My mini-review of the 4th edition of DnD as we currently know it
Posted on 2007-08-24 at 23:26
Some of the details of the upcoming 4th edition have been leaked. Those details give us a jumbled picture from which to work, but below is my attempt to comment on the mass of random comments and facts leaked so far.
Races
Mentioned some race disappearing from core (bets go for the Gnome), possibly to be included in an early supplement.
I say fine. The gnome was turning into a joke. Better to drop the gnome than do it poorly as every edition has since after the 1st. If they want some ideas about how to make the Gnome cool again, though, I'm their man. He can and should fill a niche that no other race currently fills (and it ain't the comic relief!).
Tiefling included, and they look much more demonic than now (almost half-demon).
I'm not down with this, in that it is an attempt to bring evil character's to the fore. Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but evil isn't cool. Cool is the image of the lone Paladin fighting off the hordes of demonkind. Playing D&D is about playing a hero in some manner or form.
Changeling from Eberron may be included.
Meh, I have no opinion on this, except that it seems lame. I'll wait and see, though.
"Dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence" mentioned as racial traits.
I like the sound of these racial traits, but not sure what it all means.
Classes can be improved by racial feats, in a similar way to how current racial substitution levels work.
I like this idea. We used Racial feats in our home campaign and I think they are a good idea overall.
All classes have at will, per encounter and per day abilities.
This is a GREAT thing. An adventurer's day shouldn't end after the first encounter of the morning. Having abilities that work with each encounter is a good solution to that problem. This (and the related new rules) are what most make me want to play the 4th ed rules.
Classes
Levels go up to 30, instead of 20;
Level division:
- 1-10 Heroic - foes are orcs and ogres, some giants, small dragons. Adventures tend to be local.
- 11-20 Paragon - on par with the current low to mid teens right now. Bigger threats are faced that might threaten a kingdom.
- 21-30 Epic- World or Planar threats.
I don't have an opinion about this. The level number matters less than the gameplay at a given level. If 30 is the new 20, that's fine by me either way.
The goal is to have the levels play in a similar manner - they don't want a 25th character overwhelmed with 80 abilities. The main differences should be in the story, not how they play.
I want to see what this means in practice before I comment more.
From GamerZer0's interview with James Wyatt: There are four "roles".Although two PCs may serve the same role, they may do it in different ways. (Like fighters with different styles.) The roles are geared towards combat; a PC's non-combat aspects can differentiate him further. He also said that they are still considering the possibility of there being a class or two that doesn't quite fit the four "roles".
- Defender: fighter & paladin classes
- Leader: cleric & warlord classes
- Controller: wizard class
- Striker: rogue & ranger classes
Unless roles have abilities or something I don't see that this is anything more than trying to help newer players create balanced parties. Not in any way useful to experienced gamers. If this is some sort of model to be followed with a penalty for non-compliance, then I have a problem with it. Experienced gamers like to experiment with themed parties, and this would get in the way of that. That'd be uncool. Not sure if WotC would do something that boneheaded, though.
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard definitely stay (multiple mentions and examples). Also mentioned Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. Mentioned that wizard and sorcerer won't merge. Sorcerer will be different from wizards in more ways than just resource management.
Good to see that the basics stay, I suppose. That leaves us wondering about monks, bards, and druids, among others. I wouldn't miss bards (as none has been cool since the 1st ed). I'd understand if they dropped monks, though I'd miss them. Druids would be an odd choice. They are a class firmly rooted in the mythos that D&D tries to express.
Mentioned that paladins can be of other alignments other than lawful good.
More attempts to push players away from the hero model. I'm sure they want to accommodate anti-paladins (Chaotic Evil paladins) and the such. That would be a serious blow to the game in my opinion.
Mentioned a warlord class
I'm interested in hearing more.
Druid mentioned in D&D's seminar's summary
So the druid stays? I hope so.
Backstab mentioned.
It better be mentioned or they might be the recipients of an unexpected one by the legion of loyal thief/rogue players!
Fighter's "powers" depend highly on the weapon they chose as primary - spears have different "powers" available than axes; swords and greatswords are very flexible in terms of said "powers"
This has the potential to be cool, but it also has to potential to suck raw ass. I don't want something that feels too computer-game. Above all, any combat my fighter engages in should feel like the sort of swordplay I read about in Conan, Tolkien, or other classic fantasy literature. Weapon powers that bring me closer to that feel will be embraced, but weapon powers that feel more like Mortal Combat or Guild Wars will make me far less likely to buy into the 4th edition.
Wisdom helps with power selection.
So a fighter might benefit from a higher wisdom? That could be interesting. It would throw off the power gamers, which isn't entirely a bad thing.
Mentioned a "rain of blows" power or maneuver for swords; mentioned making a choice between taking the abilities "Supreme Cleave" or "Massive Strike".
Those powers sound very Guild Wars. I'm hoping I'm wrong.
More on martial abilities: "A skilled halberdier can hack a foe with his weapon’s blade and spin around to smash a second foe with the haft. A fighter with a longsword disarms her foe with a flick of her wrist, while a battle hungry axeman cleaves through shields, armor, and bone." "Rogues have a similar relationship with skills. A nimble rogue dives through the air to tumble past an ogre, while a charismatic one tricks an enemy into looking away just before she delivers a killing blow with her dagger. Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs."
I like what I'm hearing here. My concern is that it could be hard to nail down the limits and effects of those sorts of things. Just what can a rogue do with the Bluff skill that another player can't? Ambiguity is fine enough, but it does open the door for power gamers again.
Cleric mentioned creating a "surge of healing power" alongside a critical hit. This hints (yet unconfirmed) to mechanics similar to some Crusader maneuvers, from Tome of Battle.
