D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Hellcow]

This is odd, since it's a major problem I have with 4e -- everyone gets better at everything. The tenth level wizard has +5 Athletics, +5 Acrobatics, +Streetwise, +5 Everything.

But in practice, this means less than you'd think. Because the wizard hasn't been improving his Strength, isn't trained at the skills, won't have magic items to help him with them, won't have used feats to boost them, and so on. Assuming your wizard has a 10 Strength, yes, at level 10 he'll have a +5 Athletics - which means he can probably climb a ladder without worrying about falling off of it. Meanwhile, my Str 20 Shifter fighter with the belt of the Olympian (Note: completely made up item) is sitting on a +15 Athletics, and he's jumping chasms the wizard won't take a chance on and scampering up slopes like a goat.

I had the exact same reaction to universal skill advancement when I first heard about it, but in play it's just not that big a deal. What it means is that by tenth level you CAN perform basic actions you would have had trouble with before. You can climb a rope without falling. You can swim a little. You're better at keeping your balance, and more likely to notice the kid trying to pick your pocket. But you're still likely to miss the super-ninja who tries to pick your pocket - who the sharp-eyed ranger who's focused on Perception will spot as easily as he spotted the child pickpocket back at first level.

People aren't equally good at all skills. It's simply the case that as you advance, you become capable of handling simpler challenges that would have been difficult for you before. But since you're higher level, you'll be facing even greater challenges - and that's where the specialists will continue to shine.

Beyond that, certain skills do have trained-only effects. Joe the fighter may have a +5 Arcana check from listening to the wizard blather on, but he can't use it for everything the wizard can.

Further, everyone can heal themselves (Second Wind)

Yes, but this isn't quite as simple as that. There's tactical and practical restrictions on second wind, and you're always better off if the Leader lends a hand. And if the leader goes down in battle, you've got to start playing things cautiously.

The difference between a 4e Magic Missile and a 4e crossbow? Not much.

I beg to differ. The crossbow is a two-handed weapon. It requires ammunition to use, and needs to be reloaded between use. It has penalties when used at long range. Attacks with the crossbow are made against the target's armor class.

Meanwhile, the magic missile doesn't require ammunition or reloading. It has a single flat range. It does force damage, so it interacts with certain targets in a way a crossbow won't. It targets Reflex instead of armor class, which makes a HUGE difference when you are fighting a heavily armored foe (and the vast majority of creatures have a significantly higher AC than Reflex, with the notable exception of rogues and the like).

And all of this isn't even getting into the difference that comes into play with feats, since different feats play to magic and weapons. Sure, it's possible for it to miss, which wasn't the case in 3E - but the fact that it targets Reflex means that it's less likely to miss against most creatures, and the fact that it's force damage is significant (as is no ammo, no load, better range, etc.).

Beyond that, there is a question of flavor. I assume you're speaking to the common complaint that the 3E wizard uses two magic missiles and then turns to the crossbow, and saying that in 4E is this so different from using encounter powers and then turning to magic missile. Aside from the tactical differences between them, as outlined above, it certainly is to me in terms of flavor. I don't see my wizard as having anything to do with weapons. He's a scholar at the library of Korranberg who doesn't even like to fight. I don't want him to have to carry a crossbow around because if he doesn't, he's going to be utterly useless; I like being able to grumble and say "All right, if I must fight, I'll draw on the blistering arcane secrets I possess - but I do hate to use them in such a tawdry way."

It's back to flavor - being able to play the character I want to play. And in this case, I don't want to play the wizard who needs a crossbow to be of any use. Of course, this comes at the expense of your playing the wizard who NEEDS to use the crossbow - but hey, you could certainly make a wizard who CAN use the crossbow, if that's something you want.

Warlocks are no longer unique blasting machines; Wizards are no longer masters of a wide range of magical effects.

But do you understand the difference between the two? Because they do fill completely different roles (the warlock is a striker, the wizard a controller). Speaking magically, the warlock IS still the best eldritch blaster, and the wizard is in fact master of a wider range of magical effects than the warlock. Meanwhile, speaking of unique elements, choice of pact is going to have a significant impact on your warlock. And that's not even getting into rituals.

These things don't work the same way they did in 3E, and bear in mind that if all you've seen are 1st level characters you really haven't gotten a sense of the full depth of what these classes do... let alone the range of customization that's possible within a class. But there is depth there.

 

[Dragonblade]

Wow, Keith! This is good stuff. I'm enjoying all your posts.

 

[Michele Carter]

Wow, Keith! This is good stuff. I'm enjoying all your posts.

