Jason Bulmahn Speaks about DDXP(His take on the system)

[jonrog1]

In short, you don't want a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Definitely not a bad design choice.



Ah. So what you're saying is that the decision to make Saves standard for everyone is because the "smoothening" of the Save rolls (because you now roll every round) has greatly highlighted the real (probability-wise) differences between the Fortitude, Will, and Reflex saves of various classes. Unlike before where everything was simply swingy because everyone makes just a single roll.

Instead, the main method for avoiding effects will be the Reflex, Will, and Fortitude defense, which is still different depending on the class of your character.

Okay, I think that works for me.

Having run the system, that's pretty much it. The class bonuses are in the initial chance to affect you, which meshes with the new power design. After that, individual racial "save" (and I put that in quotes because it is definitely NOT the save of your youth) bonuses hve pretty decent effec ton how LONG the power has you in its thrall. It is indeed snappy and useful in combat.

 

[coyote6]

It's sort of like giving small creatures a Strength penalty and making them use weapons that deal less damage. Doing one of these gets the desired result: Small creatures deal less damage with weapons. Doing both means small creatures do insignificant damage with weapons and are dumb to use them. Instead of a nudge away from something, we've given a shove. That's not what we want.

Does this mean we've seen the last of 1d3 damage Small daggers?!?

Belkar will be happy.

Edit: wait, it probably just means no Str penalty for halflings. Still going to have to live with the weapon shrinkage then.

 

[coyote6]

I wonder if there was a misapplication of the rules or if it might be something they will/have fixed in the final rules. We know the temp HP cannot stack, I wonder if ongoing damage also should not stack - at least from the same attack type.

If you have a cup of flammable liquid that you ignite, it won't burn hotter or faster if you add more of it to the cup, it will flare for a moment as you add it and then return to the level it was burning at before except it will burn for a longer time.

On the other hand, if I get napalm splashed on my left forearm, then get some more splashed on my legs, then on my back, I will be in progressively deeper trouble. Or if you ingest some toxic substance, you are generally going to be even worse off if you ingest more. So stacking ongoing effects can make sense, at least in some situations. Of course, in other situations, it won't make sense -- if you're engulfed in freezing mist and the cold is slowly freezing you, adding more mist doesn't seem to be worse -- you're already engulfed.

Thus, I would hope that some ongoing damage powers would stack, and others wouldn't, with the differences being where it makes sense (and is balanced for the particular entities intended power level).

(Hmm, power level -- I just realized 4e monster levels appear to have much the same purpose as M&M power levels for villains -- a particular level will give you a solid idea of what the parameters of that foe's combat abilities should be. Interesting.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well I think what a lot of people will miss will be the repertoire of spells they had before where they could go through a battle and cast several spells throughout the course of a battle and now they won't. Gone are the days of having eight or nine spells to cast in a given battle if not for a given level of spells alone at high level. Might still have the same number of things to choose from but will not be able to go through all of them like before.

I can't speak for anyones experience but mine, but I find the above statement to be not at all how wizards played out in my games.

Wizards always had a spellbook full of fun to do things, but when it came time to figure out your daily spells it was invariably something like this.

Scorching Ray X3
Color Spray
Something Different

Invisibility X2
Something Different

Fireball

The fun-to-do-once-in-a-blue-moon effects were accomplished by using scrolls, not by memorizing a wierd list of random spells just in case.

So the intent was to give the wizards a couple of reuseable combat powers to eliminate the Scorching Rays and Fireballs from the spelllist, and to give them a few fun powers they can do throughout the day taken from their spellbook. Since the playtest was combat-focused the two "fun" powers were Sleep and Acid Arrow, one of which wasn't particularly fun.

I think that in the end of the day, a 10 level 4e wizard will end up casting more "fun" powers a day than the 3e, because they don't have to dedicate slots to combat powers, unless they want to.

