Didn't JAGS split mana points into two pools, one for the combat stuff, one for the rest?

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

I think thats fine - it means every encounter can be balanced as an exciting fight.

Although it does occur that this only works in WoW because the penalty for failing is low - if you suffer a TPK it just means everyone has to spend a bit of time running back to the dungeon.

Incidentally, I'd swear I heard somewhere about an idea for allowing 'in character' respecing of your dude - swaping your feats and stuff around to try something else out. I think that would be very useful.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe Monster Manual is there for a reason. The NPC tables are there for a reason. Fucking use them.

Inspiration and a skeleton to work off of for me.  A couple of common examples with a creation method that generates CRs for monsters and NPCs would be more useful to me.  Same principle for spells.  Instead of spending 30 pages listing "common" spells, give me generation rules for developing my own leveled spells for characters.  I want a D&D that teaches me how to use the system to craft my campaigns all in one book (how to build classes, how to create races, how to create feat and talent trees, etc...).  

Otherwise, the new mechanics are slight variances of color mechanics to me.  Instead of beating a THACO to hit someone for 1d8 damage + strength, you beat the armor rating to great cleave with a possilbe crit for 1d8 + strength + cleave mod + crit multiplier minus the DR of the persons armor just to cause damage.  Principles are the same but the crunch is just fluff to me.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

Well it largely depends on the type of encounters and situations faced, doesn't it?

A wizard who loads up on Fireballs may be a great combat caster, but when it comes to situations that require more finesse, or that simply can't be solved via blowing shit up then he's next to useless.

I like the idea of styles, stances and maneuvers. A style would be the umbrella type of magic available (elemental, divination etc.) and its stances (call them rituals, procedures, gifts or whatever) would provide long-term reusable powers like read language, detect magic etc. Manuevers (ie. spells) would be the one-shot effects that are prepared and refreshed on a per encounter basis.

Of course there's nothing to stop a character loading up on the big gun equivalents, but IME that's what wizards tend to do anyway if given the chance. It also lends itself to a 'signature style' approach, with different characters emphasising different combos of aggressive and defensive spellcasting via their chosen styles.

This is all Book of 9 Swords stuff of course, but I can easily see it mapping on to the core classes with relative ease.

Quote from: CalithenaBut that's actually not what I was posting about. I was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

I can understand your preferences but let's be honest, gamist conceits are a cornerstone of the D&D paradigm. From hit points to levels to saving throws, a huge amount of the foundational material emphasises system management first and immersion second.

The thing is it's not too difficult to wrap a coherent metaphysical explanation around these things. In my own campaigns I've often used the idea of spirit summoning and pacts in place of memorisation when it comes to spells. The mechanics are identical, it's just a way of me visualising the fire and forget approach in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion. You could apply a similar sort of approach to the "powers" system that's been hinted at by Wizards.

For a game like D&D part of the fun (for me at least) is inventing semi-plausible reasons for how all this wacky stuff works, and I look forward to doing exactly the same with 4th edition. All I'm hoping for is a system that's more mechanically user-friendly at all levels, and the talent trees and reusable power options seem to be just that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Dear Jesus, let armour provide DR."

I hope thats how it will work too.

Quote from: RoninI hope thats how it will work too.

I wouldn't have guesses so, as Star Wars Saga actually ditched that rule from the revised edition. But then again, this isn't as armor-focussed as D&D.

The D&D mentions that a fighter chose a spear for the chance to penetrate armor. That isn't easily done when armor provides a straight bonus. It could be done with different crit results (and possibly feats to change that). So a spear would ignore armor, an axe would just do extra damage...

Quote from: jrientsJust to be clear, I think J is doing that whole "excluded middle" thingy where the only options he is offering are use the shortcuts in the book or build a full PC entirely from scratch, but I have no problem with him swearing like a goddamn sailor when he does it.

I don't see how it's a fallacy to talk about the game as it's written, and as every group I've played with has used it.

The books are there to alleviate prep work.  That's how the game is designed.  It's what the monster manual is for.  It's what the NPC tables are for.  As someone described upthread, you go through the book, you pick out monsters, draw up NPCs, and put them in the dungeon.  Contrary to what that person said though, it's just as possible in 3.x as it is in any other D&D, unless you're deliberately ignoring the tools as given.

 It's not a "shortcut" to use the fucking book that is there, and it's ridiculously insulting to phrase it that way when it's how the damn game was designed to be played, and how most people play the game.  

If anyone's engaging in fallacy here, it's people who're deliberately choosing to ignore the tools presented by the game and then attacking it based on their ignorance.

Quote from: DrewA wizard who loads up on Fireballs may be a great combat caster, but when it comes to situations that require more finesse, or that simply can't be solved via blowing shit up then he's next to useless.

I think that one of the best choices I made with the NPC Wizard in my D&D game was to make her a specialist who couldn't do Evocations or Necromancy.  I originally did that to keep the NPC from stealing thunder from the PCs but it also prevented filling up all of her spell slots with Fireballs and Magic Missiles.

Drew - it was less like that when there was less system - I started before AD&D1. I agree with you that resource management is a big part of the game; less sure that that's not immersive (you can only do so many spells, and you can only take so many wounds, are not at all distant from the imaginative material for me).

This is really a subject for another thread, though. Come to think of it, a thread I started on TBP just yesterday...

Quote from: CalithenaDrew - it was less like that when there was less system - I started before AD&D1. I agree with you that resource management is a big part of the game; less sure that that's not immersive (you can only do so many spells, and you can only take so many wounds, are not at all distant from the imaginative material for me).

