WotC Blogs II

[Intrope]

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.

OTOH, a previous blog post mentioned the playtest characters (at 2, 4, 6 & 8th level?)--and one of those was an Eladrin Rogue.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I expect 90% of the world have NPC classes.

If I remember correctly, in 3e, 90% of the world has Commoner class... the other NPC classes take up anothe 5 or 6% of the world population. The PC classes make up the other 4 or 5%...

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Minor note on "Powers"

From James Wyatt's blog:

Rich Baker and I are finishing up the Player's Handbook writing this week. On my list for this morning: read through the Skills chapter (I think it's in pretty good shape), and write the first couple of pages for each of the Classes chapter, the Feats chapter, and the Powers chapter.

i) There's a Powers chapter in the PHB. As well as Skills, Classes and Feats chapters, but they're not surprises.

ii) From Rich Baker's post that's already linked on a front page, it looks like "Power" in 4e is a term that covers what were clerical spells and warlock invocations in 3e. Probably all spells from 3e, and at a guess maneuvers as well.

Just noting this since "Powers" in 3e referred to psionics, and this is a change in terminology.

 

[Glyfair]

Just noting this since "Powers" in 3e referred to psionics, and this is a change in terminology.

I'm thinking powers might be one of two things. First, it might just be a way of classifying "class abilities." Second, it might be a classification of the "at will" spells.

 

[helium3]

Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it. When people first started complaining about R&D bagging on the current edition I thought they were being overly sensitive. Now I'm just kinda sick of it.

Also, do the R&D guys all play in each other's campaigns? Seems kinda inbred to me if that's the case.

 

[Glyfair]

Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it.

Yeah, I want to see the "This worked great in 3.5, so we are changing it in 4E" comments.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, emo = "boo hoo", but there is a connection. I blame White Wolf. They set up the drama in the World of Darkness, and particularly Vampire: The Masquerade to generate character concepts that can be summarized in the following sentence:

"I am a misunderstood good guy trapped in the body of a villain, and sometimes I do bad things, but I feel awful about it afterwards (woe is me)."

I blame people that don't understand how personal horror works in a roleplaying game.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ugh, I'm starting to get really tired of the bloggers apparently being unable to mention 3.X without saying something nasty about it. When people first started complaining about R&D bagging on the current edition I thought they were being overly sensitive. Now I'm just kinda sick of it.

What's the point in doing a new edition with changes if you aren't willing to be honest about the problems with the old edition? Why change the game if everything you have to say about it is all sunshine and daisies?

Also, do the R&D guys all play in each other's campaigns? Seems kinda inbred to me if that's the case.

Yeah, it's totally bad for a group of professional game designers to play in eachother's games to test out mechanics and playstyles, especially when they all work together at the same company and usually on the same products.

Totally bad idea.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Mike Mearls' latest describes the current state of the PHB in general terms and what they're looking for from playtesting.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, it's totally bad for a group of professional game designers to play in eachother's games to test out mechanics and playstyles, especially when they all work together at the same company and usually on the same products.

Totally bad idea.

To be fair. Having fresh eyes, people who DON'T know the 4e system as its various incarnations, is also helpful.

But I believe that Noonan's Eberron playtest game has two guys in it who are NOT WotC employees; they're just casual gamers in the Seattle area.