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

[Hellcow]

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.

I see your point. But as I said before, people AREN'T equally good at all things. You're never forced to choose between a combat ability and a noncombat ability. But you ARE forced to choose between two combat abilities, and between two noncombat abilities. As a rogue, it's not just a matter of "stabby" and "bashy" (in the sense of fire and ice damage); it's more about force and sheer damage vs finesse and trickery. Beyond that, as a rogue, just look at the skills and you'll see the choices you need to make. Are you the con artist, focusing on Insight, Bluff, and Streetwise? The cat burglar, focusing on Athletics, Acrobatics, and Stealth? This isn't just a matter of skills; there may be powers that tie to these things as well, allowing you to truly excel at a particular skill. And this is true of all classes. Some utility powers are aimed at combat; others are aimed at noncombat challenges, because noncombat challenges are integrated more strongly into the action.

Looking to my playtest parties, I have a warlock who's developed himself as a shady, fast-talking archaeologist; a wizard who is most definitely an expert scholar; and in the other group, a warlord who is an expert historian because of his interest in the empire of his goblinoid ancestors. And these people ARE the best at these particular skills, because of the decisions they've made. So don't assume that all characters are identical, even within a particular class; there's a lot of ways to individualize characters, and a lot of ways to develop a particular idea.

Again, do I think this means you'll prefer it to 3E? Not especially, given the other preferences you've expressed. But I think you'll find that there's a lot more choices to make than you may think. It's certainly far deeper than "fire or ice".

 

[Fallen Seraph]

(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.)

Lizard just a quick question. What if say, you can go with the siloing, but if you wish when you get to pick a non-combat, your allowed to pick a combat one instead and vice-versa. So you become a better then normal fighter at the expense of non-combat skills, or just be normal in both, etc.

 

[nutluck]

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.

Oh i am sure there is much about the game all of us that has not played the finished product have no clue about and have wrong on both sides of the 4e line. But a example is I utterly loath at will, per encounter and per day break up of abilities and spells. I get why people like them, I just find them unappealing. There is a host of things like that, some of them I might find are not as bad as I thought and some things I am sure will be worse.

I was geeked for 4e at first and I wanted to really like it. But basicily from my stand point I wanted WotC to do a complete rebuild. The problem is they took a left hand turn and I wanted them to take a right hand turn. Many of the changes went in the oppsite direction than i wanted them to go.

I know someone will say wait and try it. I plan to look the books over and if someone else buys them and runs a game i will give it a fair shot. But I do know certain styles don't appeal to me and the per encounter is a big one. That was the big thing that really bugged me about WW WoD stuff, is they had a lot of powers that last for a scene ect. *shrug* I just didn't like that.

So we will see. I am just saying what and why i have reservations. I am not sure Pathfinder RPG will work for me either but like 4e i plan to take a look at it and if someone runs it give it a try before deciding.

Maybe hopefully I will be pleasently surprised by one or both of them. I just currently have my doubts.

 

[Remathilis]

I was geeked for 4e at first and I wanted to really like it. But basically from my stand point I wanted WotC to do a complete rebuild. The problem is they took a left hand turn and I wanted them to take a right hand turn. Many of the changes went in the opposite direction than i wanted them to go.

Assuming your still talking about at-will/per encounter/per day (W/E/D) vs. Vancian Spell Prep, what direction would you have preferred WotC to go? Make it harder to learn/cast spells per day? Less spells? I'm curious.

 

[Hellcow]

But a example is I utterly loath at will, per encounter and per day break up of abilities and spells. I get why people like them, I just find them unappealing.

Fair 'nuff. And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone has different tastes, which is why there's so many different systems. For me, 4E is a change, but it's a positive change. But I respect the fact that others liked things just fine as they were (or are only looking for minor tweaks) and aren't looking for this level of change in core mechanics.

It means that you're always a good fighter, no matter what...

I will point out that 3E isn't entirely free from this. Assuming that you don't use NPC classes, a wizard can choose all noncombat spells - but a fighter MUST take his bonus feats from a set list, meaning that he WILL have a certain amount of combat ability. A monk's hands are deadly weapons, even if he doesn't focus on combat. All rogues know how to sneak attack and use hand crossbows, even if you're seeing your rogue as a con artist who hates to fight. All rangers take a combat style at 2nd level; you can't decide to take a "noncombat style" instead, at least by the core rules. Likewise, it's true that in 4E all fighters WILL have a set number of combat powers - but nothing's stopping you from making a fighter with a 10 Strength and spending all your feats on Linguistics and Skill Focus in noncombat skills. Again, if you want a true escape from class roles, you're better off playing a system like GURPS or Hero, IMO - though you could certainly play an expert or a commoner.