No real comment on this power, but I want to reiterate that the "per encounter" and such rules for powers are most welcome.
Some current base classes disappear; classes yet to be mentioned and therefore good candidates are Monk and Bard. Classes that don't appear in the PHB will appear in future products. Psionics not to be included in core, though they'll have support.
Glad to see Psionics dropped from the core PHB. I've never really been a fan of them. Psionics are a bit too sci-fi for my fantasy tastes.
Prestige classes stay.
I could have sworn they said they were dropping them. Frankly, I was happy to see them go. Now I'm not certain of their fate, though I'd vote em off the island if it were up to me.
Feats and skills
Move silently and hide rolled into one ("Stealth?")
Good. Nothing was more annoying than rolling 15 times to sneak down a 25 foot hallway while searching for traps.
Some of the more obscure or less used skills disappear (mentioned tailor and rope use)
Not sure I'd drop rope use, but I can understand some of the less used skills going away. I thought Tailor was a profession skill though? Are they dropping Profession? If not, what's to stop me from taking tailor anyway? I make up Knowledge skills for characters as needed. I dunno. I need to see what this all means.
Mentioned that Sage should be "considered a preview [of the skill system]"
Haven't checked that out. I guess I'll have to.
Feats won't form long chains.
That's probably for the best. Planning for the higher end feats was often cumbersome and irritating. Much better to put other limits of powerful feats, like level minimums and the such.
There will be rules akin to the retraining rules in PHBII - they don't like the idea of people planning their careers from level 1 to 30.
This is probably a good thing, but I want to see how they implement it before I commit to a thumbs up.
Combat and encounters
Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.
That.
*rolls d20*
Sounds.
*rolls d20*
Lame.
Saves mentioned. AC mentioned, apparently with the same function as it has today.
Good. These are sacred cows and should be maintained unless we are given a damn good alternative.
Free, immediate, move and standard actions mentioned. (it stands to reason Swift actions will be present too).
I don't see how this simplifies the current move system, but I accept that I might need to play with it to see the benefot in action (pardon the pun).
Critical hits mentioned. Confirmation rolls for critical hits possibly go away.
It's just plain fun to think that there's a chance that any given attack might be the lucky one that gets the players all standing up and shouting at the dice. Critical hits are a table rouster.
Attacks of opportunity gone or greatly changed/simplified: a fighter charges a dragon and no AoO is mentioned.
I'm not moved by this change. AoO were an interesting add-on to the game, but I never thought of them as something that added greatly to the experience one way or the other. If there, I'll use them and if not, I won't.
Grapple greatly simplified.
Please, oh please, do not make grappling stupid. I agree that the rules made me run to the PHB every time due to being hard to memorize, but if you simplify them too greatly, grappling will suck open ass and never get used. I want grapples in the game. I want players to want to use them when appropriate. I don't want them to go away.
Combat still uses a square grid
Good, because my battle mat costs more than your core books. I'd probably changed games before I changed mats. ;-)
Spells and magic
Vancian system survives, but it's ony a "fraction" of the magic (or magic options) available to characters: "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
I like this for the same reason that I like "per encounter" powers. Anything that keeps the heros heroic is fine by me. Don't make mage's dominate, but make them useful all day. Nothing is more lame than the party deciding to rest for the night at 10:30 in the morning because the mage has already had to use all his spells. That is the suck.
"Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells."
As with character levels, a number doesn't mean anything to me. If 25 or the new 9, I don't care as long as a mage isn't casting the 25th level "Sunder Universe" spell.
Fireballs don't deal 1d6/level damage any more. Also, game breaking spells (spells that fundamentally change the gaming scenario, like etherealness, scrying, and save or die effects) "have been addressed as well".
Addressed is a good start. Healing magic needs to neutered in my opinion. Nothing says "computer game" like a Heal Up after every combat. It's just lame.
Mentioned a "ray of freezing cold".
With 25 levels, and a serious revamping of the magic system, I am really interested in seeing the new spell lists. It'll be interesting if they move more toward magic effects than spells---which it sounds like they might do.
Magic items
Magic item creation doesn't use XP or require a feat.
Willbecca will be happy. He's bitched from the beginning about the XP cost of item creation.
Monsters
The monsters will have their own roles and their own abilities- the orc will have orc abilities, not fighter or barbarian abilities. "The ettin, for instance, has the whole two-heads thing, so it can go twice in one round, and take unrelated actions."
I think this could be a good thing, if they move toward all monsters being classed to gain the fighter abilities, for instance. We'll see how they handle it.
Monsters no longer drain XP (implied no draining of levels?)
Awesome. Worst call I ever had to make as a DM was telling a guy at a tournament that his super-cool favorite dwarf just lost two levels permanently and without a saving throw. I was embarrassed to be the guy enforcing that crap-ass rule.
Vulnerability to energy likely to work differently in 4e, with additional effects (like slowing in the case of cold) instead of (or in addition to?) extra damage.
Cool. Makes more sense than losing levels in any case!
Ancient (red?) dragons apparently now can do a lot of things:
- An inferno aura, usable as a free action.
- A tail slap attack with an added pushback effect, usable as a free action.
- Two claw attacks, usable as a standard action.
- A fireball spit that sticks to the target dealing extra damage, usable as a standard action.
- A breath weapon, but we don't get to see what kind of action it normally takes - a free one like the inferno aura, as different uses of the same ability?
- A special action granting an extra standard action.
- They may take an immediate action to use their breath weapon when reduced blow half damage.
- They may take an immediate action to use their tail slap when about to be flanked.
Sounds powerful as a bitch. Good. A big ol' dragon should be powerful.
Said dragon would have around 1000 hit points.
OK, it is powerful as bitch. Cool!