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

[malraux]

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.

I dunno, it seems like there's already a fair amount out there. Its pretty clear how ability scores work, how combat works, how advancement works, how skills work, the basic outline of the classes and races, a decent idea of how magic items work, how monsters work, how death works, etc... It really seems like the two big areas that basic design outlines haven't been given are only multiclassing and rituals. Of course a lot of the details are missing, like the total weapon table, or the complete list of feats and powers. But there's a pretty big amount of info out there.

What is missing is likely not the individual pieces, but the way they all fit together. Looking back at 3e, its hard to separate out the early knowledge of feats from how they are understood now.

 

[Hellcow]

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.

Fair enough! Magic is, without question, something that is handled in a completely different manner in 4E; spells in 1st-3rd Edition all follow the same basic structure (even with the addition of things like the DC system in 3E), and 4E really takes things in a new direction. I really like rituals - but as many people have pointed out, the fact that I like something doesn't necessarily mean anyone else will.

 

[nutluck]

If you're playing exactly the way WOTC thinks you're supposed to play, 4e is precisely tuned for that. Try to go outside the box...and there's nothing there.

I feel more or less the same way. The more I read, the more I think that if you like a certain play style that fits 4e to a tee, then people will love it. But if your play style is a bit different then it will be less of a fit than 3e was.

i could be wrong and I will wait and check out the 4e books, but that is the impression I am getting and agree with the above statement that at this time. That is how it seems to me IMHO.

 

[Mort]

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.

"not my cup of tea" is not only valid - it's to be expected considering that in 4e WoTC explicitly picked a side on many issues (Hit Points and magic being prime examples).

Personally, I like most of the changes I've seen so far. One of my biggest problems with 3e was that by high levels a properly outfitted wizard made most classes (except cleric of course) almost superfluous.

 

[Henry]

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?

A common misconception, but no, it hasn't. Latest word from Andy Collins and Scott Rouse are that certain playtesters were given leave to say some limited things, but a general "gag removal" has not taken place. And I can see why, not just because of sales viability, but because WotC wants some genuine surprises for when the books become available - stuff that will cause lots of buzz on message boards when it comes out.

Make me a "me too" about the wanting to see more from the designers on multiclasses, though.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I feel more or less the same way. The more I read, the more I think that if you like a certain play style that fits 4e to a tee, then people will love it. But if your play style is a bit different then it will be less of a fit than 3e was.

i could be wrong and I will wait and check out the 4e books, but that is the impression I am getting and agree with the above statement that at this time. That is how it seems to me IMHO.

I can see why people view it that way. But I don't think it will turn out like that. Since mainly because with the system being more open and seeing the math behind things more it will allow us players/DMs to tweak and modify to more exact means.

Hell, just look at all the discussion, house rules, monsters, abilities, classes, etc. already being thought up.

 

[Hellcow]

I feel more or less the same way. The more I read, the more I think that if you like a certain play style that fits 4e to a tee, then people will love it. But if your play style is a bit different then it will be less of a fit than 3e was.

The only point I will raise is that I don't believe that the information released so far or shown at DDXP really highlights non-combat systems. While I'm a fan of "The PCs as Heroes", as Eberron should show, I like the mystery plot as much or more than over-the-top action. And I HATE the straight-up dungeon crawl. Traditionally, I've always tried to downplay combat in my stories in favorite of intrigue and interaction. And I feel that 4E actually does more to encourage and reward the inclusion of noncombat encounters than 3E - at least the core 3E books, before you start adding in specialty books like Heroes of Whatever, Dynasties and Demagogues, Crime and Punishment, etc - did.

So I'm not saying that 4E isn't aimed at a certain style of play - but I am saying that this style of play may be broader than you've seen so far. PCs are beautiful and unique snowflakes. But their adventures can be about far more than just hitting things with other things.

I will wait and check out the 4e books...

And that's the key. See for yourself.

 

[Lizard]

Fair enough! Magic is, without question, something that is handled in a completely different manner in 4E; spells in 1st-3rd Edition all follow the same basic structure (even with the addition of things like the DC system in 3E), and 4E really takes things in a new direction. I really like rituals - but as many people have pointed out, the fact that I like something doesn't necessarily mean anyone else will.

