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

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, that model changed, but i don´t think the 4e mage will be inferior. I haven´t seen any rules for rituals yet, but i bet they are awesome. And even if you only had those utility we have seen. It makes the mage really great.

The only thing i miss, is spells beeing versatile. But that most of that was lost in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 (ok, parts of it were already lost in 3.0). But since its a new edition, maybe we get some versatile spells (to clarify: grease, 2nd edition ice wall and 3.0 ice storm are versatile spells)

 

[Hellcow]

The only thing i miss, is spells beeing versatile.

I'll just say that 4E prestidigitation is awesome (much as I always liked it in 3E, as well).

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

The 4E wizard is completely different from wizards in any of the previous editions, no argument. 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).

I accept there is more versatility in the class than other 4e classes, but that can't make up for major changes in the system. Many of the unique elements and quirks of D&D magic were what endeared it to me and they're effectively gone now.

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.

I'm confident that 4e magic will be better for Eberron as you say it is. My problem is that my own games were built around many of the elements 4e called "game breaking" or "unfun" and tossed out or nerfed. And rituals won't help that because I saw no problem with such effects as they already existed. Polymorph and wildshape never bothered me and I didn't use the errata, I enjoyed the spells like fly and teleport that produced large changes in the way the game functioned as you leveled up. The schools of magic were far better than what I've seen to replace them. That there were fundamental differences between 3rd level and 17th level other than larger numbers. I even enjoyed SoD, yes even as a player.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That there were fundamental differences between 3rd level and 17th level other than larger numbers.

If you were a caster, not if you were one of the peons.

 

[Filcher]

I accept there is more versatility in the class than other 4e classes, but that can't make up for major changes in the system. Many of the unique elements and quirks of D&D magic were what endeared it to me and they're effectively gone now.

So no need to make the switch, right? 4E is not every game for everyone. (If anything, it will be good to play non-d20 systems now and again. Mono-culture is not our friend.)

Edit: Doug, GREAT sig.

 

[Hellcow]

And rituals won't help that because I saw no problem with such effects as they already existed.

But when you say "Such effects", what are you talking about, HSB? Because when I say that I like rituals, I'm not talking about polymorph, flight, or wildshape. Essentially, I'm handicapped by the fact that i can't reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed by an official source. So I don't know what you already know about rituals. I like the ritual system not because of the specific effects, but because of the system itself; I think it's a better way to handle noncombat magic than the current method of forcing a Vancian caster to choose between combat and noncombat effects. But there's all sorts of other things that I like about what the ritual system does for character development, identity, and versatility - but again, not something I can really go into if it hasn't already been revealed.

Again, rituals are especially good for Eberron - but beyond that, I just think that rituals are a strong and interesting system (with that said, lest I sound too much like a cheerleader, there are a few SPECIFIC rituals I really DISlike - but I think the system itself is good).

So no need to make the switch, right? 4E is not every game for everyone.

Right. Paizo will keep you going with good 3E products. Personally, while the magic system has changed, as I've said before where I see the continuity with previous editions of D&D is in the theme of a team of adventurers filling specific archetypal roles - fighter-thief-cleric-magic user - engaging in action and adventure. 4E changes the precise mechanics of the wizard, but you've still got that solid fighter-thief-cleric-MU party base... something that is totally different when I play Fantasy Hero or Over The Edge. Specific mechanics have changed, but I still feel like I'm playing D&D - not like I've just pulled out, say, The Dying Earth RPG (which is a fine thing - but truly a completely different play experience).

Again, my goal here isn't to convince you that you WILL like it. If you feel that 3.5 is perfect as is, or if your love of the game is tied to a very specific element that isn't going to be there (Vancian wizards or wild-shaping druids), there's an excellent chance you won't. I'm just trying to clarify when I see confusion.

 

[Hellcow]

That there were fundamental differences between 3rd level and 17th level other than larger numbers.

Just checking - are you suggesting that as a 4E wizard the only difference between 3rd and 17th level is "larger numbers"? Because that's not true at all. Setting aside combat, ritual and utility magic provides a range of options as you advance in level. Have you seen a 17th level 4E wizard written up? If so, where? (I'd like to look to see if it's actually presented with all of its options.)

 

[Spatula]

I am getting somewhat weary of the "your concern is not valid because of all this cool stuff that you can't see" argument. I thought the playtester NDA was lifted? And in any case, the content of the books are now set in stone, so there's no harm in letting them talk. It's been 8 years but my impression was that we knew a hell of a lot more about 3e this close to its release than we do about 4e. We don't even know how multiclassing - a pretty basic part of character building since AD&D - works.

 

[Hellcow]

I am getting somewhat weary of the "your concern is not valid because of all this cool stuff that you can't see" argument. I thought the playtester NDA was lifted?

No one's told me that. I'd love to talk about multiclassing and rituals, but I'm not going to do it unless I see someone else do it first, preferably someone who actually works for WotC. Given that Jonathan Tweet revealing the names of a hanful of paragon paths remains headline news, I'm guessing that they aren't. And I'm not saying that anyone's concerns aren't valid; I'm saying that some people are drawing flawed conclusions from the limited information that's available, which is perfectly understandable. Lizard's concern about universal skill advancement is ENTIRELY valid, as shown by the fact that both Michelle and I felt the same way even with rules in hand. However, after having played with it and seeing how characters actually break down across the levels, it doesn't turn out the way I originally feared it would.

I don't expect peoples' concerns to truly be laid to rest until they actually get to play the game itself - not even when they get ahold of the rules, but when they actually PLAY with them. I had many doubts until I started creating my own adventures, and creating characters and NPCs across many levels.

I don't see this as an "argument". As I've said many times now, I don't believe that any gamer who sees 4E will suddenly have the scales fall from their eyes and have all doubt magically wiped away. With Lizard's preference for world simulation over hero-based adventure, I think there's every chance that he will prefer 3E to 4E. I'm just trying to clarify where I can... within the limits of an NDA that no one's specifically cut me loose from.

But hey, if the WotC folks say otherwise, i'd love to dig into rituals. If you've found some post by a WotC employee specifically stating that the playtest NDAs are no longer binding, please point me to it.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Just to clear this up

Yes I have seen a mid-high level 4e character. It was a 19th level character, not 17th and it was from a friend who is a playtester and whose name I would rather not reveal because he was breaking NDA to show me. Just to note the differences in taste he likes 4e and thought by seeing it my gripes would be lowered but it only showed me how different from my tastes the magic system is.

I've seen only small parts of the ritual rules. It's not a bad system by any means, mechanically it's rather elegant if it's being examined purely from a games perspective. But it doesn't feel like D&D to me.

"just bigger numbers" is not factually accurate, it is an assessment of the impression I got from what I'd seen. Which is that many of the paradigm changing spells have been radically changed. Movement powers beyond the tactical have been nerfed. Many types of magic previously part of the wizard's area have either been reserved for other specialist classes leaving only minor options and siloed into the utility spells or fobbed off into the ritual system. And while it's a good system, the new system is too different from the previous to really be D&D for me.