Michele Carter's Big Playtest Post!

[Wepwawet]

The first thing I dislike about this pleytest summary is the confirmation that Warlords are really in
(I know, we already knew this... but I was hopping it was not real)

Anyway, I love the sound of 4E, especially this:

(...) one of the most interesting things about this edition: discovering all the new ways that powers work with and against each other, creating different synergies in every battle.

And Michelle really managed to distract a some readers with the Shiny Thing!
Hehehe Nice work

 

[Raven Crowking]

The best thing, to my mind, about this playtest report is that "exploration" seems to be a valid playstyle choice again.

EDIT: Is it just me, or does "She also used a very, very effective positioning strike to move an ally into flanking position for better attack odds" sound not only like the Leader Role really will be telling you what to do, but will even be moving you if she wants to?!?

RC

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Obviously, the mystery race is Thri-kreen.

That would actually be kind of neat, balancing the presence of elves with a PC race that eats them like candy. It's a long shot given that we won't have any rules for psionics for a while, but this would be a good step away from "Do you want to play a human, a skinny human, a short human, or a short fat human?"

 

[mhensley]

EDIT: Is it just me, or does "She also used a very, very effective positioning strike to move an ally into flanking position for better attack odds" sound not only like the Leader Role really will be telling you what to do, but will even be moving you if she wants to?!?

I think that would be great! I would totally play a leader just so I could screw with the other players.

 

[Aloïsius]

I would totally play a leader just so I could screw with the other players.

This is probably the best definition of "a leader". Ever.

 

[Michele Carter]

EDIT: Is it just me, or does "She also used a very, very effective positioning strike to move an ally into flanking position for better attack odds" sound not only like the Leader Role really will be telling you what to do, but will even be moving you if she wants to?!?

*snerk* Well, the wizard could have said no. "Enable an ally to move" would be better wording, and the right of refusal willl be clear in the explanatory power text.

 

[mhensley]

*snerk* Well, the wizard could have said no. "Enable an ally to move" would be better wording, and the right of refusal willl be clear in the explanatory power text.

Awwww....

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

Wouldn't Orcs or Goblins attract more than only 'campaign-specific' wariness? They've been villainized in just about every incarnation of D&D. Unless the 'campaign-specific' comment is indicating that core Orcs and Goblins won't be as 'evil' any more. That would be a mighty big change.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*snerk* Well, the wizard could have said no. "Enable an ally to move" would be better wording, and the right of refusal willl be clear in the explanatory power text.

Thank you for responding. There's a big difference between enabling someone to move and moving them!

RC

 

[Kaffis]

*snerk* Well, the wizard could have said no. "Enable an ally to move" would be better wording, and the right of refusal willl be clear in the explanatory power text.

Sounds like the Crimelord/Officer talents from Saga. Nice.

I really like the confirmation of the "set them up for my group to knock them down" modus operandi for the leader, though -- my last D&D character was a leaderesque rogue-based character, go figure!