Tomb Under the Tor (New Playtest Report)

[Horacio]

I don't like warforged at all but I can stand them when someone else enters them into my campaign (module writers or players). However, I think the mechanics for the warforged are lousy. Too many exceptions and special rules that accomplish very little in the end. Make them human and add the ability to repair themselves by use of a skill. The rest is role-playing (or lack there of).

That's very true, IMHO warforged need to be made more "standard D&D". I hope that Warforged fill be streamlined in 4e, less exceptions, less special rules...

 

[Klaus]

Indeed, if the game is going for a lessened focus/importance on alignment, is there really a need for multiple "holy outsider" types?

And yep, "Eladrin" is a much cooler name than "Aasimar," if that's in fact what they're doing.

My guess?

The "10-level worth of abilities for races" will advance tiefling and eladrin/aasimar this way:

Tiefling -> Fiendish -> Half-Fiend
Aasimar -> Celestial -> Half-Celestial

I can practically see:

Something -> Draconic -> Half-Dragon

 

[Someone]

Hehe - that bit gave me a Gandalf-vs.-Saruman-vibe (from the movie). And that's a good vibe! And more than doing damage (as some suspected).

Cheers, LT.

Moving opponents around also fits in the "controller" role. I liked the report, if the playtesting is done right it sounds like the new edition will be great.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Great sounding playtest report, though I wonder how much of it will be core items initially, and how much will show up in later works (I personally don't want to see warforged until the Eberron CS comes out).

Couldn't virtually all of this be accomplished by 3.5 mechanics with the addition of a few feats or Bo9S-style maneuvers? We haven't really leaned anything new about actual mechanics, except for a few likely abilities -- they characters might have no more than current 1st level characters, but we saw every one of their abilities come into play in 1 round of combat.

Two arrows in one round: check
wizard strike: feat that moves an opponent 5' when the wizard hits with a touch spell (or maybe it is a spell in itself?)
Immediate counterattack: again, could be the new "combat reflexes" ... and now it and the AoO apply to ranged & melee both.
etc ...

 

[Kaodi]

Remember, it has been said that Eberron is going to have a lot of update support online. So, what that probably means is that Eberron specific races already have builds because they were planning on releasing them before the release of the Eberron setting, long before. It does not necessarily mean that any of those races are core.

As for aasim- I mean, eladrins, I am guessing that the celestials are going to have the exact same change-up as the fiends. If you look human, you are an angel. If you don't, you are an archon. If they are taking away law and chaos as aspects of demons/yugoloths vs. devils and archons/angels, then I bet the current eladrins are folded into archons because of their dual nature. Trumpet archons, on the other hand, may get swiped by angels.

 

[Glyfair]

Here is a thought. The FR storyline bit is the "spellplague." It's supposed to be the catalyst to the explain the rules changes in 4E.

Now, in this playtest report we have a wizard, and he doesn't really seem to be casting "spells." We also have the tip that Vancian magic is "mostly gone."

I don't think this gives us a clear picture. However, I do think these bits and pieces are causing the wizard to come more in focus.

The "spellplague" is probably going to explain why spells are much rarer. Somehow, whatever this plague does to spells, it will infuse that energy into wizards (and whomever else). That or some deity or quasi-deity will do something to counter the spellplague that causes these new abilities.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yuck. I'd prefer they just change the mechanics without having to provide a story-based reason for the mechanics to change. That takes metagame stuff (rules mechanics) and shoves it clearly into the campaign setting.

Much as I don't want tieflings/eladrin to be core races, I'll say one thing: eladrin is a much better name for assimar than ass-mar.

 

[Glyfair]

Yuck. I'd prefer they just change the mechanics without having to provide a story-based reason for the mechanics to change. That takes metagame stuff (rules mechanics) and shoves it clearly into the campaign setting.

That's just going to be a taste thing. The two basic options are to retcon ("and then you woke up and found that all the spell casting you were doing was a dream") or to explain it within the setting. Of the two I much prefer to explain it within the setting.

Yes, doing that got a bad name before 2nd edition. However, that was because of the railroad plots of the adventures that caused that effect (Fate of Istus and the Avatar series adventures). If they avoid that, they have my vote. As it stands, it doesn't seem like they are doing it by adventures.

BTW, Keith has suggested the advancement of Eberron's timeline by 2 years will likely be so that plot elements can explain the rules changes within the world.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Sounds like a good playtest to me. I hope the multiple attacks are mechanically handled as additional damage on one die roll rather than multiple attack rolls.

As for the warforged, I hope they're included as a playable race in the Monster Manual, but not the Player's Handbook. If they add too many new races to the Player's Handbook, there won't be enough room for the old standards, which would make me sad.

 

[Glyfair]

If they add too many new races to the Player's Handbook, there won't be enough room for the old standards, which would make me sad.

The only ones I've heard officially are the tiefling and "maybe" the changeling. Everything else has been speculation (admittedly, eladrin is based on pretty sound speculation).