piątek, 27 stycznia 2012

Seminarium "Class Design"


Dziś drugi dzień D&D XP. Na pytania odpowiadali Monte Cook, Bruce Crodell i Robert Schwalb. Tematem głównym było podejście do klas w nowej edycji. Zapis znajdziecie poniżej. Na jutro zapowiadany jest szczególnie mnie interesujący panel, poświęcony linii wydawniczej. Wreszcie będziemy mieli trochę więcej konkretów.



12:39
Greg: Do you want to talk about some of the ways that this could be accomplished?

12:40
Comment From Markelhay
Classes should be less complex than 4E, but you should be able to choose a more complex character. For example, I could build a fighter who just upgrades his basic attack, and has a few powerful "special" attacks. My friend could also build a fighter, but have a variety of powers.
12:40
Comment From Tony
I think players should be able to run either complex or simple versions of the same class
12:40
Monte: Sure. So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more.
12:41
Rob: Even in the core you varying levels of complexity within each class. Even the wizard has a base starting point that is less complex than what you can get into if you opt into some of the options.
12:41
Comment From Guest
I like the variant of complexity between essentials fighters up through the maybe even 3.5 wizards. Being a dm I get players that like the simplicity of an essentials fighter (but not too disinteresting like the 3.5 fighter) but I see people that want to build classes that are very complex even if they can't make them too powerful.
12:41
Comment From Justin
I think they hit it on the head with the knight and slayer - they just need both those options from the start!

12:41
Comment From ExtendedRets
Sounds like the difference between Essentials Fighter (Knight) and Original 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster). I liked the different feel they both had.
12:41
Greg: This conversation leads into the talk of balance. Is it important that classes are equally balanced? And how does that look - would that focus on damage output and number crunching?
12:42
Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.
12:42
Comment From TheCrankyMage
Different classes should have different inherent complexities. What Monte suggests is something that was brought on using kits, prestige classes, or paragon paths, but the "core" of a fighter is still the guy swinging the sword.
12:43
Bruce: We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat.
12:43
Comment From Sean
Balance is a matter of opinion. High Level Wizards should outshine everyone. They paid for it at low levels.
12:43
Comment From andy
I think its less about who has the best numbers and more about who has the most answers.
12:43
Comment From Roguewolf
I love the idea of making classes as simple or complex as you want it. Themes help with this a little.
12:43
Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.
12:45
Rob: You may look at a class and see that it's damage output isn't as high as another class, for example maybe the bard doesn't do as much as raw damage as the fighter. That other class will have other options, like charm person or something that fits into that class's niche and will give that class different options, but still equally useful in combat, exploration, or roleplaying.
12:45
Comment From Ben
Sorcerers should definitely come out on top. What they do, it's in their blood!
12:45
Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?
12:47
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.
12:48
Monte: Going along those lines we seperated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in there games as well.
12:48
Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.
12:48
Comment From ilzarion
Power is subjective. Even the most powerful lich should have weak spots. Its just good fantasy that way.
12:49
Greg: What's been the most challenging class to build?

12:49
Comment From Glowface
Isn't being a common or rare class more campaign-specific? Dark Sun clerics, dragonlance wizards...
12:50
Comment From Preston_R @I_Roll_20s
Do you think that some classes are more properly represented in other mechanical ways, such as the assassins shadowy powers or the vampires curse? Themes pop into mind immediately, as do templates.
12:50
Comment From Justin
Love the idea of a "starting complexity" rating!
12:50
Monte: Actually the fighter has been the most difficult. You have the basic idea of the figher, but you also have the wide range of option to make them more unique and complex. Also something like the D&D wizard and we have a clear view or set of examples for what that wizard could look like. With the fighther, there's not that clear example. So we've got like eight or nine different versions of the figher we've gone through while trying to nail that down.
12:51
Comment From Jon
I think rarity is a good idea, but you might want to choose a different word for it. Perhaps "complexity" is really your best term, and most honest.
12:51
Comment From CBN
The question leading to the poll touched on this, but are classes going to be inter-balanced on a snapshot basis (so at every level every class is close to parity), or on a career basis (so at level 1 one class is weak but at 30 strong, and the strong classes early taper off)? Personally I'd much prefer snapshot balance (more 4e than 3 and earlier), but I'm curious what the design going forward is going to consider.
12:51
Rob: The fighter is definitely one of the more challenging one. Another would be the psion, who's currently over crying in the corner. I also think the current incarnations of the druid have been real challening. Including all the different interations of the druid from previous editions has been difficult while also trying to keep it from being overwhelming.
12:52
Bruce: To reiterate, the fighter has been hard. In comparison the monk has been relatively easy because he's focused and his path is relatively clear. For me, the sorcerer has also been fairly difficult - finding the balance between the story and mechanics of the previous editions and it's space when compared to other casters.
12:53
Comment From Andy S
1E Druid was awesome sauce!

