Tweet gleanings

[Wormwood]

Bugger. I loved having a bard that was useful in a fight.

I think this may apply here:

Rob: The bard as example, you may be in a campaign that's going to do more dungon crawling and not have a lot of social. There will be options that you can opt into where you can pick those combat relevant options in place of those social ones.

 

[ferratus]

So the 3e/4e paradigm (apply one or more conditions from a defined list---eg. stunned, dazed, etc) may be heavily modified.

That's too bad. Conditions were very functional, and allowed you to easily track what effects people had on them.

Of course, this also made reading powers and abilities very "comp sci textbookish". Aristoteleanism vs. Platonism again.

 

[Rechan]

Dislike the heavily vancian quality, and that default wizards are pretty lacking in AWs - you have to spend feats to not have to use a crossbow.

But we get confirmation of: skills, feats, Assassin, Bard...

That's too bad. Conditions were very functional, and allowed you to easily track what effects people had on them. .

Agreed. The problem with conditions is that you had too many flying around in a round, you were juggling and tracking them a lot (that, and the implications of daze/stun and how it utterly defangs solos etc).

 

[Ainamacar]

The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.

That could be pretty incredible.

 

[Rechan]

I think this may apply here:

Thanks.

Where are you guys getting all of this from? Like full transcript quotes?

 

[SlyDoubt]

Well it makes sense since many feats were similar to powers. They gave you an alternate way to attack or gave you special bonuses and such when using some alternate.

So will there still be other style feats then? power feats will just be sort of a sub category?

soooo happy to see magic items separated out a bit more. and multiclassing!

everything so far sounds promising. I just hope they can fit all these pieces together into something that plays smoothly!

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks.

Where are you guys getting all of this from? Like full transcript quotes?

live streaming!

 

[Ainamacar]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D XP Seminar Chat Streams)

 

[Aluvial]

Thanks.

Where are you guys getting all of this from? Like full transcript quotes?

Try this... https://twitter.com/#!/Rolling20s

 

[Wormwood]

Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards

Bruce: When a wizard gets fireball, he can do a lot of damage in the round, but he only has so many fireballs. The fighter doesn't have that limitation. We have a lot of math and play evidence that tells us how long average parties or play is going to last, so we feel like we've got a good grasp of how to make the fighter and wizard relevant throughout the day.

Rob: As Monte mentioned earlier, some spells and options drop out and are replaced with higher ones, so that addresses some of the problem - you don't end up with all of those options. With that in mind, and the math backing it up, we can balance that figher damage to make sure that it stays relevant.

Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.

I appreciate that they are taking cues from the Old School without throwing out decades of analysis and theory.

(ps. I expect that last statement from Monte to be thrown around here a lot!)