New Ampersand - future stuff (DDi)

[Windjammer]

* There will soon be a new statblock format for monsters. It groups powers by action type: Traits, Standard, Minor, Triggered.

Interesting choice. Personally, I prefer it the old way.

1. The type of action typically goes into the tagline of the action anyway, which makes it fairly easy to absorb the information in question.

2. Grouping things by action type is an issue only for seriously complex monsters. In other words, makes sense for dragons, not so for skellies.

3. There's the question of what gets lost in the reformating. It's tactical information. Usually, after giving us the creature's base attack the stat block listed actions thus: rank actions by their tactical priority (what's a signature attack for a monster? what's more circumstantial?) or simply order of attacks chosen as the encounter unfolds. Take the hippogriff - it's a sequence of (1) what the hippogriff does at the start of an encounter (it charges) and (2) what it does later on, once engaged in combat. - The new sequence pattern will erade this information.

So, overall, it's a question of whether you think what's gained here outweighs what's lost.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Between the design changes from how monsters work in MM2 to MM1 and these new format changes, I wonder how long till we see a new printing of the Monster Manual that incorporates everything. I wouldn't want my core monster book to be out of synch with everything else I'm telling new people who come in through the essentials line.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I saw the news that D&D novels will start releasing as ebooks . . . . but I saw nothing about the PDF format . . . did I miss something?

Ah, I am conflating the two, my bad. Still, even as "non-PDF", I wonder if that would happen.

 

[Nebulous]

The statblock format isn't that different from what we already have; it just makes a couple of minor adjustments that look like they'll very much help us find information when running them at the table. (One thing much appreciated is a clearer breakdown of attack powers into Attack, Hit, Effect and Miss sections).

It's amazing how a couple of little changes make a big difference.

I like the change, but has anyone noticed (or even used) the attack power descriptions line in the Monster Builder? You can actually describe exactly what the power does, rather than just extrapolating the info from the name and the damage type. I sort of expected them to incorporate that more into official products since it is in their official Monster Builder...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the change, but has anyone noticed (or even used) the attack power descriptions line in the Monster Builder? You can actually describe exactly what the power does, rather than just extrapolating the info from the name and the damage type. I sort of expected them to incorporate that more into official products since it is in their official Monster Builder...

The line seems to exist for a while now. I am not sure that's really the intended purpose - but what else would it be?

Either way, I would definitely like that. Many powers might be easy to visualize from name and damage types, but some just are not, and that sucks. "The monster does something strange, and you got pulled 3 squares and take 5 ongoing damage!" sucks as narration.

 

[Nebulous]

The line seems to exist for a while now. I am not sure that's really the intended purpose - but what else would it be?

Either way, I would definitely like that. Many powers might be easy to visualize from name and damage types, but some just are not, and that sucks. "The monster does something strange, and you got pulled 3 squares and take 5 ongoing damage!" sucks as narration.

Oh, i use it all the time when tweaking monsters. I just wish you could italicise it so it stands out a little. Very often 4e monster powers blur together because they just do damage + condition and the DM has to figure out what it means exactly in order to describe it.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

The new format is better, but it's a bit jarring at the moment. Overall it's clearer, and that's what matters.

 

[JPL]

I am very impressed that WotC is taking a step back and shoring up the foundations of 4th Edition with several months of products for new players, which will remain in print indefinitely.

Very interested to see what sort of PC builds they'll offer in these new-player Essentials. Seems like you want to go as iconic as possible, so that new players can have this sort of baseline "essence of the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard" play experience before branching out into your more eclectic builds. The question is, can you get any more iconic than what's already in the PHB?

 

[Nebulous]

The question is, can you get any more iconic than what's already in the PHB?

no, i don't think so, not without changing the baseline way 4e works. But i thought the whole point of Essentials is that it is Basic D&D, it is simpler and cheaper, and you can upgrade to the more expensive (and complex) books once you're "hooked"?

So while i am curious about Essentials, i don't it is going to offer anything i don't already know.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

* The first hints of material past the release of the Essentials line - he hints at a new power source - but more of what we've seen and they're trying some new formats/products as well.

"You’ll see options for players that include new power sources, ..." (emphasis mine)
I wonder if that includes Psionic. (Or will PH4 have two new power sources? IMO unlikely, but possible.)