12:53
Greg: How long should character creation take and how much should be involved in those more complex options?
12:53
Comment From James
well at least you are looking at the psion even if it is crying in the corner
12:53
Comment From Nightray
I do miss my real Psion... I loved Bruce's guides and books to make psion fun
12:54
Bruce: If you're picking up one of those common classes and you're building a character, it shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes to create a character.
12:54
Comment From InfoCynic
Level 1 character creation not including backstory should take less than 30 minutes.

12:54
Comment From Elvenshae
Character creation should be doable in 5 minutes or 3 hours, at the player's option.
12:54
Rob: Yeah, it was really quick in one of my playtests. it was pretty sexy and awesome to be able to create the character and jump into the game.
12:54
Comment From Reaperbryan
45-60 minutes, with more being ok for "rare" or "complex" classes.

12:55
Comment From ZanderKreegan
Does the 30 minute creation time assume they know the game well already? What if they're new?
12:55
Comment From Mike
I like to plan out my character's entire career out from level one (thank you character builder!) so it sometimes takes hours.
12:55
Monte: What we're really getting at is that character creation should take as long as you want. If you want to jump into a game quickly, you can put together an easy character and not worry about too many of those options. But if you want to build the more complex character and go through the optoins and tweak it to be exactly what you want, then you have the time and options for that.
12:55
Comment From Shawn
15 - 20 minutes is good if you're not trying to teach and answer a new players questions as you go

12:56
Greg: So let's talk about spell casters and the spell casting mechanics. What are your opinions on how that should be?

12:58
Comment From InfoCynic
4e was great--no more multiple rounds to cast, no concentration checks. I liked that spells weren't auto-hit either.

12:58
Comment From Collective_Restraint
bring back the crazy list of spells from 2E!!!!
12:58
Comment From ilzarion
I miss 1st and 2nd edition where there was a segmented initiative time so that people with fast weapons could interrupt. It has its negative impact in speed of combats, but it also served to balance the power of spells and was an awesome tactical level. It also made for good story sense.
12:58
Monte: I know it's a bit contreversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace.
12:59
Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration.
12:59
Bruce: As monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks.
12:59
Comment From ZanderKreegan
But what if we want a wizard with a more "at-will" feel? Is that covered in the class, or do we use a different class, like the sorcerer?
12:59
Comment From Chuck
I like that the 4E wizards can at least magic missile all day.
1:00
Comment From Ainamacar
I think the most important part of spell casting mechanics is that there is no single mechanic. Vancian, spontaneous, etc. Every fantasy world is full of magic, and the way to access those resources should be diverse.
1:00
Rob: And there's nothing stopping us from looking at all those green attacks from 4th and seeing how those fit into this new iteration. Some for combat, some for not combat. The spell feats fit for that and other class options or feats could offer similar things.

1:01
Bruce: I feel we're brining Vancian magic back to the place it began, keeping the story intact and making it important to the story of the world.
1:01
Comment From James
as long as my wizard doesn't have to fire a crossbow for 95% of the day I am fine with some balance. I liked early 4e with awesome Wizard dailies and a bit weak at wills with about on par encounters
1:01
Bruce: Fighters have their version of abilities and options as well, but it will have a different feel than the vancian magic for arcane stuff.
1:01
Comment From ZanderKreegan
Does that mean the world has a definite story, or are you using a more "tabula rasa" world like in 4e?

