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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Really, 95%? Hmmm...interesting.

Well, 65% of all statistics are made up...

So, my made-up statistic: Our group (5 people) will certainly switch. That means 100 % of the guys I play with will play 4E.

That said, there are 2 persons I know that were part of the gaming part but can no longer game regularly. One of them was skeptic, but on a very general base ("It will be all the same as 3E - a new 3.5.") since at that time, nobody knew any details. The other has already said he wants to buy the new core book (or at least the PHB) if it comes up...

But I am certain that there are groups out there where this is reserved. Because people in most groups have similar likes and dis-likes, and when one of them dislike a game, most of them will...

 

[pemerton]

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

You seem to be saying that the change in the Wizard's of abilities, from various per-day powers to a mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities, is merely cosmetic.

That's a bizarre claim.

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.

This remark is very abstract. What sort of change are you suspecting, and in what way is the notion of "basic attacks" evidence that it occured?

Also, is it relevant to your debate with Hong that Magic Missile includes the following text: "This power counts as a ranged basic attack."

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.

QFT!!!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm sure there's enough 3e market remaining to support a few companies.

I'm not sure there's enough 3e market to support Paizo.

We're not exactly talking about a basement pdf operation here.

But by staying with 3e, they will get business from 1e, 2e, 3e, C&C, Hackmaster, etc players. I imagine it will be pretty difficult to shoehorn a 4e module into any of the above campaigns. But I've used 3e adventures in a number of different rulesets.

 

[MerricB]

Zinegata - The explanation of Basic Attacks

The Basic Attack is the base on what all weapon "at will" and "per encounter" and "daily" abilities are built on. The Fighter's "Cleave" is a basic attack plus a special ability (3 damage to adjacent foe... possibly that's Str-based).

In addition, when Charging or making an Opportunity Attack, you may only use a Basic Attack.

There are certain "at will" abilities that count as basic attacks, allowing them to be used during Charges and Opportunity Attacks, although I daresay they're basic magical attacks for spellcasters.

So, yes, while there's never really a time you'd use just a Basic Attack instead of an at-will ability, there are times when it's your only choice.

Cheers!

 

[Primal]

The comment about it being impossible to die seemed a bit wierd....I know of quite a few characters who died in DDE, including a number of TPKs.

These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.

 

[Wolfspider]

These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.

And apparently more than a few parties were able to overcome the dragon, which attests to their toughtness as well.

 

[Shroomy]

These TPKs apparently happened due to Mike Mearls deliberately including a 4th level dragon in the adventure to show everyone that you can die in 4E. I think it *is* far more difficult to die in 4E when facing opponents of equal to or one level higher than the PCs.

I'm pretty sure that I also read reports that other parties died or had TPKs to other monsters in the DDXP modules.

 

[Zinegata]

You seem to be saying that the change in the Wizard's of abilities, from various per-day powers to a mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities, is merely cosmetic.

That's a bizarre claim.

Actually, I already mentioned what's different between the old spells and the new spells (read the second quote you quoted from me). Any other differences that Hong was saying was just cosmetic.

This remark is very abstract. What sort of change are you suspecting, and in what way is the notion of "basic attacks" evidence that it occured?

Well, for one thing it seems to have been a design decision to encourage risk-taking. Since a Basic attack is generally less powerful than an At-Will Power, then it's clearly a design decision to encourage risk-taking.

If you have other ideas, it'd be great to hear them.

Also, is it relevant to your debate with Hong that Magic Missile includes the following text: "This power counts as a ranged basic attack."

Which again points to some sort of design decision - why aren't all At Will powers simply also considered a basic attack?

QFT!!!

Whatever. Again, I'm trying to figure out stuff. If you want to engage in frivolous silliness or pointless argumentation for the sake of improving imagined self-worth, that's your problem.

I just willingly endure this in the hopes I can figure out the new edition better.

 

[Zinegata]

Zinegata - The explanation of Basic Attacks

The Basic Attack is the base on what all weapon "at will" and "per encounter" and "daily" abilities are built on. The Fighter's "Cleave" is a basic attack plus a special ability (3 damage to adjacent foe... possibly that's Str-based).

In addition, when Charging or making an Opportunity Attack, you may only use a Basic Attack.

There are certain "at will" abilities that count as basic attacks, allowing them to be used during Charges and Opportunity Attacks, although I daresay they're basic magical attacks for spellcasters.

So, yes, while there's never really a time you'd use just a Basic Attack instead of an at-will ability, there are times when it's your only choice.

Cheers!

Thanks. I was kind of looking more along the lines of "Why did they choose to retain basic attacks, rather than make everything at-Willable" though ,

 

[PoeticJustice]

Even as I am not going to switch to 4E, I do think there will be a wide range of powers to use. The convention format makes it impossible to give the full experience; after all, they must save some things for June.