Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:20 am

For that same story-reason I'm even wary of Planeshift being the spell level that it is currently.
Hell, why not wrap it all up into the Gate spell? Does all that and more, right?

RandomCasualty · Post by **RandomCasualty** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:25 am

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1191486024[/unixtime]]For that same story-reason I'm even wary of Planeshift being the spell level that it is currently.
Hell, why not wrap it all up into the Gate spell? Does all that and more, right?

Yeah. I've always felt like most of the travel spells should be like gate. High-level, and capable of going basically anywhere.

I've always hated that weird plane shift mechanic where you teleport a bunch of miles away. Aside from Gygaxian screw, "You appear right over a lava pit in the lair of a great red wyrm, roll new characters". There's little point of it. At that level, you have transportation magic to avoid random encounters, but starting people 200 miles away just encourages you to make those long journeys again. Which is just one of those "what the fuck?" sort of abilities.

Mid level teleportation should be more like word of recall, which maybe gets you back to a specific point, or your home plane. That way you're not totally screwed as a mid-level mage if you happen to wander into a one-way portal or something.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:01 am

Speaking of high level shit. The new D&D podcast is kicking about. Its about monsters. They drop some shit. Some of it is good, some bad, and some is downright fvcking bizarre.

Azers? You know, the little flaming dwarf dudes? They're about a 14th level encounter in 4E. (So they can team up with fire giants! Yeah, not kidding) Because all planar adventuring defaults to 'paragon' level play. (11-20)

Elementals are different. Its no longer <element> <size> elemental. Different elementals are radically different in some unspecified way.

At one point, there is a statement that implies monsters no longer have hit dice.

Frost Giants are not in MMI. At all. But thats OK, because all MMs will be Core material (and all PHs, etc). Mmm. Not happy with that one myself, even if I get the marketing decision.

Book of Exalted Furries takes a hit. Guardinals all got shot in the head, execution style. Bye bye, you sick little monkeys.

They talk a lot about Exception based design. They love it. They (possibly) make love to it. In either case, they're stoked. Mmm, exceptions.

There is a whole bunch of other random tidbits in their for anyone obsessive with a notepad.

Me? I'm reminded of why I hate podcasts. Just write it the fvck down and post it, you lazy bastards. Multimedia is for masochists.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:41 am

So monster races will become like LA+0 with racial abilities that advance parallel to class abilities?
I'm all for that, if such a thing is true.
But 4e is like a daydream right now, so much changes every single 'update'.
I saw 1 promo podcraps and every article you folks post links to from here, and that's enough for me.

What's this about all MM becoming Core? You mean SRD, as in "everyone can use it"? woo...

Eladrins will be 'closer to home', I know that much. Their home plane(s) won't be jutting out of some imaginary cosmic wheel, they will be right here beside the mortals and fey. That's fuckin fucktastic.

I prefer plain text, maybe a little picture slapped here and there, too. None of this web video crap with load times and awful designer droning. Lord knows they never took a speech class...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:30 pm

I blame web 2.0 for this.

Anyway, it does sound like there is some good and some bad there. I like the fact that someone declared Exterminatus on the Guardinals.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:39 pm

I blame Peter for this. He invented the principle afterall.

Then I kick myself in the pants for taking "Detect Corprate Executive Idiot" as an at will feature. It is so easy to spot the incompitents who are tasked with major corprorate projects, both at where I work and at WoTC.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:31 pm

At my last job, I could usually guess which individual was making a specific stupid decision. Even now, if my former team leader mentions "I received a new part request, except guess what's wrong with it." I can state "It hasn't been approved, they haven't even checked to see if the part already exists and the person at fault was ______ or _____".

I'm leaving the names out to protect the brain-dead. You pay enough attention, and you can just match the fault to the individual. I don't really pay attention to WotC staff though - especially not their opinions

Though I know enough to associate "This screws Sorcerers" with Skip Williams.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:37 pm

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1191577285[/unixtime]]
What's this about all MM becoming Core? You mean SRD, as in "everyone can use it"? woo...

