D&D 4E Rich Baker on his 4e Warlord

[Rechan]

Perhaps given the experience with MAD in 3.5, they might design things a bit differently this time around? Yes?

Yes, I'm pointing at an example in 3e and saying "This is what happens when MAD goes Bad". I think it's a false assumption to just say "oh they'll fix that, they won't make that mistake". Because I know the designers are human, and that something in the system will be flawed, that some problem is overlooked.

Sure, it may not be this one, but I don't believe they'll fix everything. They can't. Heck, there are those who think the things they are doing isn't changing problem X enough.

And of all the things they are declaring fixing, issues of MAD, and swapping out class ability A for class ability B is something we haven't heard about.

Another pet peeve, system wise for me, is Turn Undead. Not the undead turning mechanic itself, but rather, that 1) Unless you have Domain #13 that lets you turn red bellied finches like you Turn Undead, your Turn ability only works against a single type of monster, thus 2) all other times, it's a feature of your class you're just not using half the time. Much like a rogue or barb in a campaign with few traps, you're not getting a lot of mileage out of the motley crew of class abilities just slapped on your class. ("At 3rd level, I get a +2 on Tuesdays!")

This changed with Divine Feats, but that seems, to me, to be more of a bandaid. "Here, we'll let you spend one of your rare, precious feats so you can actually get some USE out of that old Turn Undead class ability you got in your closet!" Rather, they should do something about Turn Undead so it doesn't need feats to actually get some use in the class.

Once more, it's a 3e example. But we know that there's Turn Undead in the game (rather than Priests having Divine Channeling that lets them Turn X, where X is designated by their deity/talent tree/etc). It'd be a better framework if you could make a priest who doesn't turn at all - who swaps his Turn out for something else. (But then, I'm heavily in favor of specialty priest for each Deity, given that I just have a hard time swallowing that every god for some reason grants their priests the ability to poke undead in the nose for no reason.)

 

[Aloïsius]

Compare the Core classes in the PHB to the classes presented in later books. If you'll notice, the later classes are stronger. Or rather, they're not so restrictive. You could draw from that observation that, when the Core classes were created, they expected them to be more powerful than they are.

So who's to say that a similar assumption on the part of the designers won't also be made? That the PHB classes won't be as wonky in some manner?

How naive. The classes in later books are more powerful because they need an incentive to sell the books to the player. It will be the same in 4e, in 8e or whatever other game you can imagine. When you create a book targeting PC rather than DM, you want the "gimme gimme !" factor to kick in !

 

[Rechan]

How naive. The classes in later books are more powerful because they need an incentive to sell the books to the player. It will be the same in 4e, in 8e or whatever other game you can imagine. When you create a book targeting PC rather than DM, you want the "gimme gimme !" factor to kick in !

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz; that was tongue in cheek, right?

 

[Khaalis]

To throw in a late $0.02 worth:

1) Rich says he thought about a Half-Elf "because they multiclass well" NOT "Better". Also note that he Did Not go with Half-Elf, instead choosing Human, which to me says that the human offered something just as desirable to the character build, but different. As has been pointed out Half-elves may simply have some nice racial/class abilities that work well with a variety of classes versus some races that may be more specialized (such as the dwarven preference for melee/axe abilities).

2) MAD - I personally get the impression that all classes will rely on multiple stats, and that it is not meant to penalize. When it comes down to it, this is really not much different than 3E. Even a fighter or rogue needs to truly rely on at least 3 Stats. We also know form the Spined Devil sample that Ability Score Modifiers work differently in 4E than 3E. We also know that part of this is meant to compensate for doing away with the reliance on Stat Boost Magic Items. I highly doubt anyone will "hurt" for stats unless they specifically gimp themselves. Rich doesn't seem to bothered with having an 8 and a 10 for scores.

I also get the impression that classes are being built to allow players to choose a "build" or "path" allowing them to play differently even in the same class (e.g. the warlord has at least 2 - more melee or more healing oriented). Much of this will be linked to the Ability Scores. Note that Rich specifically states that he is "a competent healer" even though he has a Wisdom of only 10 and that he could have chosen to be an even better healer but instead chose "mostly offensive powers". I would be willing to bet that a Fighter can also choose to go down multiple paths based on Ability Scores as well, being able to focus on Brute Strength, Agility/Mobility, Toughness, etc. and thus not every fighter will "Have" to have a high STR to be effective.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Skornn2k7]

I have a theory about how they are going to multi-class in 4e. Remember in 2e the dual class shtuff ? You would lvl up say a fighter to 5th lvl, then you would start NEW and lvl up a wizard on top of it, but you wouldnt be able to use any of the fighter shtuff until after you had got to 5th lvl in wizzy, then you could use both.

WHAT IF you can actually use the fighter stuff while you are lvling up with wizzy now, sorta like how in 3e you multi-class from a monk or pally, you dont lose the abilities from those classes, you just cant go back into it. I am thinking that maybe they merged the two diffrent thingys together... part 2e dual-classing, and part 3e multiclassing ?

