Two things that I haven't seen mentioned on 4th edition

[talinthalas]

These are a couple of things I heard from designers (Rich Baker and James Wyatt) at GenCon that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet.

James Wyatt's secret was +6 wands (whatever that will mean)

Saves are being replaced with Defense (Fort, Will, and Ref). This will be a number that the attacker has to roll for his spell or attack to have full damage. (I think this is in the Star Wars Saga rules)

Prestige classes will be easier to qualify for.

Templates are still in the game, but are different then they are now.

Talinthalas

 

[EricNoah]

regarding saves and also possibly the +6 wand situation: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205016

 

[The_Gneech]

I would think that a +6 wand would give you bonuses to your attack/Spellcraft check with magic spells (assuming they're going with the "saves become defenses" model of SWSE).

For example:

Magical Foci: Certain talismanic objects act as magical foci. Having one of these objects in your possession adds to your Spellcraft check when casting spells. For example, a crystal ball might act as a magical focus for clairvoyance spells. If you had a Spellcraft skill of +15 and were casting a clairvoyance spell, but had a +5 crystal ball in your possession, your Spellcraft check would become +20 instead. Bonuses from foci do not stack – if you have a +5 crystal ball and a +10 magic staff, only the magic staff applies. Note: The minimum DC for any Spellcraft check is always 10.

-The Gneech

 

[Doug McCrae]

A +6 wand seems to be at odds with the stated intention to do away with the 'Christmas tree effect' ie many magic items like decorations on a tree, and the numerous buffs of 3e. This is adding a buff where there wasn't one before.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A +6 wand seems to be at odds with the stated intention to do away with the 'Christmas tree effect' ie many magic items like decorations on a tree, and the numerous buffs of 3e. This is adding a buff where there wasn't one before.

Not sure about that. They did say that magic items were still going to be a big part of the game, just not nearly as integral and dominant as they were in 3E. We're still going to have, for instance, +3 swords. And if you've got +3 swords, I see no reason you can't have a similar toy for the wizard.

 

[Pale]

Templates are still in the game, but are different then they are now.

OK, that right there is what I want to hear more about.

 

[thundershot]

I was actually hoping for them to get rid of +3 longswords and +4 chainmail... give them something more substantial. Give characters a reason to KEEP their weapons. I'd love the Weapons of Legacy rules (or something similar) be used so people don't toss the weapon they've been using for so long away because a new one has one more plus.

 

[Khur]

Not sure about that. They did say that magic items were still going to be a big part of the game, just not nearly as integral and dominant as they were in 3E. We're still going to have, for instance, +3 swords. And if you've got +3 swords, I see no reason you can't have a similar toy for the wizard.

Right! (Hi, Ari!) And when you've got a wizard that can use magic all day long, you don't need charged spellcasting items. It'll be great for a character to have a magic item in the new game, and fun, but it won't be essential to performance. That said, you can assume some numbers in the game take into account expected PC magic items.

A +6 wand seems to be at odds with the stated intention to do away with the 'Christmas tree effect' ie many magic items like decorations on a tree, and the numerous buffs of 3e. This is adding a buff where there wasn't one before.

The assumption here is that the wand adds to the options from 3e—that's not right. I'm sure a fighter will want a magic weapon and magic armor, and a wizard will want a magic implement (or two) and magic clothing, but the intention is that there are fewer "no brainer" magic item choices blocking up the system so simply interesting magic items have room to breathe.

This is an important general point brought up by my colleague Logan Bonner, and posted here on the front news page: Thinking in 3e terms is going to lead you astray in most situations. This is a new edition, not a revision.

OK, that right there is what I want to hear more about.

Monsters are still in development. Template theory, however, is that the template changes few to no numeric values in a monster (including level), instead changing it to fit the intended template shtick.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Right! (Hi, Ari!)

'allo.

Template theory, however, is that the template changes few to no numeric values in a monster (including level), instead changing it to fit the intended template shtick.

As a designer, I have to ask...

Is it too soon to tell you I love you?

 

[DonTadow]

I was actually hoping for them to get rid of +3 longswords and +4 chainmail... give them something more substantial. Give characters a reason to KEEP their weapons. I'd love the Weapons of Legacy rules (or something similar) be used so people don't toss the weapon they've been using for so long away because a new one has one more plus.

Me too but i don't know if that is one of those staples that "must" be in there. I know the +digit weapon and armor is used in a lot of d and d references. Perhaps they can have a word associated with it ie
strong, durable etc.
Then the digit can be completely phased out in the next edition