D&D 4E Stephen Radney-MacFarland on Conversions and Adventures in 4e

[mach1.9pants]

Emphasis mine.

Okay, I really do not mean to be snarky, but I had to point this out as one of those ironic funny things that makes me laugh out loud.



Thanks. That made me feel better.

Glad you laughed, I always write that- honest or at least 'edit: speeling, as always'!
Mourn, thanks for that; Irda Ranger's in-world ring explanation rocks. I wonder how WotC will do ....

 

[kennew142]

I don't mind that the monsters aren't given every skill and ability, as long as all the relevant ones are hit and there's some general guidelines provided for those that aren't. For example, if there's a set-piece encounter with an Ogre and he's all statted up for the design-expected brawl, will there be guidelines to handle the Ogre if a party decides to try talking to him or maybe even recruiting him instead of fighting him? If yes, then fine. If no, there's a problem.

What concerns me far more in that article is the statement to the effect that rules will not represent physics of the world. First, what does that mean? Second, to use the example given, if PCs use one set of rules and monsters/opponents use another, where's the consistency? How do you handle converting one to the other e.g. recruiting what was supposed to be an opponent, or having a previous PC turn against the party? And, to what extent does this statement relate to physical physics - you know; gravity, energy, motion - that sort of thing? This is something the rules *should* touch on, even if only to say something like "unless magically altered, use real-world gravity effects where relevant"; even if only to handle things like the old standby of dropping a coin down a well and timing how long it takes to hit bottom, to estimate depth. (never mind the effect of gravity on ranged weapons!)

Lanefan

On your first point, I would maintain that it is no different in 3e. If the party wants to try and negotiate with an ogre in 3e, you will note that there are no skills appropriate for such a course of action in the ogre write up. You have to assume it, or give them Bluff -2, Diplomacy -2 and Sense Motive +0 based on their stats. In any event, it comes down to basically a flat d20 roll. In 4e, you would do the the same thing.

On the second point, regarding recruiting an NPC or having a PC turn against the party, I fail to see the problem. I'm not dismissing your concerns; I just don't see the problem. If the PCs recruit an NPC to help them, can't he continue to use the same rules he did as an NPC? Unless he will become an actual PC, he doesn't need to change anything. As for the reverse situation, an NPC can be written up as a PC by the RAW in 4e. If a PC becomes an NPC, he will just be a very well detailed NPC - won't he?

 

[kennew142]

If the Cleric has an encounter healing power, the DM needs to explain to the player why his character can't pick a fight with a wounded friend, heal him and just stop fighting. If he can't come up with an in-game explanation, verisimilitude is hurt. The players may even understand and accept a pure metagame explanation, for the same reason I don't go to WoW boards asking how come a kobold miner drops a plate mail. Where the heck he was carrying that?? The reason is: it's just a game.

But the "it's just a game" doesn't work for every DM and player. Some people need to believe, they need verisimilitude to be immersed, to have fun. I need it. We don't need realism, we don't need rules simulating real world physics, but we DO need an in-game explanation for everything that happens in the game, actually our characters need it, otherwise the gameworld starts falling appart. It can be even a poor one like "your god knows you are trying to cheat, so your encounter healing power doesn't work". I'll be satisfied with just that, and I can continue to have my fun.

Why can't a cleric use a per Encounter healing power on an ally outside of combat. If I were GM, I might say that he could only use it once between encounters (just to stop abuse). I certainly wouldn't say that he couldn't heal his friend just because the fighting has stopped. I may be too dense to see the problem, but it seems to me like a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Darrin Drader]

This is THE BEST thing they could have said to get me onboard with 4E. I still have a shelf full of books - adventures, monsters, campaign settings, all of which are begging to be played, but I ran out of time with 3E. If 4E allows you to wing it, and is close enough to 3E so that the rules are compatible enough, then I'm in, and I offer a heartfelt apology to anyone at WotC who my skepticism might have previously offended.

And it makes sense too. If 4E is still built upon the same basic engine as 3E, then it makes sense that stats would be compatible enough to work - with a little refitting, similar to how 1E materials were still mostly compatible with 2E.