OR in Rich Baker's example, he is a WARLORD who has the Wizzy spliced into him.

 

[Aloïsius]

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz; that was tongue in cheek, right?

Seriously ? I have a 6-players table. Some of them are (were) using PHB only. Some were savy with things like spell-compendium and a bazillion other sourcebooks. Guess who was so powerfull as to overshadow the others ? It's not only classes (PHB2 vs PHB) who are more powerfull, but feats and spells too.
Of course, not all material will be better than what is in the PHB, and some PHB "power" (generic terms for feat, spells, class features) are still good enough to choose. However compare 1st level dimensional hop (swift action) to fourth level dimensional door (dazed after use).

 

[Rechan]

Seriously ? I have a 6-players table. Some of them are (were) using PHB only. Some were savy with things like spell-compendium and a bazillion other sourcebooks. Guess who was so powerfull as to overshadow the others ? It's not only classes (PHB2 vs PHB) who are more powerfull, but feats and spells too.

As I said, the Core were restrictive, and as WotC saw how the game was played, they loosened the reigns a little on the classes. I mean look at the Sorcerer - it's just "Variant Vanican mechanic - oh look, and a familiar." It looks like it was slapped together the day before the book was due at the Publisher.

But I think it's totally unfair to say "WotC put out the Archivist or the Dread Necro because they're just capitalist bastards, and they're just targeting greedy bastard players.

But then, I don't bother with Spell compendiums and feats like that. Hell, if I want to munchkin someone in the ground, I pick up a PHB Druid or Cleric and Complete Divine.

 

[Gloombunny]

Man, when I first brought up how I was sad to hear that the 4e fighter wouldn't have Int benefits like the warblade... well, I really meant like the warblade. Have y'all read Bo9S? Warblades have Int-related abilities on top of the usual warrior stuff, but they're not MAD. The abilities in question just let them add their Int bonus to various specific rolls, all of which already add Str bonus. (e.g., rolls to confirm criticals, attack rolls against flat-footed opponents, rolls to resist being disarmed or tripped, etc.) A warblade who diverts some points out of Str into Int isn't really gaining anything, he's just losing less than a fighter would. And that's a very good thing, because it makes it more feasible to play a warrior who's not just a violent moron, but doesn't stop you from focusing on Str if that's what you want to do. It adds a level of flexibility to the class that the fighter sorely lacks. (There's a few other ways warblade does this, like the drastically improved class-skills list, but I thought the Int-based benefits were a particularly clever design.)

 

[Kintara]

Man, when I first brought up how I was sad to hear that the 4e fighter wouldn't have Int benefits like the warblade... well, I really meant like the warblade. Have y'all read Bo9S? Warblades have Int-related abilities on top of the usual warrior stuff, but they're not MAD. The abilities in question just let them add their Int bonus to various specific rolls, all of which already add Str bonus. (e.g., rolls to confirm criticals, attack rolls against flat-footed opponents, rolls to resist being disarmed or tripped, etc.) A warblade who diverts some points out of Str into Int isn't really gaining anything, he's just losing less than a fighter would. And that's a very good thing, because it makes it more feasible to play a warrior who's not just a violent moron, but doesn't stop you from focusing on Str if that's what you want to do. It adds a level of flexibility to the class that the fighter sorely lacks. (There's a few other ways warblade does this, like the drastically improved class-skills list, but I thought the Int-based benefits were a particularly clever design.)

I think I remember a snippet in the first roll out about a Wisdom-based Fighter. I could live with that for a start. They can always add an Int-based Fighter into the game later, perhaps as a Prestige Class.

 

[Khaalis]

Gloombunny:

Actually the Warblade IS considered a MAD class. Why? Because of their INT skills. In all respects the Warblade is just as reliant on STR, DEX and CON as a fighter... AND they have to have a decent INT score to make any use of their class abilities. Sacrificing any of the 3 physical stats is just as impactive to a warblade as it is to a fighter. Yes it provides a different "feel" to the class, but in a purely mechanical viewpoint, the Warblade is gimped by having to sacrifice STR, DEX or CON to feed INT. In all respects, the Warblade is a Fighter that has to have INT on top of everything else.

Now, do I see this as bad? Not in design theory. However, with the way 3E stats work, it can be very painful, especially since the Warblade INT abilities just aren't quite good enough to make up for the losses in other stats. Example trading a +1 STR mod to gain a +1 modifier to confirm criticals and hit flat-footed opponents isn't balanced since the +1 STR does this anyway. Thus to make these abilities useful, the INT bonus needs to be above and beyond what you would normally have in STR. That generally means still having to sack other stats, thus MAD.

However, I can say that I too would like to see a fightert that has an INT "build" option, relying on tactical combat (such as Tactical feats) over brute force.