Reply author: Asgetrion
Replied on: 21 Aug 2007 23:41:49
Message:

Markustay & Skeptic,

I very much doubt that they'll provide any kind of stat blocks for 'commoners' - general or 'profession-specific' - as the focus in the game shifts even more on the 'heroic' characters and their 'special roles' in the campaign. I'll be positively surprised if Charisma makes the cut (not to mention about Diplomacy, Gather Information and all the other Charisma-based skills) as any kind of social actions will probably be "better left out of the game mechanics and handled through role-playing outside the encounters... except for Intimidation - which is cool! - and by the way, that is now a strength-base skill!".

After watching all the interviews and reading those details the designers have leaked so far, they seem to be overly worried about the game being too complex and slow (for example, they made several references to "doing the math" and "how the game has become bogged down"). I think they also compared 3.X edition to 'first generation console games' or something like that? On basis of all this, I guess this is how their brainstorming sessions for 4E must have gone:

1) WoW is very popular.
2) So are console games, too.
3) Maybe it's the nice and shiny colors... naah... must be something else.
4) Maybe it's the fast-paced action?
5) Must be it, but also something else.
6) Maybe it's the diceless system? Maybe D&D should get rid of using dice? No... yes.. maybe... no...
7) Maybe D&D is just too complex to play?
8) Maybe we should get rid of all the "uncool" stuff?
9) Maybe we should get rid of all the complex stuff?
10) Math is overrated. We should definitely get rid of math.
11) More choices, less thinking! That sounds nice...
12) Maybe we should just buy the license to WoW?
13) Hmmm... superhero comics are popular, too...
14) Maybe D&D should have 'superhero' as a core class? Naah... maybe?
15) I know, I know! WoW *AND* many console games have GAZILLIONS of cool powers your characters can learn! And superheroes have cool powers, too!
16) Maybe D&D should have superpowers as feats? Why not...
17) What was that someone said about WoW? Cool powers?
18) I know, I know! We should copy those Talent Trees - or whatever they're called - from WoW! And maybe we should give some ultra-cool stuff to learn at every level?
19) Yeah, and some racist... racial... whatever... stuff
20) Less hit-points! More damage! That sounds nice, too...
21) We should definitely get rid of all the NPCs... they are bogging the game down!
22) Warlord! Warlord! Warlord! And more cool stuff to do with weapons!
23) Fast-paced, focused and simple action! Gazillions of new superpow... feats! Now *THIS* sounds like what the D&D-fanatics *really* want from the game!
24) Roll-playing, not role-playing, goddammit!
25) Kids will love it!
26) Uhhh... adult gamers will love it, too? Maybe? No? Yes! YES! Maybe? Who cares!
27) Sounds like we are ready for some play-testing!
28) Did someone say something about WoW?
(Etcetera)

Seriously, I personally think that the game design is taking the wrong turn with making D&D simpler and 'faster' to play in all aspects. Thinking, doing the math, and certain 'slower' elements in the session (role-playing, for example), are all part of the gaming experience. If I want to play a simpler, faster and more 'action-focused' RPG with heaps of cool powers/skills (and nice graphics, to boot!) without doing any math, I'll just log on to my WoW-account...

I think they're turning D&D into another hybrid of board/strategy game with loose RPG elements. After all, they're *emphasizing* the importance of the 'tactical' aspect, and *educating* DMs and players alike how to run the PCs and monsters in encounters using group strategies (to gain maximum advantage) in very 'military-like' efficiency and precision. Plus, the 'environment' itself will play a key role in encounters - I guess they'll cut the Dungeon Dressing tables from DMG in favor of all those 'terrain details' and tactical bonus modifier tables. Good luck with speeding up combat with all that, since it has been my personal experience that using minis and battle-mats is the single major reason for the game to slow down since playing AD&D.

We are now also being told that *EVERY* character will have a tactical 'role' in the party, and all the thousands upon thousands new feats revolve around making them uniquely useful in these (combat) encounters. I wouldn't be surprised if they 'force-feed' these roles down our throats, by making it 'official' (in PHB) that someone *MUST* play a 'healer', someone *MUST* play a 'spellslinger', someone *MUST* play a 'striker'... just read that part about two gamers in GenCon, discussing how "you've got the 'tank' covered, so I'll be playing a halfling rogue." What if your players want to run, let's say, three fighters, a ranger and a rogue - do you, as DM, have to deny them this right to choose their classes freely? ("No! It says here in PHB that *someone* MUST play a 'healer'... and only one of you can create a 'tank'!")

I am also very disappointed in the concept art I've seen so far - they have really gone for more 'toylike' or even 'comic book-like' image (just take a look at that fighter and those weapons). But I guess that goes pretty well with their primary target audience, since it appears that in every way (especially with the game design) they wish to appeal to younger customers (manga/console game generation).

One final thing: did anyone else notice that reference to using Constitution for hammer? I guess this is another 'Book of Nine Swords'-thing, but does it refer to attack and damage bonus or Per Day/Per Encounter bonus? (similar to how wizards gain bonus spells for int)