 

[nutluck]

Assuming your still talking about at-will/per encounter/per day (W/E/D) vs. Vancian Spell Prep, what direction would you have preferred WotC to go? Make it harder to learn/cast spells per day? Less spells? I'm curious.

A mana like system. Though i suspect I am going to really like the ritual system in 4e for none combat magic. If the combat magic had been mana points maybe 1,3,5 cost instead of the at will, per encounter and per day. I would have been have been geeked about it. Then give melee classes a endurance pool and set their powers up the same way.

Some of the powers I don't care for but some i do really like. It is the system behind it that bugs me the most. There is other things like this, that bug me. But that is one of the biggest ones. Of course someone might make a 4e book that does the stuff I want and then I might be all for 4e.

It really comes down to if the good out weigh the bad. I am only leaning towards no, because some of the bad I know about for sure are things I really really don't like. So unless some of the stuff I don't know about it are just as outstandingly good in my oppinion I don't see me adapting. But as I mentioned I will wait and see before i say yay or nah for sure.

Just to give people a idea where I am coming from. I have played just about every game system and game ever made since 1979 winter/spring when I started. Some of them I hated, some I loved, many i thought worked good for the game but was not a system i would want to use other stuff for.(white Wolf WoD storyteller system fits this bill)

I like the storyteller system as a whole for what it was made to do, but of all the games the one I like the most is Rolemaster.(granted I don't like the magic system in it but I love almost everything else) So in short I wanted 4e to take a right towards RM in a more open flexible skill point, talent tree system where classes only losely defined a character and it seems 4e took a left turn more towards the simpler Storyteller system of White Wolf.

 

[Lizard]

I will point out that 3E isn't entirely free from this. Assuming that you don't use NPC classes, a wizard can choose all noncombat spells - but a fighter MUST take his bonus feats from a set list, meaning that he WILL have a certain amount of combat ability. A monk's hands are deadly weapons, even if he doesn't focus on combat. All rogues know how to sneak attack and use hand crossbows, even if you're seeing your rogue as a con artist who hates to fight. All rangers take a combat style at 2nd level; you can't decide to take a "noncombat style" instead, at least by the core rules. Likewise, it's true that in 4E all fighters WILL have a set number of combat powers - but nothing's stopping you from making a fighter with a 10 Strength and spending all your feats on Linguistics and Skill Focus in noncombat skills. Again, if you want a true escape from class roles, you're better off playing a system like GURPS or Hero, IMO - though you could certainly play an expert or a commoner.

True -- you can't build a 'totally non combat' character with the core classes (and trying to build a 'non combat fighter' strikes me more as an exercise in masochism than an attempt to make a believable character). What I was referring to is that many classes -- especially rogues, bards, and casters -- had the ability to trade off combat or non-combat (but still useful) skills. Pick Diplomacy or Sleight Of Hand? Pick 'utility' spells or 'nuke' spells? This option made the non-combat character more unique; perhaps he lagged a bit in damage output, but there were things he could do no one else could. From what I've seen of 4e, there are no -- or very few -- such choices. The bulk of one's abilites come from class powers, and feat picks have a relatively minor impact. While this makes some character concepts that 3e handled poorly much easier -- the noble-born fighter is the canonical example -- it also seems to punish those who liked to define their character by their out-of-combat skills. 4e's non-combat-encounter system, what I've seen of it, lets "everyone participate" by virtue of making almost any skill a "non combat skill", if you can figure out a way to convince the DM to let you solve a riddle via Athletics or learn about the local gang structure via Nature.

(I do like the idea that casters shouldn't be able to nullify the utility of non-casters, but is turning them into purely mobile artillery the best way to meet this design goal? While we haven't see high level wizards, we HAVE seen a very broad range of spells, and pretty much all of them are variations on 'inflict Y condition on X targets'. While fighters and rogues have gotten much richer combat options, casters seem to be seriously impoverished.)

