WotC Blogs II

[WayneLigon]

Some interesting stuff today, particularly when I remember past criticisms of the developers.

Historical Perspective on D&D 3.0, Part II

Multiclassing restrictions for monks and paladins. Fairly late in the 3.0 process, there was a push to get rid of them and let monks and pallies multiclass however they like. The playtesters told us with some certainty: "Don't you dare." So the multiclass restrictions remain.

And they're a mistake. ... With the benefit of hindsight, I wish we'd stood our ground--and I tend to hold playtester feedback in high regard, so that's a weird attitude for me to take.

In other words, yes, the developers listen to us. Sometimes we're dead wrong, but they still do what we suggest.

Reverse Engineering & Campaign Starting

Given a stat block, such as for a male malenti (sahuagin) of legend cleric 7 or a female half-fiendish twelve-headed elite pyrohydra, one must take what is given and compare it with the original creature, figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Unfortunately, between point A and point B is a whole lot of math and deconstruction that requires consideration of not only the respective stat blocks, but also all of the peripheral “Gotcha” rules. Such rules are usually modifiers (often related to size class and the like) that are almost invariably forgotten or miscalculated. As we come to the end of 3rd edition, the sheer number of Gotchas out there is daunting. The math and science are so finite that often repairing stat blocks becomes not a case of creating a flawless, pristine creature, but rather, a creature with a minimal amount of mistakes. I’d like to think I catch everything, but I won’t delude myself. When you’re dealing with a combination of advancement, templates, class levels, and monstrous races in a limited amount of time, some mistakes are bound to slip by (which is part of the reason I also work on errata!)

And that’s why 4E represents a change in creature-making philosophy. The construction of monsters still appears to be a science, but it is no longer an exact science. Allowing ourselves and DMs the wiggle room to adapt and change monster stat blocks as they see fit lifts the inane attention to detail required to create and edit creatures, allowing the focus to fall on aspects of creation that are more fun (and ultimately important), such as overall mechanics, gameplay, powers and story.

So, to the people that have complained about some of the stat blocks: it comes down to flaws in the system. I am very heartened by the second bolded peice.

Recent Reading

OK, nothing on D&D there but I like that Henisoo is reading basically the same list I am right now

 

[Rechan]

These are all pretty good ways to explain their possible existence for many campaigns, but unless you're using the evil society thing, it seems they'd still be pretty rare... especially to supplant a core race in the PHB1.

In my opinion, PCs are rare.

That's the whole point of PCs. They are the exception to the norm, more than mere men, those who stand up and can make a difference. They have luck or fate or divinity or the power of magic on their side. I expect 90% of the world have NPC classes.

So Tieflings being rare fit in with PCs being rare. It also means that Tieflings are more than likely than other races to be PCs, because the tiefling's existence is exceptional.

It's like Supers or Mutants in Marvel comics. By all accounts, they are rare. It would make little sense to say "Since they're so rare, it makes no sense to have them as the main characters in a roleplaying game".

I would hate to find a city of tieflings where the streetcleaners are tieflings, the chimney sweeps are tieflings and the farmers surrounding the city are tieflings. Just as I'd hate to find a city where the bus drivers have super powers and the mailmen have superpowers.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Deleted ... Moved to seperate thread.

 

[blargney the second]

Thanks for the links, WayneLigon.
-blarg

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Something else interesting in Greg Bilsland's blog that WayneLigon linked to above:

I will say that we have a Tiefling Warlord, a Rogue, a Human Wizard, and a Half-Elf Fighter.

We haven't seen very much about half-elves, just one early quote about their inspiring presence. Since this is a playtest group I think this is a confirmation of half-elfs in PHB1, if it was needed. Oddly, the Rogue has no race mentioned? Accident, or should we wildly over-speculate?

 

[Glyfair]

Check the news article for Rich's most recent post expanding on the cosmology from his most recent post.

For his off-topic comment, we've been sitting watching the roller coaster ride. I got to see one of the '93 World Series games at the Vet (the one Schilling won).

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

There's a note in David Noonan's blog I notice there's been almost no discussion of:

I realize this is late, but Friday morning was just a leg-humper for me. In his blog, Rich Baker scoops me on the whole fireball crit thing. When that second crit happened, I remember thinking, "I should put that in the blog." Rich beat me to it. Did he mention that one of the crits was against a shambling mound? I'm not sure.

So apparently we can crit plants now, at least with fire-based spells. A minor change, but one that seemed to have gone unnoticed.

 

[Rechan]

Wait a minute. Didn't he say he hit a troglodite?

Maybe he didn't get a double crit (like I thought it was), but that he got two crits in the span of the night's encounters.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Rich Baker wrote:

I rolled not one, but *two* critical hits with fireball attack rolls last night. The second actually one-shotted a tough troglodyte skirmisher;

So two different criticals. That one of them is against a shambling mound is very interesting. I think this was previewed in SW Saga: there are very (any?) few things there that are immune to criticals.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

We haven't seen very much about half-elves, just one early quote about their inspiring presence. Since this is a playtest group I think this is a confirmation of half-elfs in PHB1, if it was needed. Oddly, the Rogue has no race mentioned? Accident, or should we wildly over-speculate?

I have a feeling there is still one or two races in the PHB1 that haven't been mentioned. Or at least that they aren't allowed to confirm.

For instance, I think eladrin are IN the PHB1, but they've never actually SAID that. I think at this point they aren't allowed to. So, it may be that the player chose Eladrin and they can't say it. As soon as something is leaked by one of the designers in a clear fashion, it sounds like the rest of them are allowed to say it.

In the same way that the Warlord kept being referred to as "a class that relies on tactics" before people knew the name Warlord.