So am I. I had some of the same reservations back when the game was in development--same power structure, same advancement, how could characters differentiate themselves?--but after playing with half a dozen characters, I can say for certain that they all work and feel different.

I'm having as much fun playing D&D as I ever did, and perhaps more thanks to the wealth of integrated tactical options. And I'm beginning to see even more innovative concepts come out of the classes currently in development.

It's just--forgive me! --a really, really cool game.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hehe, I love seeing that kind of enthusiasm from the developers. It is great to here

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Then why was 3x -- much more simulationist and less abstract than 2e -- so popular?

The market may have changed a lot since 2000, but in 2000, more rules and more detail was what people clearly wanted, or 3e would have flopped. (4e is still more detailed and simulationist than 1/2e, which were very abstract.)

2e was a mess. 3e was coherent. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned. People were excited by 3e being more internally consistent, using a unified core mechanic, and being more modular with the addition of feats and prestige classes. It's not because it simulated anything better or worse, but because it played better.

 

[TwinBahamut]

2e was a mess. 3e was coherent. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned. People were excited by 3e being more internally consistent, using a unified core mechanic, and being more modular with the addition of feats and prestige classes. It's not because it simulated anything better or worse, but because it played better.

Exactly. I may not have had very much experience with 2E, but for me, 2E is the game with THAC0, and 3E is the game with BAB. 3E simply has the more useable central game mechanics, and this improvement completely overwhelms any other stylistic change.

Also, thank you for posting, Mr. Baker! Your posts have been a lot of fun to read.

 

[xechnao]

4e characters= board piece roles and power sources. Power sources could also provide some roleplaying backbone outside of the board.

3e characters= a sim building excercise against some DCs (skills) and a kind of combat contests.


Choose your destiny
FIGHT!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

But do you understand the difference between the two? Because they do fill completely different roles (the warlock is a striker, the wizard a controller). Speaking magically, the warlock IS still the best eldritch blaster, and the wizard is in fact master of a wider range of magical effects than the warlock.

Despite our disagreements and generally different style prefences you're a damned good designer. But I think in this particular case the forest is being obscured by the trees. In comparison to 3e the 4e Wizard has been massively pared back. Compared to the last edition the 4e mage IS a boomstick. They're missing a lot of versatility in effect and the magic I've seen is not only uninspiring it does not feel like traditional D&D magic. In fact the changes to the magic system are one of my largest issues with 4th edition. The 4e warlock is still primarily a damage dealer, but the way that damage is being inflicted is different, it's not the same sort of class it was previously. Now I don't have a beef with the warlock, it's actually one of the few changes to 4e I like, but it's still a big difference from what came before.

Disregarding the Eberron issue, I think the main problems with 4e come not from changes to the rules but the model. Many of us have stuck through several editions with major rule changes, but through them all the model the game was based upon stayed fairly constant. Now the underlying model of the game itself is being changed and for us it was that model which defined D&D rather than any particular ruleset or even the label on the book.

 

[Hellcow]

In comparison to 3e the 4e Wizard has been massively pared back.

The 4E wizard is completely different from wizards in any of the previous editions, no argument. The Vancian wizard/magic-user really doesn't change much from 1-3E - sure, you've got spell DCs, specialties beyond illusion, and all that. But look back at 1E and you've got the same "Spells per day" table, same d4 hit die, etc. The 4E wizard is substantially different. However, it does have a level of versatility you don't get from any other class in 4E (and I suspect this may not have been fully exposed at DDXP).

And with that said, do you know how rituals work, HSB? Because if you haven't seen rituals, you're only seeing half of the magic system. As I've said elsewhere, what people have seen so far has heavily focused on COMBAT, because you're dealing with short delves and because WotC doesn't want to introduce too many new elements all at once. But there's more depth to the game than people have seen. And as noted in my recent LJ entry, rituals are one of the things I really like about 4E, both for Eberron specifically and as a ruleset in general.

 

[DandD]

Aren't you complaining about the combat capabilities? The Game Designers did tell us that every class will also have other versatility stuff outside of combat too.
Also, Magic Missile, Sleep and Mage Hand are still in for 1st level. Sounds rather much like traditional D&D magic to me. And I'm pretty sure there are a lot more 1st level spells. After all, those people at DDX only could grasp at some stuff that was mainly combat-oriented, which is the point of D&D (whatever edition), after all: Hack'n'Slash-heroics in a dungeon filled with dragons and devils. And if you like to, there is some role-playing to do.