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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.

When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism

I can understand people in the business being a little more nit-picky. (Maybe it should become a common disclaimer.)

But I think it's important to not forget the praise. Highlighting thinks that look good or awesome or show promise - even if the rest of the system sucks, highlighting the good parts can inpsire people to "redo" the good parts. Off course, if you don't find any good qualities, there's nothing you can do.

 

[Ktulu]

On the subject of clerics doing radiant damage only. I think this will prove to be incorrect. So far, we can assume the fighter builds are "two handed" or "sword + board", the rogue is "agile" or "brawny", the wizard focuses on implements and the warlock makes pacts. I think the cleric build style will be one of radiant or necrotic, for the most part.

Radiant will be what more of the "good" gods provide, while necrotic will be the stuff for the darker clerics. Their abilities will probably incite damage and beef up the allies, rather than protecting them like the radiant spells do.

This is speculation, but it seems to make sense.

Ktulu

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Remember that these aren't saves in the 3E sense of saves. The initial determination of "does this power affect your character" is made by comparing the bad guy's attack roll versus your defense. Both of those will alter from leveling and various effects.

4E "saves" are much more analogous to rolling 1dX+Y to determine how long an effect will linger. Instead of rolling as soon as the effect hits and then remembering to tick down once each round, you roll each time.

In 3E, a lot of spells would last 1 round per caster level. At higher levels, this is pretty much "the entire combat". At lower levels, it was annoying trying to recall how many rounds ago the Prayer was cast. And if you did keep track successfully, the effect was predictable and less tactically exciting.

I understand the difference, and appreciate the loss of book keeping of how many rounds of acid arrow damage are left, just think the implementation is a bit weak. Why have everyone have the same chance to shrug off the effects? if a wizard is less likely than the fighter to be charmed in the first place, why are they equally likely to break free? Its hardly a deal breaker, just a design decision I dont understand compared to, say... ongoing attacks vs. the target's defense, which is a more unified system and no more rolling than the alternative.

 

[dm4hire]

Please remember not every group plays the same so the statement of 2-3 round combat doesn't apply to everyone. Some players don't pick out the best things they can find to optimize their damage, preferring to role play so battles for them tend to last longer than normal. Short combat is not the sum all 3.x battles, just the average.

Thanks Jason for clearing up your position.

 

[Gundark]

It is amusing to see people who are actually working in the industry (and have by far the most to suffer if, gods forbid, 4E flops) blow every single detail out of proportion. There is a large difference between critic and nitpicking.

QFT...and just not PAizo either.

I'm not saying they should love it unconditionally(or even love it), I would think you would hold off. As a consumer I'm more likely to hold off buying something from you if you think the system stinks. If you hate it what is the level of Quality going to be at?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.

When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism. It was not my intent.

Okay, I get it. Thanks for replying/clarifying!

 

[keterys]

Why have everyone have the same chance to shrug off the effects?

Everyone was already differentiated based on defenses - in 3rd ed, if both got hit by Fort effect that lasted level rounds, did the fighter somehow have his last half as long cause he had a better Fort, even though he failed his save?

 

[Zinovia]

Several points:

• Magic Missile every round vs shooting a crossbow -
In 3E wizards shoot stuff with crossbows at first level because they are decent at it. They usually have a good dex for the AC it provides, and their base attack bonus is +0, which is the same as the cleric and rogue. Of course at higher levels that's not the case anymore. Then when they run out of spells they get cranky and need a nap. I'd rather see a wizard able to keep shooting his magic missiles all day, even if he has a chance to miss with them (like the crossbow, and every other ranged attack). It's more magical than pulling out the bow, and more in-line with the character concept.

• Options in combat
There aren't a lot of choices in first level combat in 3.5. It seems there are some more options in 4E, but the choices are still limited. That's not necessarily a bad thing. You don't want to overwhelm the players at first level. I haven't played 4E, so I can't say how it feels in comparison to a 3.5 first level fight. At least in 4E the options are part of the character concept, not whacking something with your staff due to a lack of any other choice.

• Clerics and Radiant energy
Clerics in 3E channel either positive or negative energy from their gods depending on alignment. I would suspect we'll see a similar mechanic in 4E. Evil clerics won't use glowy holy light stuff, but rather scary dark shadowy stuff.

• Static saves vs. ongoing effects
It does seem odd that the roll needed to overcome the effect is the same for everyone. George Fighter may not have the best Will, so won't it be tougher for him to break out of the charm than Martha Wizard?

• Monster diversity
I'm not sure why there were so many kobolds in the one dungeon, but perhaps some DM's were more creative in how they played them than others. From what I've heard, it sounds like it will be easier to mix things up a bit if you make sure to put in some different flavors of monsters (mmmm, monster flavors). Use some different roles and vary them from one fight to another - even if they are all kobolds. Here's hoping anyway.

• 3rd party publishers
Their employees are entitled to individual opinions, and I'm personally glad to see them taking the time to post their feelings, whether positive or negative. The companies themselves are justifiably annoyed that they still don't have their hands on the new GSL (so far as I know). WotC dropped the ball on that one, even if it does come down to the lawyers. The lead time the 3rd parties are considering paying for is ticking away. It's only a few months to publication now, so they won't have the rules in their hands that much in advance of the rest of us. Any product they tried to do would be rushed. The 5K buy-in seems less worth it as the months eke away. So on the one hand the 3rd parties are being pressured by fans to commit to 4E publications in the future, but they are hesitant to do that without knowing the terms they will have to agree to. It's frustrating all around.

 

[fnwc]

I have to say, without seeing the monster building rules, it is hard to comment on how hard it might be to modify a base creature to make it a more diverse encounter selection, like in 3E, adding a single class level might do.

I think if you're creating NPCs or Monsters for published content, you'll probably love 4E over 3E. From what I've read, instead of tediously building a monster from the ground up, you can reference a table to check the appropriate values for a given monster's level and arbitrarily assign it values, without having to justify any of it through the rules that PCs follow.

You can think of a power, design a mechanic around it and go, without having to worry if it follows the rules of some existing subsystem (say, grapple).

Modifying base creatures might be as simple as looking at another monster of the same level and swapping a power or two.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Everyone was already differentiated based on defenses - in 3rd ed, if both got hit by Fort effect that lasted level rounds, did the fighter somehow have his last half as long cause he had a better Fort, even though he failed his save?

Only on Hold person, and that variant was not so brilliant either (hey, you got lucky to hit the enemy wizard (next round he has a 90% chance to recover :/)