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

[Shade]

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.

Hmmm...while I can see definite advantages to this approach on many monster modifications, this worries me with undead.

I'd really hate to see unique stats for skeletons and zombies for everything an adventure designer might need. For instance, a rat skeleton, a giant skeleton, a bear skeleton, and a halfling skeleton would all need unique entries. One of the greatest strengths in the 3E template design was cutting down on the amazing clutter of undead (although it should've seen more widespread use).

I'm not saying the new system won't work to achieve this end, but I'm having a hard time imagining how changing a creature into a mindless zombie couldn't change its "level".

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not saying the new system won't work to achieve this end, but I'm having a hard time imagining how changing a creature into a mindless zombie couldn't change its "level".

Well, at the risk of falling into the "thinking in 3E terms" trap, just a few guesses off the top of my head:

1) This could be one of the "few," rather than "no," numerical change templates.

2) Perhaps they'll simply offer zombies in different sizes. While it's not as granular as a template that can be applied to any creature, it should still cover the spectrum. (I mean, is it really that important that a troll zombie be different from an ogre zombie, if they're both large giants that have lost all their special abilities?)

3) Something else entirely, about which I'm far too ignorant to guess, let alone speak.

 

[Aloïsius]

I'm not saying the new system won't work to achieve this end, but I'm having a hard time imagining how changing a creature into a mindless zombie couldn't change its "level".

A mindless creature's level will be the base creature's level. A mindless undead dire tiger still has fang the size of a short sword. And it is still a large creature.
A paladin animated as a zombi is just a human (read : commoner) zombi.

 

[DanChops]

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

I really like this idea. In my mind, wands should be useful in that they empower the spells cast by the wielder of the wand. Yeah, sort of Harry Potter-ish, I know, but that's what I've always wished wands would do. And now, it seems that D&D wands will do just that. Cool beans.

 

[Szatany]

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.

Agreed, I want weapons with special attacks and armors with special defenses. Bonuses are boooring and a hassle when you are at the receiving end of dispel magic.

 

[Khur]

Mindless? Dispel Magic? What are these archaic terms you speak of?

Nope . . . this isn't an indication that those won't be in 4e, but the preceding statement isn't a confirmation that they are. These sorts of things are 3e thinking, though.

 

[Armadillo]

I'm not sure what a +6 wand will mean, but I get the impression that this might be something that they're picking up from WoW. This is pure speculation, but a +6 wand suggests to me a new ranged attack weapon for wizards that could have damage types of Fire, Cold, Force, etc.

 

[DonTadow]

I really like this idea. In my mind, wands should be useful in that they empower the spells cast by the wielder of the wand. Yeah, sort of Harry Potter-ish, I know, but that's what I've always wished wands would do. And now, it seems that D&D wands will do just that. Cool beans.

Where you say harry potterish i say traditional fantasyish. I use this method in my game by incorporating a product at rpgnow called loot4less

 

[Szatany]

Mindless? Dispel Magic? What are these archaic terms you speak of?

Nope . . . this isn't an indication that those won't be in 4e, but it isn't a denial either. This is 3e thinking though.

Of course it is, there is no alternative at this point. We can either base assumptions on 3e when 4e info is unavailable, or shut up. Now, show me someone how would prefer the second choice

 

[Shade]

Well, at the risk of falling into the "thinking in 3E terms" trap, just a few guesses off the top of my head:

1) This could be one of the "few," rather than "no," numerical change templates.

2) Perhaps they'll simply offer zombies in different sizes. While it's not as granular as a template that can be applied to any creature, it should still cover the spectrum. (I mean, is it really that important that a troll zombie be different from an ogre zombie, if they're both large giants that have lost all their special abilities?)

3) Something else entirely, about which I'm far too ignorant to guess, let alone speak.

I'm betting it's #3, as I'm feeling far too ignorant at this point in time as well.

A mindless creature's level will be the base creature's level. A mindless undead dire tiger still has fang the size of a short sword. And it is still a large creature.
A paladin animated as a zombi is just a human (read : commoner) zombi.

While that might work for something as simple as a tiger, it wouldn't seem to be as feasible for a creature with a host of special abilities. We'll have to see how this plays out.