Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[pemerton]

I love the idea that the rogue might be able to scamper over a wall that the wizard can dream of finding a single foothold on. Some 4E fans have told me that everyone should gain some skill at everything and trying to get the wizard past a wall is just a slow down in the game, therefore skills should be at least reasonably equitable. No claim of right or wrong, but either they can both climb the wall or they can't.

Shoudn't a high level wizard be levitating over walls?

 

[ferratus]

There is also the rogue dropping a rope.

No the two problems with shared skills is whether you have someone in the party that can do it, and stealth.

I don't know where Byron gets that 4e PC's have equitable skills. Thanks to characters being based around 1 high ability score, the problem is as bad as its ever been.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

2. Not all players have to have equally complex characters and they are designing for allowing a player at a table with a minimal 1st/2nd ed character playing next to one with a 3rd or 4th ed style character with all sorts of feats, skills and special abilities.

To be honest - if they pull this off, with each character type (simple or complex) being mostly balanced in play, at the same table... That would one of the biggest achievements in game design in quite a while.

 

[pemerton]

There is also the rogue dropping a rope.

Boring! . . . but conceded. The rest of your post is good too. In my game I use DMG2 "group checks" to handle Stealth. It doesn't come up often enough to cause big headaches either in resolution or in narration.

 

[LurkAway]

In the story, if you have a Basic Fighter and an Advanced Fighter, does that mean:
a) Basic fighter is trained differently and less specialized than an Advanced fighter
b) Basic fighter is using a conventional/defensive stance, and Advanced fighter is being more aggressive and risky
c) Two different mechanisms (one simpler, one complex) are used to simulate/narrate the same kinds of behavior and outcomes

If (a) or (b), then the Basicness and the Advancedness actually simulates something in-game. If (c), then the Basic Fighter could theoretically accomplish anything the Advanced Fighter could do and vice versa.

If (b) or (c) and a player chooses a Basic Fighter, is that player permanently locked into the Basic Fighter class progression for that PC, or can the PC be flipped into an Advanced Fighter? If there is a choice to flip from Basic mode to Advanced mode (or vice versa), is this choice available at any time within encounters, or between encounters, or between adventures, or when reaching a new level? (And practically speaking, he'll need an Advanced version of his character sheet)

Because WoTC has clearly defined the Soul of D&D as "the story". And the rules should not get in the way of the story that the DM or group wants to tell.

So say Bob's Basic Fighter is swinging his sword and hears that Dillinger's Advanced Fighter is pushing foes off the cliff. Bob wants his Basic fighter to also push or trip or kick foes off the cliff too, and why not if his fighter is just as strong and fast and shielded and capable as Dillinger's and so within the story neither should have a monopoly on trying to shieldbash and bullrush. The story is the most important thing, and the rules should support that. So what options are there for Bob?
1) Bob gets access to a "page 42" to duplicate what Dillinger can do
2) Bob must reduce his opponents to 0 hp in order to push opponents off the cliff
3) Bob gets to switch his Basic fighter to an Advanced fighter

 

[Tallifer]

Based on what Monte is saying, I think its safe to say that Essentials is a sort of 5e preview, at least in terms of concept.

So you have an Essentials Fighter which is very simple. No dailies, one simple encounter attack power and some encounter utilities. That's it. The 5e version could be even simpler.

Now you have the 4e PHB Fighter with all its build options from the core PHB plus Martial Power. It has multiple at-wills, encounters, and dailies to choose from. Its very customizable.

Both fighters co-exist quite elegantly in the same game. I know, because I have DMed for both in the same game. The PHB fighter has a better ability to spike with their dailies and in certain situations where they happen to have the perfect power to use, but overall the Essentials fighter is rock steady and consistently on par but without the hills and valleys of the PHB fighter. Mathematically both are balanced and neither one outshines the other. One is just more customizable with more options to choose from.

I could see this in 5e and I think it would be awesome!

You have your core 5e fighter which would play and feel very similarly to a 1e fighter. But you could dig into the options book and really go to town with options if you want.

I cannot give you any more experience points any more, so I will just say here that you hit the nail on the head. The Essentials Fighter really feels like what we played in the 1980s, and he plays well alongside the new regular Fourth Edition classes.

 

[Baumi]

I don't see the problem here. We played with Companions as PC's alongside normal Characters, and except for making the base-Role-Power stronger (they are meant for NPC's) they hold quite well versus their more complex Comrades even without Feats, magical Bonuses and fewer Powers.

It certainly was a lot of fun for those players who didn't want the full complexity.

About the GM, I think that there will be several optional Systems like tactical Combat, but overall I don't think that there will be a modular system for complexity (like different Monsterstats).. after all the easier it is, the better it is for the GM.

 

[pemerton]

In the story, if you have a Basic Fighter and an Advanced Fighter, does that mean:
a) Basic fighter is trained differently and less specialized than an Advanced fighter
b) Basic fighter is using a conventional/defensive stance, and Advanced fighter is being more aggressive and risky
c) Two different mechanisms (one simpler, one complex) are used to simulate/narrate the same kinds of behavior and outcomes

I think the default assumption will be (c), but I'm sure some tables will drift to (a) or (b).

If (c), then the Basic Fighter could theoretically accomplish anything the Advanced Fighter could do and vice versa.

If (b) or (c) and a player chooses a Basic Fighter, is that player permanently locked into the Basic Fighter class progression for that PC, or can the PC be flipped into an Advanced Fighter? If there is a choice to flip from Basic mode to Advanced mode (or vice versa), is this choice available at any time within encounters, or between encounters, or between adventures, or when reaching a new level? (And practically speaking, he'll need an Advanced version of his character sheet)

I assume that the default will be "talk to the GM and rebuild your PC". This is the approach WotC has taken in the *Power books for 4e.

So say Bob's Basic Fighter is swinging his sword and hears that Dillinger's Advanced Fighter is pushing foes off the cliff. Bob wants his Basic fighter to also push or trip or kick foes off the cliff too, and why not if his fighter is just as strong and fast and shielded and capable as Dillinger's and so within the story neither should have a monopoly on trying to shieldbash and bullrush. The story is the most important thing, and the rules should support that. So what options are there for Bob?
1) Bob gets access to a "page 42" to duplicate what Dillinger can do
2) Bob must reduce his opponents to 0 hp in order to push opponents off the cliff
3) Bob gets to switch his Basic fighter to an Advanced fighter

I doubt (3). I think it's too early to tell between (2) and (1), but my guess would be some version of (1) - that is, a GM adjudicated generic manoeuvre system. (This is what Mearls seemed to be hinting at in his L&L columns a while back.)

 

[LurkAway]

I assume that the default will be "talk to the GM and rebuild your PC". This is the approach WotC has taken in the *Power books for 4e.

I'm not aware how these Power books do it, but I think that from a purely practical POV, that rebuilding or rectonning your PC from Basic to Advanced build would be a nice option for newbies. That way, your kid or the new guy can try a few levels of Basic gameplay and then switch to Advanced mode without giving up on his original character development or insisting on bringing in "Bob's twin brother". Because, theoretically, if Basic vs Advanced classes are just simple or complex tools to manipulate the same character concept, and if they are going to be as balanced as Monte claims they will be, then it seems to me that they could or should be interchangeable whenever practical.

 

[BryonD]

Shoudn't a high level wizard be levitating over walls?

Certainly that is a valid option and even a reasonable expectation. But in the context of the point, I consider tying that to climb skill to be poor form.