D&D 4E InQuest 4e article

[Singing Smurf]

I hope I haven't been scooped, but if not, check this out:

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm

Some cool hints:

"And the mage and barbarian might get along a little better thanks to revamped spell recovery rules that won’t do away with the need to rest to replenish spells, but will give players more options to recover spells and in-game incentives to do something other than call nappy-time every two encounters."

and

"The same thing will happen to the races covered in the core books, where the half-demon tieflings will claim a place at the expense of an undisclosed race—we’re guessing a half-elf, gnome and halfling were shut up in a dark cave with some paring knives, and no questions were asked of whoever came out…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition! "

AND!

"For example, Slavicsek tells us that “The Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords book, which gave fighter-type characters the same types of options spellcasters do by basically giving them spells for fighters,” was received very well. “That idea has been extremely popular, and we’re adopting something similar for Fourth Edition.”"

w00t!

 

[Grazzt]

Something else from that article:

And yes, Wizards does recommend you begin new campaigns with Fourth Edition. “It’s not going to be as huge a jump,” as from Second Edition to Third Edition, said Slavicsek, “but there’s enough changing in the core system of how we are doing classes and races and characters that we’re not even gonna attempt it—we’re just telling you it’s better to start over.”

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

"And the mage and barbarian might get along a little better thanks to revamped spell recovery rules that won’t do away with the need to rest to replenish spells, but will give players more options to recover spells and in-game incentives to do something other than call nappy-time every two encounters."

That's a great idea! (And well-put, too.)

"The same thing will happen to the races covered in the core books, where the half-demon tieflings will claim a place at the expense of an undisclosed race—we’re guessing a half-elf, gnome and halfling were shut up in a dark cave with some paring knives, and no questions were asked of whoever came out…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition! "

I hesitate to say it-- some folks here are going to hate me-- but I'd guess the gnomes are gone. In which case... I was ahead of the curve!

"For example, Slavicsek tells us that “The Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords book, which gave fighter-type characters the same types of options spellcasters do by basically giving them spells for fighters,” was received very well. “That idea has been extremely popular, and we’re adopting something similar for Fourth Edition.”"

Urggggggh... I hated Bo9S. Definitely NOT a fan of "spells for swordplay."

 

[Hjorimir]

Urggggggh... I hated Bo9S. Definitely NOT a fan of "spells for swordplay."

But what would you think about balancing particularlly powerful feats/maneuvers per encounter instead of spells? It is all a game of guessing right now, but that's what I see: Fighters with special maneuvers per encounter, not spells.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But what would you think about balancing particularlly powerful feats/maneuvers per encounter instead of spells? It is all a game of guessing right now, but that's what I see: Fighters with special maneuvers per encounter, not spells.

Well, obviously I think it can be done, and Mearls (Iron Heroes) is probably the right guy to do it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

It will definitely slow combat down-- presumably there will be an "array of exciting maneuvers" each of which has to be adjudicated in ways that, "I move here and attack" does not.

In my experience, most combats do not last more than 3 or 4 rounds. I have a hard time envisioning any Sword Maneuvers-- which, I will grant you, are FUN to play-- are not also SLOWER to play. Each maneuver description bloats the rulebook; each maneuver adjudication clogs play (yes, even if it's written down on an easy to find, easy to access "Special Maneuver Card").

My design inclination in fact was to go in the opposite direction. Rather than give the Swordsmen exciting Swordspells to "sprinkle" (?) through the (3, 4 rounds) combat, I would have given Spellcasters a very quick to adjudicate, zero-resource Spellblast to give them something to do on their turn other than waste precious time deciding... that they can't afford to do anything, yet.

 

[F4NBOY]

Urggggggh... I hated Bo9S. Definitely NOT a fan of "spells for swordplay."

Neither do I. But maybe the combat maneuvers won't be so "magical" like they were in Bo9S.
I know what you mean, Bo9S was a book full of spells disguised as combat maneuvers

 

[F4NBOY]

I liked this one: "So Fourth Edition will be a new rule set based on d20, but not remotely compatible."
I think nobody needs D&D 3.75

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, obviously I think it can be done, and Mearls (Iron Heroes) is probably the right guy to do it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

It will definitely slow combat down-- presumably there will be an "array of exciting maneuvers" each of which has to be adjudicated in ways that, "I move here and attack" does not.

In my experience, most combats do not last more than 3 or 4 rounds. I have a hard time envisioning any Sword Maneuvers-- which, I will grant you, are FUN to play-- are not also SLOWER to play. Each maneuver description bloats the rulebook; each maneuver adjudication clogs play (yes, even if it's written down on an easy to find, easy to access "Special Maneuver Card").

My design inclination in fact was to go in the opposite direction. Rather than give the Swordsmen exciting Swordspells to "sprinkle" (?) through the (3, 4 rounds) combat, I would have given Spellcasters a very quick to adjudicate, zero-resource Spellblast to give them something to do on their turn other than waste precious time deciding... that they can't afford to do anything, yet.

Neat idea with the Spellblast, Wulf.

I think it is pretty safe to say the comments about faster play simply refer to the removal of iterative attacks. That's just spiffy-keen with me, but I do think I'd enjoy neat maneuvers even at the cost of play speed; I just hope that if they go that way that the maneuvers are interesting but not complicated.

I'm fine with a lot of moving parts, I just want the parts to be reasonably fast in play and somewhat intuitive...if that makes sense.

 

[jasin]

"And the mage and barbarian might get along a little better thanks to revamped spell recovery rules that won’t do away with the need to rest to replenish spells, but will give players more options to recover spells and in-game incentives to do something other than call nappy-time every two encounters."

OK, I'm getting more optimistic...

"The same thing will happen to the races covered in the core books, where the half-demon tieflings will claim a place at the expense of an undisclosed race—we’re guessing a half-elf, gnome and halfling were shut up in a dark cave with some paring knives, and no questions were asked of whoever came out…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition!"

I'm torn. On one hand, half-demons as a core race? So many demons going around screwing mortals? D&D wasn't high magical enough already? Why couldn't they just leave them as near-human looking humans with fiend-tinged blood?

OTOH... tieflings in the PHB. Kick. Ass.

"For example, Slavicsek tells us that “The Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords book, which gave fighter-type characters the same types of options spellcasters do by basically giving them spells for fighters,” was received very well. “That idea has been extremely popular, and we’re adopting something similar for Fourth Edition.”"

If they do this one thing well, they'll have a lot of slack from me in other areas.

 

[Korgoth]

If they remove iterative attacks and give Fighter types a way to boost damage at higher levels (a flat bonus or a special attack like a "smash") that would probably speed play.