New Playtest up...

[HeapThaumaturgist]

You got mentioned on David Noonan's blog.

His reply:

Meh. I'm glad his group is a one-off or whatever, and I do sincerely see the value in testing edge cases and non-basic scenarios.

However, currently I see the choice of topic and presentation of that topic in the playtest reports to be specifically aimed at releasing little to no information. There is very little that can be taken away from the reports I have seen and what CAN be taken away comes usually when they call out something and explain one of the myriad non-informative statements therein.

All within their domain to create and control.

However, it is wearing down my Cup O' Good-Will for the playtest reports.

--fje

 

[Scribble]

After the battle, it was a little different than the procedure that follows a 3E battle. Turns out the enemies don’t need magic weapons to be effective (because the math doesn’t need them to), so we didn’t have a bunch of magic loot that we didn’t really need and would only end up selling. It was a bit of a disconnect, but nothing we’d miss in the long run. We got to cut out the middleman and grabbed some coins and XP (though later we did find some cool magic loot that we could actually use).

This part cracks me up... The way it's written reminds me of a TV commercial. You know when someone in the commericial "casually" recommends a product to a friend, using its full name, ("Have you tried Bandaid brand band aids? They're new from Johnson and Johnson...") and then hits on all of the key aspects of said product and even announces its side effects...

It's so staged its funny...

 

[Grog]

"Don't bother looting the snake priest, guys, he won't have any magic items because he didn't need them. Here, help me get this statue onto the mule."

Treasure CAN'T be nothing but coin.

So instead of getting together once every few sessions to catalog all the +1 items you have and sell them off, you'll be cataloging a whole lot of other stuff that has some gp value. That annoying "dividing the spoils and spending your coin" session is still going to have to take place.

But the big difference is that the "selling everything off" session won't be nearly AS annoying as it was.

If the DM tells the group "You find a statue worth 3,000 gold pieces," whoever keeps track of the treasure can just write the value down on the treasure sheet right then. Then, when it's time to sell it, it doesn't take any time at all to add the value to the rest of the treasure. But with magic items, you have to look them up in the DMG to find out how much they cost, then multiply by whatever percentage you're able to sell them for. Doing that for every single item can take a while.

Sure, sometimes it can be handled between game sessions. But sometimes players want to sell stuff off in the middle of a session, and when that happens, the game comes to a screeching halt while someone looks up all the magic items and finds out how much they can sell them for. Nonmagical treasures won't have that problem.

 

[Kesh]

Here's a question, based on what bits & pieces I know from SWSE:

What are the odds that warlock & sorcerer are essentially talent tree titles for the Wizard/Mage core class? They discussed different sources of power for spellcasters, so why keep those classes seperate & distinct?

Or, what are the odds that warlock & sorcerer are prestige classes instead of core classes? Or the paladin, for that matter? (though so far, it sounds unlikely for the paladin, according to the few snippets of palytest info released).

Odds are low. There were statements that they wanted "to differentiate the Sorcerer [from the Wizard]" in 4e. More likely, the mage will learn from spellbooks, still have a good chunk of Vancian spells, and a limited array of spell-like abilities; while the sorcerer will have more spell-like abilities, fewer Vancian spells and learn those spells "naturally." Likely the Sorcerer will have a separate spell list, too.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Even in the 2E days, when the rules didn't really support using gold to buy magic or any other kind of direct Avatar empowerment, gold still had value; in my games PC's bought ludicrously fancy suits of armor in order to look good at court, they bought castles, they bought casinos and temples and all kinds of things that made their characters cooler - though not in a way that would necessarily help them in their next dungeon delve.

However I'd argue that players dont actually CARE about that stuff in the same fashion that they care about getting a bonus to hit, or a bonus to not being killed. They might pretend to care about fancy clothes and a good meal, but lets face it: we send out PC's into horrible conditions on a regular basis. We treck through foul sewers, harsh climates etc. In the end, we dont give 2 farts about the humidity, smell, etc unless it actually impacts the character mechanically. Given the choice between a fancy hairbrush and a new shirt and the ability to fly once per day, people are going to choose the latter. If magic items are super rare, and gold is basically useless from an empowerment status, treasure division is actually going to be harder when it boils down to one guy getting a cool new ability, and the other people getting a fancy dinner and extra hookers.

