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

[psionotic]

Much thanks for spending all the time with us, Keith. Am quite tantalized by the hints about the multiclassing system, especially. Its something I hope we can hear more about soon..

 

[hong]

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.

Nerfing intentional suck is an acceptable tradeoff for removing unintentional suck. Those who wish to intentionally suck can always refuse to roll the dice.

 

[Dragonblade]

I'll just chime in here and say that I utterly despise the design philosophy that one should have to trade combat effectiveness for utility effectiveness and vice versa.

I think every class should be able to contribute effectively both in combat AND out of combat at every level. In this respect, I think 4e is taking the game in the right direction.

 

[Henry]

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.

Until Michele showed up, I was concerned about that, too, but figured you knew what you were doing. In any event, thanks for the clearer picture, and the info you have been able to give. I'm beginning to suspect that the answer to Lizard's problems with the spells, at least, may lie in the Rituals system, even if not in the specific rituals given in the first PHB.

As a devotee of Green Ronin's "True Sorcery" product, one of the things I loved about that system were that, as a mage got more competent, there were certain magics that he could do on the fly, as opposed to having to spend lots of time on preparation. The combat stuff we've seen from Wizards and Warlocks so far seems like the "quick cast" stuff that is simple direct, and combat-oriented, whereas the rituals are the longer, more subtle stuff that require finesse and take time to do. Nothing will ever eclipse the flexibility of True Sorcery for me, but a system that could mimic that style without as much bookkeeping would be a neat thing to see.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

That prestidigitations and illusions (although disbelieve checks were given out too easily) were awesome in 3rd edition is no question.
But it is still good to hear it from you

I specifically meant:

Ice storm:
Either let it hail to do damage or put ice on the ground as an improved grease.

Fire Arrow:
Either shoot arrows of fire or ignite a complete army´s arrows.

coulour orb:
use it as a light source or as a Level 1 death/petrification spell

Melfs minute meteorites:
deal 5d6 damage at once or 1d6 damage as a quick action for some rounds or using them to set everything on fire instead of doing damage

My feeling in 3rd edition was that damage spells were very narrowly defined to keep balance, and i expect combat spells in 4e to be equally narrowly defined to balance them properly.

Thanks Keith for your insights.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

A monk's hands are deadly weapons, even if he doesn't focus on combat.

I have to disagree with this. In 3E, a monk's hands are not deadly weapons, even if he focuses on combat.

 

[robertliguori]

I have to disagree with this. In 3E, a monk's hands are not deadly weapons, even if he focuses on combat.

Monk's hands are deadly weapons. The problem is that they're deadly like knives and swords, while wizard's hands are deadly like heavy machine guns and mortars.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

no, monks hands are deadly as a a +5 sword in the hand of a wizard...or a -5 sword in the hand of a fighter...

the only think making a monk really deadly is grapple.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have to disagree with this. In 3E, a monk's hands are not deadly weapons, even if he focuses on combat.

Let's say: He was supposed to be. And against a commoner, Goblin or even a Bugbear, that might be true after a few levels.

But won't we miss "Flurry of Misses"?

 

[Spatula]

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.

I'm not saying I want the actual text of all the books up on the net. Anything that's not released will be a surprise, and there will be all kinds of little bits and details that we won't know, no matter how much is revealed now, by the time the books are on the shelves. For example, look at monsters - we have *tons* of data but there's still lots of room for surprise & delight once the books are out - unrevealed monsters, monster design, etc. I am curious as to what exactly you meant by "sales viability" though.

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.

Sure. And that's part of the problem. Half of the game (the non-combat half) is essentially a complete mystery. We have some vague notions (non-combat magic is called rituals! Well, that's sold me on the concept...) but WOTC hasn't told us squat about any of this stuff* and then objects whenever people complain about the game being all about combat, or a boardgame, or whatever. They're the ones who created that perception, and who have so far refused to offer any counter aside from, "you're wrong but we're not going to show you why." This wouldn't really bother me at all, but the basic rules (from the 1st adventure) are set to be available in 2 months, so I wonder why there's this huge amount of cool preview info that they're keeping secret. Show us the (non-combat) innovations, already.

* aside from the skill challenge, which is neat but ultimately system independant, and in any case rules-lite since the whole point is to be somewhat freeform.