(My personal preference would be to make spells like knock, invisibility, etc, act as skill check bonuses, capped at the target's ranks. So instead of knock, you'd have 'Mystic Lockpicks', which add +caster level to any Open Lock check, maxed at the ranks the target had in Open Lock. So you'd cast it on the thief, and he'd do his thing. But that's neither here nor there.)

I do acknowledge I'm operating on incomplete information -- we've seen, what 10-20 pages of rules out of about 600? -- and people who've actually played the game report different experiences. But it's hard to see how we get from here to there, from a game which seems much more constrained and limited than 3e to one which is actually broader and better.

 

[Hellcow]

What I was referring to is that many classes -- especially rogues, bards, and casters -- had the ability to trade off combat or non-combat (but still useful) skills.

I'd argue that the rogue has the exact same ability today. As I said, Bluff or Acrobatics? Streetwise or Stealth? Class and personal choice are still involved in your skills, and the "everyone advances" thing plays a secondary role.

Again, I look to the warlock in my group - the shady archaeologist with Intimidate, History, and Streetwise, who can find the fence and lean on him when he does. I ran the same adventure for both of my groups. In the first, there was a big fight. In the second, the paladin and the warlock intimidated the crap out of the people instead of fighting them; there was a bit of a scuffle with the few people too tough to fall for it, but not much to speak of. If the paladin had taken Athletics instead of Intimidate, and the Warlock had chosen Arcana? Would have been an entirely different scene.

The bulk of one's abilites come from class powers, and feat picks have a relatively minor impact.

The bulk of one's COMBAT abilities come from class powers. In noncombat situations, those powers play a minor role - save for the utility powers that help in these situations. And there, again, it's a choice as to whether you pick utility powers that favor combat or noncombat situations.

4e's non-combat-encounter system, what I've seen of it, lets "everyone participate" by virtue of making almost any skill a "non combat skill", if you can figure out a way to convince the DM to let you solve a riddle via Athletics or learn about the local gang structure via Nature.

Honestly, I can't speak to this, because here's a situation where I haven't seen the final rules. It's possible that what I've been using (and enjoying) are inaccurate. But this assertion - "Sure, you can solve this riddle with Athletics because you kick the sphinx in the nose" - is not how I've been reading the rules I've been given, and seems silly to me (while it would be up to the DM to say "Um, no", I find the idea that you could use Nature in a situation that clearly calls for Streetwise to be silly.). However, as I said, in this case I only know the rules I've been using, and I don't actually know if they're final. (And in any case, there's more to a skill challenge than making a single check.)

But it's hard to see how we get from here to there, from a game which seems much more constrained and limited than 3e to one which is actually broader and better.

Again, I'm not saying we do get to one broader and better. I'm saying that 4E is the KotOR to 3E's SWG. If you want to focus on the life of the commoner, or to be able to make a PC who begins with 4 HP and no combat abilities, it's NOT the system for you. Heck, if you want to make a bard or druid on day one, it's not the system for you. Absolute versatility is NOT the goal here; it's not trying to be GURPS or Hero. At the same time, I have no trouble running a murder mystery, an intrigue at a political embassy, or a traditional dungeon crawl if that's what I want to do. It's not broader than 3E. If you're deeply attached to things like NPC classes, you can easily say it's not as broad. But I've certainly been able to tell the stories I want to tell - and my PCs haven't had any trouble creating unique and interesting characters. The warlorck in the first group is that shady archaeologist, who's made a pact with elder gods for his arcane powers... and who feels completely different from the Lyrandar warlock in group two, who has bargained with the storm for her powers and who doesn't know a thing about history or the mean streets.

 

[AZRogue]

Keith, thanks for clarifying so many issues. It's nice to actually hear this stuff. Hopefully, with the release date creeping up on us and the books off to the printers, WotC will loosen the muzzle some more. We, as fans, really like to hear this stuff and I think a lot of us feel like we should have seen more by now.

Thanks again, Keith.

 

[Hellcow]

Keith, thanks for clarifying so many issues. It's nice to actually hear this stuff.

And I wish I could say more. Since WotC_Miko is a WotC employee and hasn't PM'd me to say "What the $#^% are you doing? Shut up already!" I'm hoping I haven't crossed any legal lines. I do need to try to scale back my comments, just since I need to actually get some paying work done one of these days, and because as Spatula has noted I ultimately hit the "It's great! You just haven't seen the cool stuff!" wall... I'm just very excited about the game and having a blast with it at my table, and I can't wait until that muzzle is fully removed.