D&D 4E Two Questions for the 4e Designers

[Fallen Seraph]

You know, it's funny; it *felt* right when it was proposed, but I remember a good bit of nervousness about how the concept would be received. At least around here, it quickly became apparent how well the split works in play and world design, and how well it fits all of the already-established archetypes. I'm playing both an eladrin and an elf at the moment, and I love how culturally different they feel.

I think you made a great choose. I love all things Fey, so to have a EXTREMELY Feyish race in more then just name is great

 

[Mercule]

Not really. I, for one, said, "Oh, that makes sense." Elves have been schizophrenic for a long time ("Are we serious shiny magic people or chaotic forest stalkers? I'm confused.") and splitting their two halves into to different races was a pretty obvious step. FR did it a long time ago. All they really did was change the name-label from "Glowymagictype Elf" to "Eladrin".

Agreed. The Eladrin/Elf split was one of the changes that I immediately liked.

 

[Orc_Courtesy]

I was really, really opposed to standardizing advancement.

I reckon you mean things that advance at different rates between classes in 3E, like BAB and saves - although it'd be pretty cool if you had been championing a return to OD&D-style differences in XP required to advance a level.

Does the ability to do exceptional stuff outside of combat advance at the same rates? Are there benchmarks for when any mix of PCs can be expected to do stuff, like bypass certain kinds of mundane obstacles or use divination to gain certain kinds of clues?

BTW, thanks for posting! You rock like all the members of Dokken at once, if Dokken had gotten some really awesome rolls on the mutation tables from Gamma World.

 

[Lacyon]

I reckon you mean things that advance at different rates between classes in 3E, like BAB and saves - although it'd be pretty cool if you had been championing a return to OD&D-style differences in XP required to advance a level.

I suspect he was referring more to the powers-gained-per-level.

 

[Kzach]

Mr. Mearls, I would like to ask you a few pertinent questions that I feel desperately need answering.

The first is, obviously, the most pressing and can be summed up as, "What does it feel like to be worshipped?"

The second, and of personal import, is, "Does one have to be Chaotic Evil to worship you, and on what days do you require sacrifice and what do you require to be sacrificed?"

Your humble and eternal sycophant,


KZ.

 

[Orc_Courtesy]

I suspect he was referring more to the powers-gained-per-level.

Yeah, the spells you gain per level, as well as the number of feats and class features you get, can differ between classes in older editions.

Still, it's barely noticeable that at a given level a cleric has a few more or less daily uses of their Xth-level spells than a wizard. It's the rate in progression of BAB and saves that really matters in 3E. At low levels, a wizard can swing a sword almost as well as a fighter, and the fighter can resist charm person almost as well as a wizard. At high levels, different rates of progression make this a big enough gap that it really stands out in play.

Preventing this effect by having fighters and wizards advance at the same rate sounds more controversial to me.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I have a really simple one for you: 1/2 level added to PC's damage? Yes or No. See, really easy to answer, because I know you are busy

Thanks!

 

[Keenath]

Still, it's barely noticeable that at a given level a cleric has a few more or less daily uses of their Xth-level spells than a wizard.

Yeah, and when you do have a real difference in level -- like sorcs getting a one-level slower progression -- it doesn't feel "different", it just feels like you're getting kicked for no good reason. It's a big penalty for no reason more complicated than you chose limited spell selection over restrictive preparation.

It's the rate in progression of BAB and saves that really matters in 3E. At low levels, a wizard can swing a sword almost as well as a fighter, and the fighter can resist charm person almost as well as a wizard. At high levels, different rates of progression make this a big enough gap that it really stands out in play.

Preventing this effect by having fighters and wizards advance at the same rate sounds more controversial to me.

Well, sort of, but the fact that wizards have the same BAB is required by the fact that fireballs and such are based on attacks rather than DCs. A wizard still won't sword-swing as well as a fighter because of nonproficiency, lower priority of strength, and the fighter getting a flat +2 (or whatever) to BAB.

 

[Lacyon]

Yeah, the spells you gain per level, as well as the number of feats and class features you get, can differ between classes in older editions.

Still, it's barely noticeable that at a given level a cleric has a few more or less daily uses of their Xth-level spells than a wizard. It's the rate in progression of BAB and saves that really matters in 3E. At low levels, a wizard can swing a sword almost as well as a fighter, and the fighter can resist charm person almost as well as a wizard. At high levels, different rates of progression make this a big enough gap that it really stands out in play.

Except that you can get the same effect by just adding those distinctions at first level and not having to have the quirky switch to standardized progressions at epic level.

Preventing this effect by having fighters and wizards advance at the same rate sounds more controversial to me.

Giving the fighter and rogue access to powers and making those powers progress at the exact same rate as a wizard's powers seems significantly more controversial to me, not least because the ultimate need for standardizing attacks and saves in the long run was recognized as early as the ELH.

EDIT: Not to mention that, IIRC, Iron Heroes was already using standardized save and defense progressions.

 

[Keenath]

Giving the fighter and rogue access to powers and making those powers progress at the exact same rate as a wizard's powers seems significantly more controversial to me, not least because the ultimate need for standardizing attacks and saves in the long run was recognized as early as the ELH.

I dunno, it seems like a kind of obvious idea that if all the classes need to be balanced, then they should use similar mechanics.