Missing from the DM's Toolkit: powers

[Delta]

...but do you think WotC is intentionally keeping their power design framework proprietary, for whatever reason?

To sell more stuff later on?

 

[buzz]

To sell more stuff later on?

I can definitely see this being a DMG2 selling point.

Aside: I also think fans and publishers alike should probably live with the system for a while before going too nuts designing new powers and classes. It took my groups years to really grok 3e, and I don't think 4e, simpler or no, is really going to be that different.

 

[Doc Eldritch]

Exactly. Same reason WotC held back certain iconic monsters from the MM. To help the MM2 sell better ("Look what is in here!").

If they gave us all the tools we wanted in the core books, we would not buy their splats.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Well, I'm not sure if the decision to leave that sort of higher-level DM tool out of the DMG1 was entirely made to ensure some sales of the DMG2. I mean . . . what we have in the first three books is plenty of good material for a fairly new group to sit down and start playing. Not every DM wants to start creating their own classes and races and monsters right out of the gate.

I think it makes sense for the product itself to limit what's in the DMG1 to the more nuts-and-bolts sort of tools that a new DM is going to need.

 

[ryryguy]

Aside: I also think fans and publishers alike should probably live with the system for a while before going too nuts designing new powers and classes. It took my groups years to really grok 3e, and I don't think 4e, simpler or no, is really going to be that different.

This isn't bad advice... but it's cold comfort if you want to convert a 3e character who belongs to a class not covered in the 4e PHB. That's what makes it particularly frustrating to me that they didn't give more explicit info about powers (and classes/class features) to help out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

half maximum damage surely?

kobold minions do 4 damage with a spear which is 1D8 and they have no stat bonuses to damage

Don't look a the weapon statistics, look at the expected damage by level guidelines in the DMG. At least I think that's how they do it.

Exactly. Same reason WotC held back certain iconic monsters from the MM. To help the MM2 sell better ("Look what is in here!").

If they gave us all the tools we wanted in the core books, we would not buy their splats.

True, but on the other hand - 60 € now and 60 € next year plus some extra play testing, or 120 € up-front, what do you prefer?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My guess is that a lot of power creation is still more "art" then science.

- How do you achieve the appropriate flavor of a power?
- How do you judge damage vs secondary effect and keywords?

Looking at WotC's powers, I do not believe this is true for a moment. They clearly have very definate guidelines and costings/weightings for their powers. There's little wildly out-of-whack in 4E, if they were doing it purely by eye, i.e. as an "art", then there would be a significant amount of stuff (just as there is with Feats, PrCs and so on in 3.5E).

WotC have a system for doing this, and they didn't not include it by accident or because they thought we wouldn't want it. They didn't include it because it's almost certainly going to be a part of a later DMG, a selling point for it.

 

[buzz]

Well, I'm not sure if the decision to leave that sort of higher-level DM tool out of the DMG1 was entirely made to ensure some sales of the DMG2. I mean . . . what we have in the first three books is plenty of good material for a fairly new group to sit down and start playing. Not every DM wants to start creating their own classes and races and monsters right out of the gate.

I think it makes sense for the product itself to limit what's in the DMG1 to the more nuts-and-bolts sort of tools that a new DM is going to need.

I certainly don't think it's malicious. They're a business after all. That, and there's only so much room in the books. The 4e DMG has far more important issues to concern itself with.

Not to mention, they never did the equivalent of this for 3e (IIRC), so I don't see how they can be faulted.

 

[catsclaw227]

Don't look a the weapon statistics, look at the expected damage by level guidelines in the DMG. At least I think that's how they do it.

Yea -- I just looked again at this. A 1st level kobold minion still does 4 damage because the low normal damage expression for 1st-3rd is 1d6+3, so 4 damage. A 12th level Troglodyte minion does 7 damage (Medium damage expression is 2d6+5.)