I like the concept, but then again, I've liked the *concept* of lots of things in 4e and been let down by what I've seen of the implementation. One thing I miss about old -- as in, late 1970s -- D&D was the feeling that MUs had to really WORK for their spells, that the DM should be a stingy bastard in terms of letting them learn spells and that, therefore, a Magic User was defined by their spellbook. If rituals are things hard to learn and master, so that you might know only a handful of them, that will be very cool. If it just takes all the non combat spells and say "OK, we're calling them 'rituals' now so no one ever has to make a choice between flying and blowing something up", then, I will be disappointed.

(The design decision that there will NEVER be a choice between a combat and a non combat ability -- that they are 'siloed' -- is a problem for me. It means that you're always a good fighter, no matter what, and there's no room for someone to shine as a diplomat or a scholar or a non-blasting mage, since everyone is equally good at those things, too. From the limited previews I've seen, the actual choices available as you level up are 'flavor' choices -- will I be a stabby rogue or a bashy rogue? -- and not really difficult. Choosing between 1d6 ice damage and 1d6 fire damage just isn't an interesting choice to me. Choosing between 1d6 ice damage and, say, being able to summon a magic steed, is.)

If I could convince my local group to try Hero System again...but, hey, that's being revised, too. 2009 is going to be interesting. Hero 6, Pathfinder...all we need is for SJG to announce GURPS 5, but I don't think the skies have turned to blood and the seas have become as ash just yet.

 

[Andor]

As I recall at this point in the 3e lead up we had our hands on the Character Generator and people had gone through it and charted out all 20 levels for the 11 PHB classes. As well as a pretty good idea how the new systems like the 3e saves and AC worked.

So yeah. We had a truckload more data at this point last time. Frankly I think they are over playing their hand with the strip tease.

 

[Remathilis]

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. Sure, he might be better at Arcane stuff, but he's got no real weak spots. And his pal Joe the Fighter has a +5 Arcane check, presumably from listening to the wizard blather on for ten levels. Further, everyone can heal themselves (Second Wind), everyone has the same power structure (this many at-will, that many daily), and a lot of the powers look the same mechanically, just with different special effects. The difference between a 4e Magic Missile and a 4e crossbow? Not much. Warlocks are no longer unique blasting machines; Wizards are no longer masters of a wide range of magical effects. (All the non-combat stuff seems to be rituals, and I've gotten the impression anyone can learn rituals.)

So I'm very intrigued that you see it as the opposite.

See, I look at it like this.

There was always an illusion that all classes had specific niches; a fighter was the best at combat, a wizard was good at attack magic and problem solving, a cleric is for healing and defense, a rogue for sneakery and traps. All other classes (paladin, ranger, druid, etc) were combinations of these elements. (We'll ignore them for now). However, you had the four basic monster food groups. Call 'em whatever you want: tank, nuker, healer, scout. The point was; if you chose one of them, you were supposed to be the "best" at that classes given area.

It never worked like that in D&D. Ever.

A cleric could (and often did) out fight a fighter thanks to buff spells (bulls str, aid, divine power, etc.) Furthermore, being in control of healing meant he had his HP + his potential hp healed as a hp pool, which at almost every level was more than any other class. A cleric could, (using supplements and proper domain choices) out nuke a wizard, casting divine retribution, flame strike, cometfall, holy word, and other powerful evocations, all while wearing full plate. Hence, a cleric could out fighter a fighter, and probably out wizard a wizard.

By the same token, a wizard with all the right spells (invisibility, knock, true-seeing) out-rogued a rogue. He could handle most of a rogue's list of skills by by-passing the skill system with auto-win spells (often conveniently kept in scrolls or wands). And sneak attack vs ANY wizard dps spell? Ha. Assuming you played a wizard intelligently, the only reason to have a rogue was trap detection (thats what summon monster I was invented for, I'd wager). Sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) did an even better job with the right spell selection and access to wands.

In fact, the optimum D&D party was not ftr/wiz/rog/clr, but clr (heal), clr (war), clr (blast), wiz (scout). Effectively, its the Jedi syndrome; there is no reason to play anything else because anything else is sub-optimal.

4e, by giving every SOME access to other people's playground BUT keeping the best stuff for the proper roles moves a BIG step toward fixing this. A cleric cannot rule over a fighter by spell selection; he can't even really mimic his main abilities beyond hit/damage. A wizard will no longer make skills like hide, climb, and open lock obsolete at 3rd level. As Hellcow said, second wind won't replace the need for a cleric, nor will having untrained skill improvement really rival dedicated skill user (as a player of SAGA, I can attest to both these points. Your second wind is a "oh %*@!" power, not a good source of healing, and you still want the guy whose trained/focused making your checks, whenever possible.)

Will it work? I hope so.