OK, I'm in ...

[hossrex]

I'll give it a fair trial (I'd do it even if I weren't working on the field), but I have one concern that maybe Mouseferatu can shed a light on:

Up until 3e, each class felt very different from each other. Not only were the actions they took different (skulk about, throw fireballs, turn undead, bash heads, etc), but the management of each, the mechanical side, was very different. Some classes had daily resources, others had to worry about their hp, others were all about the skills, etc.

Now, with 4e, every class has mechanically the same management. At 1st level you have two at-wills, an encounter and a daily, wether you're a rogue, fighter or wizard. File off the names and you could swap classes and power sources about.

Could this lead to a saturation level, where it seems that no matter what class you're playing, you're going through the same motions? Like playing only swordsages, just with different stances?

Just a thought that occurred me.

I also agree thats a troubling thought, and since it doesn't have a thing to do with the specifics of numbers it isn't something too likely to seem better once we have a better feel of the game.

Even 3.x had spell casters for the experienced players who wanted to get the most out of their character, and had the ability/skill to do it... and we had the fighter who was the simple character that was "good", and easy to play for the beginners and casual players (who spend four hours a week thinking about DnD, and never once they're away from the table).

Now everyone does the same thing, with the same rolls, and the same level of complexity.

Not only is it boring, it's redundant, and inherently either unfriendly to new players (unlikely), or unfriendly to experienced player (more likely).

I see this posted alot, but in this case I honestly mean it:

This is a feature, not a bug.

Thats like saying "when I flush the toilet the poop shoots back out of it, all over me and my bathroom, but they designed the toilet to do that on purpose, so it isn't a bug, its a feature".

Whatever semantics game you feel like playing, you're still covered in poop.

 

[Mistwell]

Diagonal movement is another one of those things that just seems to break the verisimilitude of the game. Sure monsters can have the same advantage, but this just seems to remove the attempt at simulating realism in the game.

This statement just baffles me.

Stand up in the room your in right now. Move forward two steps, then back. Now move diagonal two steps, and back. Unless you have polio or something that makes your legs different lengths than each other, you just traveled the same distance regardless of direction. The diagonal move rule was a feature of using a battlemap grid and demanding 5' for everything, not verisimilitude. To me, it actually broke verisimilitude a heck of a lot more than not having the rule.

 

[neceros]

I'm not sure I understand what they mean when they refer to power sources. Give me some examples or show me where they're posted so I can get a better idea how this doesn't change the flavor of the game.

Power sources are literally that: The source from where your character receives his adventurous spirit. It's just a label that WoTC can place to let people understand the mechanics behind their characters and design decisions. Wizards get their power from Magic, Clerics get their power from the Divine, Fighters from their Martial might. That's it.

Diagonal movement is another one of those things that just seems to break the verisimilitude of the game. Sure monsters can have the same advantage, but this just seems to remove the attempt at simulating realism in the game.

Wizards does not define rules to simulate reality. No game will simulate reality and be fun (for the most part) and energetic. They make rules to allow us to run a high fantasy game.

If casting is no longer Vancian, how does this work now? You still pick your spells. Do most of them just count as once per day? If so, how is that different from what we have now?

Classes pick abilities when they level. Wizards, who have a spell book, pick the daily spells they can use once per day at the end of their extended rest (Sleep.) They can use this daily spell just once per day. Once they wake up again from rest, they can pick a new one or choose the same.

Encounter powers don't ever change, except for when you level and attain more spells. You can use encounter powers once an encounter, and at will powers whenever you wish.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Stand up in the room your in right now. Move forward two steps, then back. Now move diagonal two steps, and back. Unless you have polio or something that makes your legs different lengths than each other, you just traveled the same distance regardless of direction. The diagonal move rule was a feature of using a battlemap grid and demanding 5' for everything, not verisimilitude. To me, it actually broke verisimilitude a heck of a lot more than not having the rule.

Except for your analogy to work in the real world, it'd have to be something more like this: 'Stand up in the room you're in right now. Move forward two steps, then back. Measure the distance. Now move diagonal two steps, and back. Measure that distance too. The diagonal distance will be the square root of 2 times the forward distance squared, or approximately 1.4 times the forward distance. This is because non-polio-inflicted legs function better at angles than they do in straight forward, backward, or sidewise directions!' o_0

 

[Raduin711]

Thats like saying "when I flush the toilet the poop shoots back out of it, all over me and my bathroom, but they designed the toilet to do that on purpose, so it isn't a bug, its a feature".

Whatever semantics game you feel like playing, you're still covered in poop.

Eew.

You realise the basis behind godwin's law, right? I think once you start making those kind of analogies you may want to take a step back.

 

[hossrex]

Or more simply. Draw a long line, and step 30 feet back from it.

If you use well measured steps to get to it, you'll probably reach it in around ten steps. If you turn at a 45 degree angle (diagonal) and then walk towards your long line, you'll arrive in around 14 steps.

You're thinking "thats stupid, because my steps are of equal length no matter what direction I walk", when you should be thinking "it isn't a matter of how long my stride is, but instead a matter of how much distance I need to cover".

This is junior high school geometry.

Now... that said... I'm so very happy the 1-2-1-2 is gone. It was more realistic on a level that was just not needed. People who say things like "they're not using euclidean geometry!" don't get it. Just because your character sheet says "30 movement", doesn't mean that in "each and every six second period of time my character has ever spent walking has resulted in my character having moved 30 feet".

Well... no. Thats silly. Just silly. Sometimes you'll move 20 feet, sometimes 40. Its an approximation.

The problem with over complicating things like this isn't because people can't handle the idea of counting one square, two squares, one squares, and then two squares... its because its just pointlessly precise.

Can't tell you how many times I've seen a player who darn well knows better, not count diagonals as two squares because he *NEEDED* to get to (or out of) an area. He "forgot" it was two squares, and if someone calls him on it, he says "whoops... did I?"

 

[hossrex]

Eew.

You realise the basis behind godwin's law, right? I think once you start making those kind of analogies you may want to take a step back.

Step back from what? Demonstrating in an easily understandable, metaphorical way how dwelling on semantics can be harmful?

Hitler might have been poopie... but you brought him up. Not me.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also I really cannot see in the middle of hectic combat the monsters or PCs taking slow measured steps.

It would be more along the lines of, run, stumble, skid, jump, run, skid to a halt. There is no way that would still balance out to the same normal gait of a person taking measured steps.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Even 3.x had spell casters for the experienced players who wanted to get the most out of their character, and had the ability/skill to do it... and we had the fighter who was the simple character that was "good", and easy to play for the beginners and casual players (who spend four hours a week thinking about DnD, and never once they're away from the table).

Now everyone does the same thing, with the same rolls, and the same level of complexity.

The could be true at higher levels, but I don't think it's true for the example DDXP characters we've seen. The fighter and ranger seem a good deal simpler in terms of powers than the paladin and wizard.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I also don't think certain builds or classes will show how experienced or unexperienced you are in 4E instead.

Now it will be how tactically sound the players are both in combat and social combat. So it is actual play not builds that show experience.