New Playtest up...

[fuindordm]

Without quoting a specific post above, I'll start by saying this:

There's no question D&D is about killing stuff and taking their loot.

Now that's out of the way, I'll go one step further and say that D&D is not (or shouldn't be) about spending game time for accounting. It's not fun.

But in some sense, the "taking their stuff" is a relic from first edition's wonky xp rules.

In 1st edition, you had

GP=XP=level up!

This was better than killing things to level up (you could do that too, but it took a lot longer), because it encouraged players to avoid combats (sometimes, at least). On the other hand, to level everyone up the DM had to place lots and lots of gold. Often the really big prizes were hidden, but you still ended up with:

Level up=stinking rich!

The gold is a reasonable way of giving out a blanket story-based xp award for the simple tomb-robbing scenario. But something had to be done with all the gold. So you had

Level up (XP) needs training=GP!

So characters were scouring the world for gold to spend on training to level up, and in a properly run campaign became wealthy rather slowly.

The point is that the whole 'loot the bodies' thing is a holdover from the circular logic of dungeon-based 1st edition campaigns. In a campaign where most XP comes from other kinds of story award, then there is no need for all the gold.

3rd edition, on the other hand, embraced the gold pool as a way of balancing the magical resources of the PCs. It was a clever idea, and they did a pretty good job with it.

I agree with WotC's apparent attitude for 4e: if the magic items aren't of the +X to Y variety, then they don't really need to be balanced. Gold and magic should be a secondary goal of the PCs, not a primary goal, unless they really need it for plot reasons.

Cheers,

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Say what you will about the "coolness" of owning fancy suits of armor to look good at court, owning castles and casinos, and so forth, there's no denying that current D&D design does not follow that approach.

That approach is long since dead.

Everything is about the "encounter mechanics."

But I think you're right-- best not to read too much into any of the playtest blogs.

 

[Traycor]

You got mentioned on David Noonan's blog.

He answered that very well. And I'm glad to hear that we will be getting other playtests from groups with more "straight 4e goodness".

 

[Emirikol]

So what am I spending my gold on? Do I get to spend my gold on training? Ale and whores?

Jay's House Rule # 7 (Hyborian Campaign):
X.P. FOR LOOT Characters in a community can get rid of excess gold to gain experience points. Typical actions include wenching, feasting, roughhousing, gambling, smoking black lotus, drinking away the demons, dabbling in the dark arts, wronging-rights, crafting useless trinkets, breaking magic items, sleeping with the enemy, using your profession-skill inappropriately, making bribes, training, making sacrifices to the temple, fixing damage to armor and weapons, replacing worn equipment, cleansing taint, abusing power, rebuilding/retraining, gaining fame, etc.

jh

 

[variant]

The Sorcerer should really become the new Warlock and the Wizard should really loot the 3e Sorcerer.

 

[coyote6]

I can confirm that warlock is going to be somewhere as my jump drive from the presentation has a picture of a dwarf warlock. (and the new beholder). I was also told by one of the designers that gnomes will not be in the PHB1.

Interesting -- I hadn't realized the flash drives had different stuff on 'em. Mine had a troll & tiefling.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ale and whores?

That's what my Iron Heroes characters spent it on.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

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).

Besides, I'd prefer fewer core classes that are relatively customizable instead of the oodles & oddles of core classes that serve to provide a core class replacement of a multiclass idea, or a core class option of a prestige class. That's one of the things I grew to hate about 3.X D&D.

I do have to wonder how recent the playtest info is, though? Are the writers talking about playtesting the current incarnation of the game, or are they releasing playtest info on past games when the mechanics are still being hammered out?

 

[Christian]

I would love to see a simple mechanic where you lose $$ per game month on unexplained daily expenses, determined by the DM and the Pc's living style. In addition to spending moolah on magic, it would be incentive to going out to get more, because you're drying up the well a little more every day.

Is something wrong with the one on pg. 130 of the DMG?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What are the odds that warlock & sorcerer are essentially talent tree titles for the Wizard/Mage core class?

I read that the sorcerer won't go away. I think it will still be a class. Now, the warlock could be something like a talent tree for the sorcerer, though.

We already know that the wizards will be a controller. I guess that the sorcerer will be a striker instead.

They discussed different sources of power for spellcasters, so why keep those classes seperate & distinct?

Because of the different roles. After all, we're not going to put paladins and clerics into one class (both use the divine source), or rogues and fighters (both use the martial source).

Just like the those classes will use their sources in different ways, so will the arcane classes use the arcane source in a different way.

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).

It sounds a lot like the paladin being a core class, and I don't see why the warlock or sorcerer should be prestige classes, either. The concept isn't that specialised.

Besides, I'd prefer fewer core classes that are relatively customizable instead of the oodles & oddles of core classes that serve to provide a core class replacement of a multiclass idea, or a core class option of a prestige class. That's one of the things I grew to hate about 3.X D&D.

I'd like a fair number classes that are relatively customisable. They should not be core classes that replace multiclass concepts.

They did set themselves up for a number of classes in the future: By making classes a combination of power source (like arcane, divine, martial, later surely to be including things like psionics) and roles (defender, leader, controller, striker), they can easily create 4 classes for each new power source (I'll play prophet and predict that psionics will have classes by the names of psion, a controller; psychic warrior, a leader; soulknive, a defender; and wilder, a striker.)