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

[hong]

Good for you. Because I don't really care.

You don't?

They're basically just reworked spells.

Nobody said anything about spells being bad.

Uh, who's whining about Wizards able to zap MMs all day?

I was just saying it's weird they retained basic attacks when they can already zap MM's all day.

Since it's just fluff either way, who cares?

What are the consequences of getting moved?

You don't get to move away when a monster tries to eat your face.

Not really, but enduring it might reveal some good tidbits and insights, which is fun.

That's the theory anyway.

 

[The Little Raven]

I was just saying it's weird they retained basic attacks when they can already zap MM's all day.

Take away basic attacks, and they have no way to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks, since we've no indication that ranged attacks can be used.

What are the consequences of getting moved?

Depends on the battle. It might put you over a cliff. It might put you up against a soldier who doesn't want to let you go, thus making your life more dangerous. It might put you into a flank, which grants combat advantage to your foes.

 

[Zinegata]

You don't?

Nope.

Nobody said anything about spells being bad.

The point is that this particular change is cosmetic. Since they're spells with new packaging, it's merely cosmetic.

Since it's just fluff either way, who cares?

Because sometimes "relics" (i.e. the basic attacks) point to a decisive change in the middle of the design process which resulted in a significant shift in how the game plays. I'm just trying to figure out if such a change did happen, and if so what change it is.

You don't get to move away when a monster tries to eat your face.

They try that all the time in all editions. In 4E, are there far more incidences where a monster is forced to "waste" a turn and be unable to attack at all?

 

[hong]

Nope.

Sure you don't.

The point is that this particular change is cosmetic. Since they're spells with new packaging, it's merely cosmetic.

Hm, so changing the system so that some spells are now per-encounter instead of per-day is "merely cosmetic". I wonder what a substantial change would be. Maybe something like dragonborn women having breasts.

Because sometimes "relics" (i.e. the basic attacks) point to a decisive change in the middle of the design process which resulted in a significant shift in how the game plays. I'm just trying to figure out if such a change did happen, and if so what change it is.

... or you could just play the game when it comes out.

They try that all the time in all editions. In 4E, are there far more incidences where a monster is forced to "waste" a turn and be unable to attack at all?

What?

 

[Zinegata]

Take away basic attacks, and they have no way to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks, since we've no indication that ranged attacks can be used.

True, but I wonder why can't you simply use an At-Will power for an opportunity attack. (There are exceptions, but I'm speaking in terms of most At-Will powers). Was there something particularly overpowering about using At-Will attacks for an opportunity attack?

This is the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out. I know most people probably won't have insights unless they were on the design team, but it's a topic I'd like to see more discussion on.

(And it's worth noting we got a good answer as to why Saves are just a plain 50-50 roll in this thread)

Depends on the battle. It might put you over a cliff. It might put you up against a soldier who doesn't want to let you go, thus making your life more dangerous. It might put you into a flank, which grants combat advantage to your foes.

Ah, so there is more "nudging" as opposed to 3E where all you have is Bull Rush and a few spells. Interesting.

 

[hong]

True, but I wonder why can't you simply use an At-Will power for an opportunity attack.

To insert more tactical variety into the game, of course.

Oops, I forgot we're including tactical variety in the cosmetic change category now. My bad.

 

[Zinegata]

Sure you don't.

Really I don't. Declare yourself the winner if it makes you happy.

Hm, so changing the system so that some spells are now per-encounter instead of per-day is "merely cosmetic". I wonder what a substantial change would be. Maybe something like dragonborn women having breasts.

What you describe is also cosmetic.

Though admittedly "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" is a somewhat significant change in the number of times abilities can be used, as opposed to the X/Day used before. But still, spells are spells.

... or you could just play the game when it comes out.

Why wait when you have 3 months to talk about it?

What?

Are there more instances in 4E where a monster simply can't reach a Player-character and attack him/her?

 

[Zinegata]

To insert more tactical variety into the game, of course.

If you're talking about variety, then letting a character use At-Will abilities to do Opportunity Attacks adds to the variety. Because there are more types of At-Will abilities compared to basic attacks, of which there is but one.

Oops, I forgot we're including tactical variety in the cosmetic change category now. My bad.

Your sarcasm is boring. Moreover, I wasn't talking to you for this particular point.

Just respond to the ones where I specifically respond to you.

 

[hong]

If you're talking about variety, then letting a character use At-Will abilities to do Opportunity Attacks adds to the variety. Because there are more types of At-Will abilities compared to basic attacks, of which there is but one.

No, there is more variety because number of attacks = number of attacks +1 if basic attacks are included. Further, this also means actions that provoke OAs are less dangerous than otherwise, encouraging people to take risks.

Your sarcasm is boring. Moreover, I wasn't talking to you for this particular point.

Just respond to the ones where I specifically respond to you.

You mean, like this one?

 

[hong]

Really I don't. Declare yourself the winner if it makes you happy.

No, I don't get to make declarations unilaterally.

What you describe is also cosmetic.

Somehow, I don't think you get to do that either.

Though admittedly "Per Day" and "Per Encounter" is a somewhat significant change in the number of times abilities can be used, as opposed to the X/Day used before. But still, spells are spells.

And a twenty-sided die is a twenty-sided die, regardless of whether it has 20 or 10 sides, yes?

Why wait when you have 3 months to talk about it?

Indeed.

Are there more instances in 4E where a monster simply can't reach a Player-character and attack him/her?

Say rather, are there more instances in 4E where a monster can move to attack someone and deal full damage?