Rules that still feel unneeded (to me)

[Ipissimus]

I think APs are there to balence out the sheer numbers aspect of the game.

The DM is going to vastly outnumber the PCs in alot of fights in 4E, sometimes the Wizard's going to need that one extra fireball to even things out a bit. Even solo monsters seem to be going to have alot of actions in a fight.

I like the mechanic. Useful but not overpowered.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm very bummed that they've eliminated the schools of magic. To me, that was a nice bit of immersive fluff that should have received more crunch support.

Schools of magic will essentially be different classes with unique mechanics now. That's more support than ever before.

 

[wedgeski]

Bloodied at least seems to be the most likely to receive extensive support by other rules, meaning that probably there will be lots of powers or feats which work depending on being blooded (you or your target). As such at least it could become an extensive enough part of the game. However besides the metagame advantage of opening up more design options, I still don't see any in-game reason to really have it...

Mechanically, bloodied has been classified as a way for the game to communicate the state of a foe in combat without resorting to literally tracking damage. DM's will need to make it clear when a foe is bloodied ("Your last blow sends the gnoll reeling back, shaking its snout to clear its head"), and players can pretty much interpret this as "Ah-ha! Half hit points!"

I can see how this might avoid the usual "How injured does that gnoll look?", "It looks, uh, pretty unhappy at this point", because players (and by implication, their characters) will know just how much effort they've expended to get the foe bloodied in the first place.

Action points I'm used to (we've used a dozen different varieties over the years), Second Wind we'll have no choice but to get used to because it will be such a major part of game balance, and bloodied I actually like for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[Wormwood]

I'll add one: "milestone."

I agree---this one seems totally unnecessary. I'm reserving final judgment until I see the rule in context, of course---but I'm fairly unimpressed with this one.

 

[lutecius]

Mechanically, bloodied has been classified as a way for the game to communicate the state of a foe in combat without resorting to literally tracking damage. DM's will need to make it clear when a foe is bloodied ("Your last blow sends the gnoll reeling back, shaking its snout to clear its head"), and players can pretty much interpret this as "Ah-ha! Half hit points!"

I can see how this might avoid the usual "How injured does that gnoll look?", "It looks, uh, pretty unhappy at this point", because players (and by implication, their characters) will know just how much effort they've expended to get the foe bloodied in the first place.

Action points I'm used to (we've used a dozen different varieties over the years), Second Wind we'll have no choice but to get used to because it will be such a major part of game balance, and bloodied I actually like for the reasons I mentioned.

I'm not sure it is a good thing that players automatically know how badly hurt a foe is.
Of course it can be a clue if the dm wants them to know. The part I like is how it may actually affect combat and make sense fluff-wise (tiefling's blood hunt, potential rage effects...)
I am afraid that keeping track of one more condition with all the marks and curses will be a nightmare, though.

I don't like action points. I hope they're not an important balancing factor like in true20.
Otherwise I love true20 but if if you remove APs, combat quickly become really lethal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not sure it is a good thing that players automatically know how badly hurt a foe is.
Of course it can be a clue if the dm wants them to know. The part I like is how it may actually affect combat and make sense fluff-wise (tiefling's blood hunt, potential rage effects...)
I am afraid that keeping track of one more condition with all the marks and curses will be a nightmare, though.

I don't like action points. I hope they're not an important balancing factor like in true20.
Otherwise I love true20 but if if you remove APs, combat quickly become really lethal.

I am not familar with True 20, but I think in any game that doesn't use an ablative hit point model, Action Points essentially become hit points (except that they usually protect against more than what hit points protect against). Action Points, Fortune Points, Karma, and Hit Points all share the same niche - a mechanic to represent "avoiding nasty things happening to characters".

 

[Walking Dad]

? You spend healing surges when healed by other people. That has nothing to do with using up your Second Wind.

The paladin's Lay on Hands uses up the paladin's healing surges, not the target's

 

[Voss]

Second Wind is important because it removes the need for Heal Bots, which annoyed the hell out of many.

It doesn't, though. You can't heal yourself when unconscious, its only once/encounter and you have to give up your action to heal yourself. Having heal bots around to heal you as a minor action (and potentially for more) is still quite necessary.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I can go with bloodied and second wind. I buy them. But Action Points sound lame now... The original AP in Eberron look A LOT more heroic, turning a miss into a hit does seem like pushing beyond your limits and stuff...And all of this is true... The times I've used them were usually really intense fights.

 

[Nytmare]

If they wanted to simplify diagonal movement, why not just use hexes?

Is there a good way to integrate larger than medium sized square bases into a hex based system?

My guess is that abstract diagonal movement is a better option than scrapping an existing miniatures line.