I've never found it to be a hindrance to immersion, but like I said I enjoy creating backstories for quirky systems. My response was to what I thought was you were saying about finding the per encounter method less immersive. I may have misread though-- it wouldn't be the first time.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that one of the best choices I made with the NPC Wizard in my D&D game was to make her a specialist who couldn't do Evocations or Necromancy.  I originally did that to keep the NPC from stealing thunder from the PCs but it also prevented filling up all of her spell slots with Fireballs and Magic Missiles.

Cool. I've always preferred wizards with a more esoteric bent myself.

Personally I'd like to see a system where each style or school has it's own distinctive list of aggressive and defensive spells. Someone schooled in divination could hurl a handful of raw fate in an opponents face, or cut the ties that bind them to future, resulting in instant death. If every magical tradition had it's own set of combat orientated stuff then we'd probably see much more diversification in play.

This of course is assuming that magic will be even remotely like the styles, stances and maneuvers of BO9S. It's more likely that I'm vastly overinterpreting the scant information we've been given thus far. Fun, though.

Ripped directly fron an RPG.net thread:

QuoteMike Mearls is the lead developer for 4th edition.

How many core classes - this question was repeatedly avoided until it was admitted there would be fewer than the current number (11). How fewer and who was cut wasn't discussed.

Character classes which haven't been classes before now have resources to manage similar to spells.

Character Powers are to be sorted into at will, per encounter and per day.

Vancian 'spell slots' will be reduced in how much they control a caster's total ability.

Encounters are going to be wholly redesigned

Monsters will have roles outlined in the MM. Monster design will be more open ended. Not all monsters will have information necessary to make them playable characters.

Monster Manual is 288 pages and the DMG 256 pages

Assumed world that will be "points of light in a dark world."

Question of whether Greyhawk will be the the default world was avoided, however Greyhawk proper names will remain.

To the question of whether XP will be required to make magic items Andy Collins replied, "No, Hell No." How magic items will be made in character wasn't discussed beyond a vague statement that you wouldn't be burning a feat on it, and out of character the structure of magic item creation will become more loosened.

And...

QuoteI attended the 4e seminar at Gencon today. I admit that I'm not a luminary in the hobby or otherwise a known person to many gamers - while I know I went to the seminar, I won't be offended if people don't trust me. JohnC's post, and a lot of posts in this thread, have covered a lot of what I heard at the seminar. Here's some more tidbits:

The 30 levels are organized into three tiers. 1-10 is called the "Heroic" tier, which is similar to 3e at low to mid levels. 11-20 is called the "Paragon" tier, where characters become more powerful and can begin to take on greater threats (small dragons, etc.) - it's similar to low to mid teens in 3e. 21-30 is the "Epic" tier, where characters now tackle issues of planary and cosmic importance. One thing WotC mentioned was that the game will play similarly at all tiers, it's just that the scope of the stories will change.

Level advancement - for both PCs and monsters - will be a little more "linear," meaning DMs should be able to throw a wider array of critters up against the PCs.

Each class will have a clearly defined role in combat. I don't exactly know what this means, but it appears WotC will go to great lengths to spell out what a class should do and how to do it.

A Tiefling is on the cover the 4e PHB, suggesting it's a core race, but WotC didn't explicitly say it was. WotC said to expect the old standbies (human, dwarf, elf, and halfling) but also to expect a few surprises. And, as mentioned, race will have an effect beyond providing bonuses at first level. According to WotC, a dwarf fighter should feel different in play from an elf fighter.

I think a bit of Iron Heroes has bled into the game. Not things like Tokens and what not, but the idea of islands of civilization surrounded by a sea of lawlessness and savagery will be big in the "assumed" setting. "Points of light in a dark world," as JohnC said. There will be no great and powerful kingdoms of goodness and justice to bail civilization out. The average Joe doesn't stray far from the path, venture out onto the moors, are walk through the fog - there are Bad Things out there.

The setting sounds like it won't be Greyhawk, or, if it is, it will be much reduced. However, lots of names with strong assocations to GH or D&D - Mordenkainen, Tiamat, Evard, Orcus, etc. - will be carried over. As far as gods go, WotC talked about how players like to play clerics of "Thor, Odin, or Zeus." I'm not sure what to make of that - it might have just been picking out random names or it might mean that real world gods will make an appearance of some kind.

As people have said, the importance of magic items will be reduced. While they'll still be nice to have, WotC says that what makes a 28th level fighter cool will be the fact that he's a 28th level fighter.

Some classes are gone while others will receive more distinguishing. For example, the Scout's role will be largely subsumed by the Ranger. However, the Sorcerer and the Wizard will receive some further distinguishing. WotC didn't specify in what ways these two classes will be different from each other, but it suggested it would be more than the amount of spells they can cast per day.

Multiclassing is going to be significantly changed or possibly even removed. The example WotC gave was, if you want to be a Fighter who dabbles in arcane magic, you'll be able to do that without multiclassing as we know it. But while the 4e "Fighter/Wizard" won't have as many Fighter or Wizard tricks, he'll be as effective with his suite of abilities as a pure Fighter or pure Wizard would be with theirs.

The encounter is going to be the basic unit of play and encounter design will receive some sizeable revamping. One thing WotC is looking at having DMs decide how much total xp an encounter should and then "buying" monsters with that xp. In addition, there will be several types encounter, including chases and social encounters. There are going to be some actual mechanics to back these up.

Alignment is also going to different, and probably have a much reduced role. It will still play a role, but Andy Collins expressed a great deal of dislike for the current system.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Well, colour me excited!  I like everything I've heard so far, and if they can bring in some of the ideas and energy from SW Saga I'll be a happy camper (not that I'm a "3.X hater" by any means... but I like Saga even better).

KoOS

Quote from: DrewRipped directly fron an RPG.net thread:
...
Sounds pretty good to me.

Yeah, almost all of that sounds rather promising.  :cool: