D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[Majoru Oakheart]

Let's say you write up an awesome, richly-detailed warrior, etc, etc. You have fun speaking in-character, deciding on his family coat-of-arms. But when combat begins, your options are limited to choosing who to hit, and how much Power Attack to use. It's always "roll d20, add bonus, roll damage, add bonus".

Now imagine if you had the samw awesome warrior, but when combat came out you had four or five different tricks to try out. The latter is mechanically more interesting than the former.

Yeah, this is what I'm hoping for from 4th edition. That combat has interesting and fun choices the same way role playing already does. You don't need rules for roleplaying, since you can make up a background for your character and personality without ever opening a book. However, when it comes to the round by round combat that the game eventually turns into, I want to do something interesting, fun, and unique each round.

 

[BryonD]

Would you say that the previews so far (combined with some SWSE knowledge) provide a reasonably accurate view of where things are headed? Or would you say that the previews so far don't accurately reflect the actual product in its entirety?

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Thanks for the assessment, Ari.

I've already become a "4on" but hearing stuff like this from a designer who I'm more familiar with as a regular poster carries a lot of weight.

I'm really geeked. If only grad school wasn't getting in the way of my gaming.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Like many here, I also value Mouseferatu's opinion, so reading his comments on the game make me more hopeful at least. I'm glad he's excited and having fun.

Someone answer me this question though: Why in the world should I be excited about the opportunity to play more "mechanically interesting" character?

Mechanics have never been something that has excited me before. I'm more interested in playing a character with a rich personality and background and exciting goals and role-playing opportunities.

Why should I now get hot and bothered about the mechanics of a character?

Bolding mine.

If you're interested in rich personality and background, then obviously the rules aren't going to make a grand deal of difference. But when your character gets bogged down in "I attack. I miss, I attack, I miss, I attack, I hit..." then the mechanics can be a dulling effect on the game.

A more mechanically interesting character, whilst having all the same interesting background and so forth, can further enliven the game for you - and for those players that don't spend so much time writing up their character it can make the whole game more interesting.

 

[Roman]

Hello Mouseferatu,

I have a question that I am pretty sure won't impinge on your NDA (though correct me if I am wrong!). Remember the 'evocative' names for feats and powers, such as the 'Golden Wyvern Adept' and such? To what extent do these kinds of names appear in the game? Thanks!

 

[FourthBear]

Why should I now get hot and bothered about the mechanics of a character?

If you feel the mechanics of a character cannot significantly contribute to your interest in a character, then the issue with 4e would appear to be neutral. The changes in mechanics are not relevant, in which case you will be in the same situation in 4e as you were in 3e: you will provide the items you listed for background and personality in the same way.

The mechanics of the character affect how the character is portrayed when the game mechanics are brought into play. For example, you could create a background for your character that he a skilled swordsman, that he is a capable second-story thief and that he has picked up the magical talent to blend into the shadows from his old mentors. If you are satisfied with this description and don't mind that it may not be portrayed this way when the game mechanics are brought into play, then I'd imagine that indeed the mechanics of a character would be of little interest to you.

 

[Roman]

Hello Derren,

...my fear that 4E will focus only on combat and remove any non combat information about monsters.

Yes, I share your fears. Indeed, this is one of my biggest concerns about 4E.

Sadly this blog entry seems to further confirm that in 4E monsters will only be XP containers with combat stats. If you want them to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation).

Although I would not say that the blog entry confirms that, I agree that it is the general impression I get from the information released about 4E so far and it saddens me.

I just hope that Combats in the real game are really exiting, because the 4E Pit Fiend doesn't look exiting at all (one trick pony. Protect yourself against fire and this guy is harmless. And just 3 possible actions? It will get boring very fast as the players will always know what to expect).

For combat purposes only, though definitely not overall, the 4E Pit Fiend is fine, as far as I am concerned. Yes, it would be nice if it had more combat options, but at least the combat actions it does have are interesting yet nicely thematicelly focused. For me, it is the lack of non-combat powers that is depressing, though not unexpected given the other information I have seen beforehand.

 

[DaveMage]

The only question I have is does a combat encounter take longer or shorter in 4E, or is it about the same as 3E?

Thanks.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Uh, I can't comment on the stats of Orcus, I fear. That'd be pushing the bounds a little too much, I think. (I'll say he's no pushover, but that's all I'll say.)

Ok, what about the Pit Fiend, of which they released the stats recently? There is some concern with what they posted in that the damage output seems a bit light. Can you comment how dangerous this beast is in practice?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Wormwood]

Just tell me one thing. Does his Wand now shoot screaming skulls that explode into hellish fire and jagged bone fragments upon striking hapless PCs?

Snark aside, something along those lines that would definitely be interesting to me.