This rule-of-three was a whole lot of "look, we don't really know yet, but what we DO know is that we won't be doing it like 4e!"
It sure seems like you use this battle cry anytime WotC says anything.
Why did he have to go imply that they're considering even dropping the "solo" designation for solo monsters. Does changing a perfectly fine name really benefit anything?
When he said "it's a safe bet that the kinds of monsters we refer to as 'solo monsters' in 4E have a strong place in the future of the game" I just kind of assumed that there would continue to be solo monsters in the game. I guess you're afraid them not calling them "solo" anymore? I imagine there will be some kind of indication that they can challenge a party single-handedly, especially considering them mentioning instituting some sort of CR system.
Also, I'm not exactly excited by the game mechanics implied in that conversation about class levels. It sounds too much like 3E for my tastes, and I refuse to agree with praise for the potential of a multiclassing system that is so well known for being completely broken and useless.
Whereas I hope they look into things on from all editions that have problems. The multi-classing system of 3.X definitely had issues, but considering the amount of concepts realized with it, I wouldn't call it "useless." Too liberal, yes. It needs to be reigned in. But, I'd like something a little better than "pick the class you're always in" at character creation.
For me, 4e was too restrictive. For me, 3.X was too liberal. I want something in between. I like the way 4e let you scale your powers from the other class without breaking things. Maybe they can find a way to do that after reigning in 3.X's system. We'll see, but I think saying that since it had problems, "I refuse to agree with praise" directed at its potential is very close-minded.
I'd like to see the return of lines, but that whole discussion of cones and such just confused me... If you are not even tracking the position of characters to such a precision that you need a grid, then how do you even differentiate cones, blasts, lines, or anything else? Don't those very terms mandate some degree of grid play? I don't get it at all.
General positioning and battle grids are two different things. There's a lot of mental space between abstract combat ideas like "zones" and the battle grid.
For example, I can describe a group of enemies ahead, about 30 or so feet, crossbows out. There's about a dozen of them, and they're fanned out in a curved line around you. Now, if you decide to use a line, you could probably clip two, but they're fanned out, so you won't hit a lot. A burst would catch more (especially depending on the size of the burst), etc.
You can mentally keep track of vague positioning without using a grid, and make use of cones, blasts, lines, etc. That's how I ran 3.X, and it's how I run my game now. It's definitely compatible with a grid, however. But there is a difference between "compatible with the battle grid" and "designed for the battle grid." Obviously, the latter is better for grids, which is why they said:
WotC said:
However, when we present the rules for using a grid for combat, we're going to want to present ways to convert those spells into the more grid-friendly areas like bursts and blasts.
They aren't abandoning 4e's grid system. They'll have rules for it, from the looks of it. It just won't be the base assumption. See Kynn? The sky isn't falling as fast as you thought. As always, play what you like