DS

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And it is. The evidence so far is that if you want to one-shot a 4E 1st level character, you use something like a black dragon, which is a level 4 boss. If you want to one-shot a 3E 1st level character, you only need to use a CR 2 ogre. Or, if it's a 3E 1st level wizard, a CR 1/2 orc with a greataxe.

I think the CR 1/2 orcs with greataxes could pretty much one-shot 9/10 classes with a good damage roll and outright obliterate any class with the heart-wrenching crit. Dying in the first round of combat because the GM rolled a 20 and followed up with just a decent confirm is pretty "swingy". I have no idea how anyone can see 4e as being "swingy" compared to that.

DS

 

[Zinegata]

I can't speak for anyones experience but mine, but I find the above statement to be not at all how wizards played out in my games.

Wizards always had a spellbook full of fun to do things, but when it came time to figure out your daily spells it was invariably something like this.

Scorching Ray X3
Color Spray
Something Different

Invisibility X2
Something Different

Fireball

The fun-to-do-once-in-a-blue-moon effects were accomplished by using scrolls, not by memorizing a wierd list of random spells just in case.

Not really. The reason why the once in a blue moon effects were cast using scrolls is because the Wizard just doesn't have that many spell slots to use in the first place .

And if you're going to be strict about it, pulling a scroll out of a case is at the minimum a Move Action. Finding a scroll from a pile of scrolls would also take longer.

As Wizards go up in level however, they'll generally get enough spell slots to do "fun stuff".

So the intent was to give the wizards a couple of reuseable combat powers to eliminate the Scorching Rays and Fireballs from the spelllist, and to give them a few fun powers they can do throughout the day taken from their spellbook. Since the playtest was combat-focused the two "fun" powers were Sleep and Acid Arrow, one of which wasn't particularly fun.

I think that in the end of the day, a 10 level 4e wizard will end up casting more "fun" powers a day than the 3e, because they don't have to dedicate slots to combat powers, unless they want to.

DS

The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.

Moreover, the tension of choosing whether or not to use "minor" powers is lost since you can use them At Will. Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.

 

[Shroomy]

Moreover, the tension of choosing whether or not to use "minor" powers is lost since you can use them At Will. Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.

But its not always the most sensible thing to do and I think a good 4e DM who wants to challenge his players needs to realize that...for example, the wizard's magic missile power is a ranged attack, meaning that it provokes an opportunity attack if used against someone in an adjacent square. Imagine a pair of eladrin skirmishers fey step and flank your wizard....yeesh, that could get ugly fast if no one around you to help.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.

Encounter and Daily powers are generally meant to be combat applicable. They will also be able to do rituals, which are supposed to be the out-of-combat things like identifying and raising dead. I haven't seen any details yet on how often you can do these things, but you have to add these to the pile of things the wizard can do.

DS

 

[fafhrd]

The problem with 4E - if some of the previews are correct - is that the number of "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" abilities that you can use is largely static. A level 5 caster still has just two Per Day powers.

That's at least 4 unique attacks per encounter. That's significant, especially when you factor in potential dailies, additional at wills and utility spells.

Personally, I'm starting to get really iffy about the "At-will" powers, given that almost all of them simply replace standard movement or attack, rather than being a complement to the basic actions. There's simply little tension if the sensible thing to do every round is to fire Magic Missile.

The Quickstart sheet explicitly stated that the At-Will abilities are the default. The basic attack is the exception. What does that matter?

If a casual gamer wants to shoot their magic missile every round without worrying about the complexities of resource management, that's fine. In previous versions of the game, such a person would usually be stuffed into the role of the fighter. Now they can fill other needed roles. This is a good thing.

 

[Zinegata]

But its not always the most sensible thing to do and I think a good 4e DM who wants to challenge his players needs to realize that...for example, the wizard's magic missile power is a ranged attack, meaning that it provokes an opportunity attack if used against someone in an adjacent square. Imagine a pair of eladrin skirmishers fey step and flank your wizard....yeesh, that could get ugly fast if no one around you to help.

Aren't the defenders supposed to prevent the said skirmishers from flanking the Wizard in the first place? .