Either way, give him something.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Or, the fighter could spend some of those bonus feats (you know, his #1 class feature) on some combat focused feats and do more than just swing his sword. Like Power Attack, Sunder, Trip, Bull Rush, Disarm, etc etc etc.

Hmm, so we have sunder, aka destroy treasure. Bull rush, a fairly weak tactical maneuver thats pretty useless against non humanoids, disarm, etc. Power attack is of course assumed.

Oh, and he doesn't run out of "slots" or "charges" on these things, so he can still be doing them after the wizard is out of memorized spells and clutching to his wand/scrolls.

He's entirely limited by spell slots, namely the cleric's. He rests when the cleric is out of heals.

 

[WayneLigon]

Video game rules do not encourage roleplaying. Big example of this was the concern over aggro. The idea that the designers were contemplating an aggro system is worrisome to me.

If WoW never existed, and the mechanic wasn't first used in a computer game, I wonder if the mere concept would be so distasteful?

 

[Nifft]

Have we already discussed the old Chainmail and/or OD&D rules where dwarves had to attack ... goblins, I think? And kobolds & gnomes were automatic enemies who had to attack each other? My recollection is fuzzy.

Anyway, point is: hard aggro rules go way, way back. If that makes anyone feel better.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Video game rules do not encourage roleplaying. Big example of this was the concern over aggro. The idea that the designers were contemplating an aggro system is worrisome to me. I will not have my players telling me how I should run intelligent monsters because a game designer decided to include aggro rules like those in World of Warcraft.

I would prefer that the design inspiration for a pen and paper RPG was derived from books rather than video games. Video games focus on mechanics, whereas books focus on story. A creative game designer reads a book and figures out how to render an action described only by words into a useable form for an pen and paper RPG.

Nebulous abilities that do things like give bonuses to other party members to hit had better have a literary reason. If the only thinking behind using an ability is its mechanical advantage rather than how it applies from a story standpoint, then that thinking is too much akin to a video game.

If I cannot explain the ability with prose and visualize it as though it were involved in a story, I generally do not want it in my RPG. Then again, I'm one of those people that added in exceptions to the Cleave feat that required the player to follow a particular arc. A player using Cleave can not use a cleave attack on any opponent that satisfies the condition no matter where they are standing. I required that opponent to be in a position where a cleaving type attack was reasonable because I understood the intention of the mechanic from a story perspective.

As long as the abilities designed have a strong story element first and a mechanic second, I won't mind too much. But one thing that will definitely turn me from fourth edition will be any kind of aggro mechanic. I don't want that at all. Who an enemy attacks will be determined by the individual enemy's level of intelligence, their awareness of the capabilities of the players, and the best strategy available to them. None of this crud aggro system taken straight out of WoW.

So as far as your questions go, it'll be wait and see. I do have criteria The main one being that I must be able to imagine the ability occurring. I must be able to visualize the ability working. Nebulous abilities that grant an advantage for no good reason other than to give a useful advatage to a player will affect my decision to pick up the game.

Aggro mechanics are also informed on the story element. The story element is about the decision of the creature who to attack, and the aggro mechanic tries to describe a rule for it. The question the designers had was wether the rule was really "story element" first or not. And they found out that they couldn't make the "story element" first part too work, and thus left it alone. No harm done.

But I see one potential flaw in your post: Why do you assume that video games do not also aim to ground their mechanics in story elements?
CRPG and MMORPGs are mostly based on pen & paper RPGs, which have this goal.

And I also think it is important for a ruleset to not only focus on the "story". It must also offer rules that are entertaining to use, because role-playing games are also _games_. This sometimes require compromises with the storytelling part.

 

[Hussar]

So then the solution is to weaken web just a bit, not to change what wizards do.

Save or sucks spells are fun. They shouldn't be overpowered, but they shouldn't be removed either.