 

[Mercule]

This is THE BEST thing they could have said to get me onboard with 4E. I still have a shelf full of books - adventures, monsters, campaign settings, all of which are begging to be played, but I ran out of time with 3E.

I'm already on board with 4E, but I'll agree that this is a huge motivator to switch sooner, rather than later. I've still got Ravenloft, Rappan Athuk, Savage Tides, and a whole boatload of Dungeon magazines that I'd like to get some mileage from.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The only difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E requires designers to go through a big song and dance to give their arbitrary numbers the illusion of coming from somewhere other than the designer's rear end. 4E dispenses with that.

Actually, from what I've been reading, there is a pretty big difference between 3e and 4e in this regard. As far as I can tell, in 3e, if you want a chimera to challenge a 12th level party, you add hit dice per the MM guidelines, attack bonus, feats, etc, and then when you're done, you take a look at your creation to see if it is really a reasonable EL 14 encounter. (EL=party level is not challenging, nor is it supposed to be; EL=party level +2 is generally on the easy side of challenging; EL=party level +3 is the more challenging side of challenging).

In 4e, on the other hand, it seems like the designers have worked out some mathematical values for x-level monsters. A level 26 opponent has an AC of about X, hit points of about Y, Defenses of Z, and attack and damage of A and B. As SRM posted, the ogre may do a little more damage than you'd expect but be a little less likely to hit, but basically, he falls in that ballpark.

In that context, while 3.x monsters may be all over the map in terms of hit points, armor class, saving throws, etc (some very powerful monsters will have lousy armor class but great saves and boatloads of hit points, etc), it sounds like 4e monsters of any given level will stick within a much narrower range.

 

[mach1.9pants]

In that context, while 3.x monsters may be all over the map in terms of hit points, armor class, saving throws, etc (some very powerful monsters will have lousy armor class but great saves and boatloads of hit points, etc), it sounds like 4e monsters of any given level will stick within a much narrower range.

Not sure, the range might be quite large when you take into account the differing roles of monsters Brute, soldier etc. That could mean large differences in these things.
But I would imagine it won't vary quite as much as 3E, and therefore won't get the weird throwbacks that 3E creates with unbalanced easy/impossible to kill monsters.

 

[small pumpkin man]

If the Cleric has an encounter healing power, the DM needs to explain to the player why his character can't pick a fight with a wounded friend, heal him and just stop fighting.

Yeah, cause it was always annoying how I was always having to explain to my players how the Clerics "per day" abilities only worked during the daytime...


As far as we know "per encounter" means "takes five minutes of non-combat to recharge" not "can only be used in an encounter" not that "encounter" means "fight" anyway.

 

[A'koss]

Not sure, the range might be quite large when you take into account the differing roles of monsters Brute, soldier etc. That could mean large differences in these things.
But I would imagine it won't vary quite as much as 3E, and therefore won't get the weird throwbacks that 3E creates with unbalanced easy/impossible to kill monsters.

Both role & challenge (minion, standard, elite or solo) will undoubtedly be factors in the design. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers are crunched for all of this.

I wonder if in creating monsters there'll be charts for HP ranges, AC ranges, Damage ranges, etc. by level, with each role having a "level adjustment". A Brute monster for instance might be treated as 3 levels higher (than standard) for HPs, 2 levels lower for attack rolls, 2 levels higher for damage, 1 level lower for Def... that kind of thing. Then factor in the challenge level: Elites might be something like x2 HP, +2 levels for everything else.

Or they could very well have charts for each role as well, with columns for each challenge rating...

I wonder though how the NPC (non-PC classed) spellcasters will be handled, will there be simplified spell lists or will they be something like IH villain classes, with their own unique (but very simple) magical abilities.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think (hope) that with spellcasters we will get a simplified-spell list, perhaps with the occasional special ability thrown in. However with the spells they are done in a manor so it is easy to see how they are divided up in terms of amount and powers, so could easily be switched up with other-spells.