Basically (and this has been vaguely kicking about for a while, but in the podcast they straight up said this would be happening), next year, you've got your PH, DMG and MM, right?
Wrong, you've got your PH 1, DMG 1 and MM 1.

This is all Core. However, the year after that, you've got your PH 2, MM 2, and possibly DMG 2. This is also all Core. It might get so absurd to be a yearly thing (I hope not, because I doubt they can produce enough good material to refill these books every year), but basically they're saying that the all books with these labels are Core. So, Core will constantly be expanding. And the classes that get cut from the PH 1 (likely victims: monk, druid, sorcerer?, barbarian?) will appear later in a PH 2 or 3.

So it may be that iconic monsters (like the frost giant) are being held out of the MM 1 in order to help sell later MMs. (Squeezed in between the bizarre and senseless shit that traditionally populates later MMs). On the other hand, instead we get bizarre shit like Ice Archon Frostweavers. Or some bizarre heat draining, fire tossing Ice Griffon Something Something ( I didn't catch the whole name, but its got at least 3 parts).

Eladrins are likely to be in the Feywild. Along with the briarwitch dryads and evil blood-sacrificing druids (gave me a moment of hope, except for the 'evil' part).

There is also some insinuation that Drow are fey. This makes me sad. I'd rather they were on their knees beside the exalted furries.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:43 pm

Drow have a valuable use: feeding their brains to the master race.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:02 pm

Oh, is that what they were for? I thought it was to bundle the fear of women, black people and alternate sexual practices into one easy to use stereotype.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:20 pm

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1191571267[/unixtime]]
Frost Giants are not in MMI. At all. But thats OK, because all MMs will be Core material (and all PHs, etc). Mmm. Not happy with that one myself, even if I get the marketing decision.

Book of Exalted Furries takes a hit. Guardinals all got shot in the head, execution style. Bye bye, you sick little monkeys.

Boo on both. I like giants in general, and I liked the guardinals. (In my world, guardinals are one of the major players in the world.)

Dammit all the hell.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:30 pm

I'm actually not that concerned about the frost giant. Its an easy fix. Take one fire giant, describe it differently and change fire resistance to cold resistance. Theme whatever abilities other it gets as cold, too. Done.

I won't address your furry issues.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:48 pm

Also give it an axe. All Nordic things need axes.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:42 pm

DiTerlizzi's AD&D female Cervidal in one of the Planescape monster books is smokin' though. I'll have to agree with the Count on furry-lovin on that one instance.
IMO they shouldn't be removed, they should become shapeshifting Fey or maybe some form of class or PrC for Fey.
So, you'd have Satyr Guardinal or Dryad Guardinal (maybe even PHB races too) and it becomes various part-animal forms like some Druid wildshape variant.

And that's correct, all Nordics need axes. Sometimes that rage comes up in the workplace or dealing with noisy Mediterraneans when you just need some peace and quiet to enjoy your goatmeat and mead (pshh. more like sandwich and water) and you reach for an axe but it's not there.
Vikingism: must be in my blood.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:10 am

Mmmm. Tasty goat.
Not particularly Nordic in any meaningful way, however.

New design article:

Grab a d20. Roll high.

That’s the basic rule of 4th Edition just as it was in 3rd Edition, but the new edition puts that mechanic more solidly in the core of the game than ever.

Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.

That’s gone in the new edition.

Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?

You can in 4th.

Have you ever had some confusion or miscalculation about your normal AC versus your touch and flat-footed AC?

You won’t have to worry about it.

If you want to know whether or not you succeed in doing some action in 4th Edition, you grab a d20 and try to roll high. Just as in 3rd Edition, you add a modifier to that roll from your character sheet, and you check for any extra bonuses or penalties from the situation or from your allies. The key difference in the new edition is what you roll for and what you add.

The standard defenses remain (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) but now they all work more like AC. When a dragon breathes fire on you, it attacks your Reflex and deals half damage if it misses. The DM rolls a d20, adds the dragon’s modifiers, and asks you what your Reflex score is. The dragon might roll a 1 and automatically miss no matter how much tougher it is than you, but there’s also the frightening possibility that it will roll a 20 and deal double damage.

Folks familiar with the new Star Wars Saga system will recognize this concept, but it’s evolved a bit to better suit D&D. In 4th Edition, when a creature only needs to touch you to deliver an attack, it targets your Reflex. When you’re surprised, you grant combat advantage, but you don’t need to look at a special AC on your sheet -- the normal number works fine. When a pit suddenly opens up beneath your feet, you make a check to jump out of danger, but if a crossbow trap fires an arrow at you, it the bolt attacks your AC.

What we mean when we talk about streamlining the system is this: making design decisions that make learning and using the game less difficult, while keeping the system just as robust. And making it more fun as the result.

Its a bit better than the ass-tastic saga system, and I am sucked in by the idea of a consistent mechanic. Presumably, magic has some sort of BAB equivalent, rather than going off the spell level. It might actually mean the death of spell resistance, too.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:21 am

Or the transformation of SR into something else, like a simple bonus on your AC against spells, or whatever.

I can't say I dislike this idea. Heck, it even means that we no longer have the "I'm a Wizard. I don't roll d20s." situation. They get to roll the d20 too!

As for the various monsters, needs moar Viking stuff, and the Guardinals would be cooler if they weren't furries. I don't know, pick a random religion and steal their Celestials. Make them a Celestial Choir that kills people by wailing on their ax. Whatever.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:16 am

Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.

That’s gone in the new edition.

So getting to roll d20s to affect your survival chances is bad.

Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?

You can in 4th.

So getting to roll d20s to affect your survival chances is good.

Right... No wait, I don't get it. This is the primary reason why in both SAME and DMH I put in the idea of the attacker rolling to hit and the defender rolling to soak damage. The fact is that the game is a little bit frustrating when stuff happens and your character isn't rolling dice. Especially if your DM is a douche who rolls behind a screen - then you don't have any input or even get to see what is coming. The DM simply tells you if your character is dead from time to time.

Fuck that. It's consistent I suppose, but making it so that players never have any input into whether their characters live or die is not conducive to role playing. It lends a sense on enui to the game that I think will lead people to being offensive specialists. Since the powers of a defensive specialist are completely out of your control and even sight - the eggshells with hammers models will end up dominating as it's going to be much more satisfying to play.

-Username17

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:19 am

what about contested attack defence rolls. No reason they can't do it that way. I actually like doing it the reverse anyway. PLayers always roll against a base 10 roll for attack and defence keeps them involved when the bad guys act.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:43 am

ckafrica at [unixtime wrote:1191662368[/unixtime]]what about contested attack defence rolls. No reason they can't do it that way. I actually like doing it the reverse anyway. PLayers always roll against a base 10 roll for attack and defence keeps them involved when the bad guys act.

That sounds a lot like the mechanics used in BESM d20.

RandomCasualty · Post by **RandomCasualty** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:59 am

I hate the idea of dying without ever rolling dice as a player. That pretty much sucks. I'd actually prefer a scenario where the player rolls all the dice, unless the roll deliberately has to be hidden to prevent metagaming.

The new system pretty much encourages fudging, as at any point, the DM can simply declare an enemy's attack misses.

On the other hand, it'll be impossible for a DM to fudge to save his BBEG if the players happen to roll good attacks.

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1191629420[/unixtime]]
Its a bit better than the ass-tastic saga system, and I am sucked in by the idea of a consistent mechanic. Presumably, magic has some sort of BAB equivalent, rather than going off the spell level. It might actually mean the death of spell resistance, too.

Doubt SR is gone. SR actually fits perfectly with the idea of a defense. In fact, it may become "spell defense" or something like that, but it sticks with the core mechanic of attacker rolls all the dice and you have to bypass it to "hit."

Also, when you toss a spell on multiple people, is it one attack roll, or multiple? If it's one roll, that's really bad.

As far as better systems, what if you did something like this:

An NPC's character sheet is composed of DCs, and a PCs sheet is composed of bonuses. Whenever a PC rolls against an NPC, he rolls the appropriate bonus against the appropriate DC. If two PCs act against each other, it's an opposed roll, where each PC rolls and adds their bonus. When two NPCs act against each other, the DM just arbitrarily decide what happens. After all, they're two NPCs, so who even cares.

Note that under this system, cohorts, animal companions and summons would be considered PCs (as they're under the PCs control).

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:01 pm

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1191671974[/unixtime]]I hate the idea of dying without ever rolling dice as a player.

Same here. It's not even that I could have forced the die to roll better, it just *feels* as though it's under your control when you're the one rolling.

On the other hand, it'll be impossible for a DM to fudge to save his BBEG if the players happen to roll good attacks.

"The BBEG uses a random bullshit ability that changes his save bonus."

Also, when you toss a spell on multiple people, is it one attack roll, or multiple? If it's one roll, that's really bad.

Why so? It just saves time, really. I mean, sure, if they roll really well it can mean the whole party dies, and depending on how special 1s and 20s are, the extreme rolls could become even more extreme, but I'm not sure I mind too much because it saves time.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:25 pm

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1191671974[/unixtime]]
Doubt SR is gone. SR actually fits perfectly with the idea of a defense. In fact, it may become "spell defense" or something like that, but it sticks with the core mechanic of attacker rolls all the dice and you have to bypass it to "hit."

But you're already rolling to hit a number (whether its a save or AC, depending on the spell). Comparing the magic attack roll against SR as well is just redundant. (And in this situation either SR or the target AC/Save would matter, and the lower score wouldn't). Multiple attack rolls for the same effect would be counter to the streamlining philosophy.

Also, when you toss a spell on multiple people, is it one attack roll, or multiple? If it's one roll, that's really bad.

Multiple, I think. Its part of the streamlining- rather than the DM making a save for each of 10 orcs in a fireball (for example), the mage rolls one attack, and the DM compares the result to their Reflex score. Faster.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:42 am

I have an idea that SR instead adds +1 to saves against spells for every 5 points it would normally have. Number might vary, have yet to test this.

Another concept I did get to playtest was that in every day (or until rest) a character with SR has a pool of absorbing spell levels equal to SR value.
When that limit is reached, they are affected normally.
As usual the barrier must be lowered to gain effect from beneficial spells.
That house rule didn't work out so well.

Anyways.. that's an interesting proposal, spells getting "critical hits".
It's there with touch-attacks like Orbs, but for all it would become like AD&D Psionics with every 1/20 roll (statistically) giving near double the effect no matter what the power may be, and I don't know if I like that.
We'll see, eh? We'll see.

I do want SoDs gone or at least severely nerfed.
Or maybe that's just an opinion from what happened to an old Monk/Psychic Warrior of mine turned to stone somewhere in some armageddon-type campaign world, on the fifth round of combat with the BBEG.
He'll be like that forever.
That kinda shit has got to go.

Voss wrote:Multiple, I think. Its part of the streamlining- rather than the DM making a save for each of 10 orcs in a fireball (for example), the mage rolls one attack, and the DM compares the result to their Reflex score. Faster.

I do that as DM sometimes, usually when there's more than 3 enemies.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:46 am

I'm super not-jazzed about the removal of crit confirmation. The variable threat range + crit confirmation system of third edition was one of the most elegant systems they ever made.

-Username17

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:51 am

Reading back, the writer (Rich Baker again?) touched on something I had introduced as a house rule that I had conceived without copying any other games (but I did find matches, such as in Anime d20, sort of.)

From what I gather, in this convoluted article here, is that 4e will add Reflex and other saves to AC as needed.

All I have to comment on that is "It took you guys fuckin long enough to think of this, hm?"

The Gaming Den

Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker

Re: Changes For Fiends and Rich Baker