The problem is, you can replace web with a plethora of spells at just about every level. Sleep, hold person/monster, various charms, wall of force, maze, take your pick. That's just a small sampling from just core. Never mind the massive number of spells out there. People whinge about the fact that there's a couple of thousand feats many of which aren't for fighters. How many spells are there? Every spell is effectively a feat and many are far and away more powerful than any feat.

A fighter gets what 20 feats? Total. A wizard has 20 spells before 10th level. And, he gets to switch out his spells every day. And every one of those spells is as powerful or more powerful than a feat. I mean, what feat allows me to do a d6 points of damage per level to multiple targets within a 40 foot circle?

Can a wizard do it all day long? Nope, but, then again, that's hardly the point. In play, when the casters run out of spells, the party rests (usually when a cleric runs out). Or, the wizard buys a wand and can effectively blast away all day long.

No one answered this, so I'll ask again:

Which would your party rather face - a 17th level fighter or a 17th level wizard?

I remember a thread where it was reasonably argued that a 17th level wizard lich could defeat a million 5th level pc's. Yes, it was a joke, but, could a 17th level fighter make even a dent in those numbers? A 17th level wizard can level a city. A 17th level fighter gets grappled by a mob of commoners and dies.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Aggro mechanics are also informed on the story element. The story element is about the decision of the creature who to attack, and the aggro mechanic tries to describe a rule for it. The question the designers had was wether the rule was really "story element" first or not. And they found out that they couldn't make the "story element" first part too work, and thus left it alone. No harm done.

I read that. I'm happy they did away with it.

But I see one potential flaw in your post: Why do you assume that video games do not also aim to ground their mechanics in story elements?
CRPG and MMORPGs are mostly based on pen & paper RPGs, which have this goal.

By design a video game is too narrow to allow for much of a story element. I've played a Everquest and World of Warcraft as well as Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate. They all lacked what DnD gave me. That was because the world by virtue of being a video game was too rigid. You could not think outside the box and decide to do actions contrary to the rules of the video game world.

DnD has never felt that way. The rule set has always been fast and loose, more like guidelines. A DM could usually figure out a rule to apply to just about any situation. I hope the fluidity of the rules is maintained in the new edition. I also hope they were able to maintain the fluidity of the magic and combat system.

You could build all types of wizards and warriors in the third edition system. Though some paths may be more popular than others, you could still play with classes and feats to build the type of concept you wanted. I very much like the ability to play different concepts. As an example, I made a non-monk Ranger/Cleric who worshipped Shaundakul and could run like the wind. Maybe a waste of feats to most, but I liked the concept. I don't want an overly rigid rule set in fourth edition that turns everything into a damage fest.

From what I've read, it sounds like that is the way they are going. I'm still unhappy with the change to the hold and sleep, and darkness (or should i call them shadow now) spells. I thought Andy Collin's changes were pathetic and his reason was even more pathetic. Collin's changes to those spells made them a rarity (basically never) in my campaign, especially the darkness and sleep spells. The hold spells dropped in use as well.

With the removal of all save or die spells, it seems that the game is becoming a heavy dice rolling damage fest. Not only will the melee be focused on damage dealing, but now so will the casters. No save or die. No spells that allow for the control of opponents. Spells that move people into flanks not because it's good story, but because it's good mechanics.

I'm going to give it a read. I've been playing DnD for twenty years. I'm hope the elements that brought me to the game remain. I hope I can still tell a good story using the fourth edition rules. I'm still not sure I'll be satisfied if their magic system has turned into a damage fest or their control spell system is nothing more than short-term crowd control akin to MMORPGs.

And I also think it is important for a ruleset to not only focus on the "story". It must also offer rules that are entertaining to use, because role-playing games are also _games_. This sometimes require compromises with the storytelling part.

If I didn't want some rules, I wouldn't even buy the books. I'd engage in joint story telling with friends. I do want rules that are more guidelines. I want rules that are fluid so they can be adapted to a variety of situations. I also want lots of options to build a character. I liked that about third edition. Rigid rulesets are for video games that have a coded game engine that is the same for every player, fluid rule sets are better for pen and paper where the imagination is your game engine and can differ from person to person.