In 1st edition, it was assumed that you used the gold to get henchmen and hirelings - disposable trap finding mooks who could actually be useful in getting you more exp and magic. It was kind of like that old cocaine commercial
"I kill monsters"
"So I can get more gold"
"So I can be more powerful"
"So I can kill more monsters"

Take away the tangible reward, and you lose a lot of interest. Sure, theres always going to be players who would want the feat "Never has a bad hair day" with no mechanical effect, but I'd bet they are a very small percentage of players.

The design team needs to treat carefully in this area.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But the big difference is that the "selling everything off" session won't be nearly AS annoying as it was.

If the DM tells the group "You find a statue worth 3,000 gold pieces," whoever keeps track of the treasure can just write the value down on the treasure sheet right then. Then, when it's time to sell it, it doesn't take any time at all to add the value to the rest of the treasure. But with magic items, you have to look them up in the DMG to find out how much they cost, then multiply by whatever percentage you're able to sell them for. Doing that for every single item can take a while.

Well, keeping in mind I only do this design sh-- in my spare time, I don't see the significant difference between these two potential entries in the adventure text:

Pearl encrusted gold statue of Blipdoolpoolp (3000 gp)

and

+1 longsword (2000 gp)

Sure, sometimes it can be handled between game sessions. But sometimes players want to sell stuff off in the middle of a session, and when that happens, the game comes to a screeching halt while someone looks up all the magic items and finds out how much they can sell them for. Nonmagical treasures won't have that problem.

Yes, if only there were some way to avoid having to look up the value of magical items in the DMG.

It's a stumper, for sure.

God, what a specious argument.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Treasure division is actually going to be harder when it boils down to one guy getting a cool new ability, and the other people getting a fancy dinner and extra hookers.

So sigworthy.

 

[Grog]

Well, keeping in mind I only do this design sh-- in my spare time, I don't see the significant difference between these two potential entries in the adventure text:

Pearl encrusted gold statue of Blipdoolpoolp (3000 gp)

and

+1 longsword (2000 gp)

Well, given that I've read through dozens of published 3.x adventures by this point and haven't yet seen one that does this, I'm guessing there's probably a good reason why it isn't done.

Maybe it's a space issue? Most enemies don't have pearl encrusted gold statues of Blipdoolpoolp, but most do have a number of magic items. Maybe adding the gp value on to each one takes up too much space.

I don't know. But if the solution was as easy as you suggest, you'd think that more people would have figured it out by now.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, given that I've read through dozens of published 3.x adventures by this point and haven't yet seen one that does this, I'm guessing there's probably a good reason why it isn't done.

Eww, I wouldn't want to assume that. We all do lots of things for no good reason.

If we based our insights of 4e on the dozens of published 3.x adventures, then NOTHING would be changing.

Maybe it's a space issue? Most enemies don't have pearl encrusted gold statues of Blipdoolpoolp, but most do have a number of magic items. Maybe adding the gp value on to each one takes up too much space.

Look, the suggestion was made that instead of listing the gp value of magic items, we'd list the gp value of non-magical items. If space is an issue, that solution is off the table.

I don't know. But if the solution was as easy as you suggest, you'd think that more people would have figured it out by now.

For the same reason that the designers are only now considering tinkering with it in the first place:

Everyone overestimated the tolerance for adventurers to actually... gulp... divide up the loot.

Who knew that was a problem?

It's not a case of the solution being obvious, it's a case of the problem being pretty much unspoken until, I assume, very recently.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Odds are low. There were statements that they wanted "to differentiate the Sorcerer [from the Wizard]" in 4e. More likely, the mage will learn from spellbooks, still have a good chunk of Vancian spells, and a limited array of spell-like abilities; while the sorcerer will have more spell-like abilities, fewer Vancian spells and learn those spells "naturally." Likely the Sorcerer will have a separate spell list, too.

I don't think that wizards will have too many /day spells or too many /encounter or /will spells, since it was said that classes, after blasting away all their /day stuff, are at about 80% efficiency.

I think the difference will be more in type of spells: Wizards, being controllers, will have a lot of area magic going on, and utility and defensive magic, while sorcerers, which I guess will be strikers, will have movement magic (fly and the like) and point attack stuff (rays, orbs, things to do to a single enemy). I also think that those point attack spells will have pack more of a punch than the area spells (since 4e is geared towards fights against several enemies at once, that shouldn't translate into "wizard casts fireball at one big monster and is outclassed by sorcerer). And I think that wizards will have single target spells and sorcerers area spells, but those will be per day (so you can't do that all day, but you can do the stuff you're supposed to be good at all day).