1:02
Greg: How is the idea of rituals progressing in the next iteration of D&D?
1:02
Comment From TheOldDragoon
Vancian Magic is kind of one of those sacred cows. I like it, and I don't like it... but it *is* D&D.
1:03
Rob: Monte started running with the ball and wanted to make rituals there for the really big spells that are super awesome, but might take a bit longer to cast. I ran with that and really wanted to make them all very interesting and complex, and really invest the player/character in what they're doing.
1:03
Comment From Jon
Please keep rituals. They culled a lot of the overpowered world-editing magic and took those spells out of combat!
1:03
Comment From Reaperbryan
Rituals never saw much use at our tables, but I enjoyed having the option as a non spellcaster to use them.
1:03
Comment From Kier
I'm not a fan of rituals, mainly because I'm not a fan of material components.

1:03
Comment From ZanderKreegan
Well, between rituals, Vacnian casting, and 4e casting, you really cover all the spell bases. If you can mix and match those in a class, then that's really good progress.
1:05
Monte: Magic is taking a broader turn than just spells. In the past we got to the point where everything you encountered in the game had some kind of spell attached to it or that replecated the effect. I really want to go back to the idea that magic is mysterious and wierd and not always entirely definable. I think it's good for the story of the game when the DM can use it to help to define and area or maybe a unique magic item. Things like rituals help us accomplish that - makes things more open ended and more interesting and also takes away some of the focus from the wizard and puts it on other things in the world.
1:05
Greg: How do you think class progression should work going forward?
1:05
Comment From DGibb
My players didn't use rituals often; they preferred combat over anything else. I loved them though.

1:06
Bruce: I think there's room for idiosyncrating skill choices and progression for one class, but not have those same options, feel or look for another class. As Monte mentioned we want each class to look, feel and play differently. But there's also room for some options that spread across all classes.
1:07
Rob: For example we might say that all classes get a feat at third level. But then if you dip into the full customization options, you could trade that out for brute strike or something. So there will be some bits of progression that are shared from class to class, but each one will still feel like it's own class and have the ability to trade out it's own options.
1:08
Greg: Which class that you've been working on do you want to play the most?
1:08
Comment From Devastator001
It would be nice for classes to have an opportunity to branch out to different roles/builds as they level up
1:08
Comment From Ewen
When I finally gave playing a ritual caster a try I was suddenly using them all the time. They give you a ton of neat story-oriented effects, and stuff that's just plain fun to do.
1:08
Comment From Nightray
Rob as long as those options are desiriable options i think that could work.
1:08
Rob: They're all awesome, but I think I would have to pick the Ranger. There's so much stuff going on that I'm excited for each version. You could make up a beast ranger, or an aragorn stye ranger or a drizzt style ranger and they all feel awesome and iconic.
1:09
Bruce: I don't think I could pick one really. I'm really excited about these iterations of the classes and every time I'm working on one I want to be playing that class. I haven't had a chance to play everything yet, but I hope I will.
1:09
Monte: Yeah, I would agree with that. These takes on the classes have really got me excited to check them all out.
1:10
Comment From Collective_Restraint
Sounds similar to 2E Rangers with Ranger kits that would let you customize it. Very interesting.
1:10
Greg: Once we get into the playtest feedback and start talking about things, what do you want to see feedback on.
1:10
Comment From TheCrankyMage
What about using feats to buy class options that your particular build doesn't allow? So you can make a ranger that is BOTH a beast ranger AND a Drizzt ranger?
1:11
Rob: I really want to see feedback on the wild talents. There's a lot of different and interesting things going on there and I think there's a lot of room for feedback there on if they work, how they work.
1:11
Comment From john
i would like to see feedback on the classes
1:11
Comment From DGibb
I am most interested to hear about how multiclassing will work.
1:11
Comment From ZanderKreegan
WIld Talents? Like Cantrips, or Dark Sun Wild Talents?
1:11
Comment From doctorbadwolf
The thing that all iconic rangers have in common is protection of a geographical area. The land and it's people. If theh new ranger hits that mark, I will love it.
1:12
Comment From Wyzard
The spells and the magic items.
1:12
Monte: I'm really interested to see feedback on the spellcasting and how they support the three different pillars of the game. With the rituals, spell feats, classes, spells and other options, I'm really looking forward to see how this works in people's minds/games.
1:12
Trevor: Now we're opening it up to Q and A

1:12
How do the Barbarian and the Cleric look in this new iteration so far?
1:13
Comment From Marco
I quote DGibb: how abput multiclassing?
1:13
Monte: Well the barbarian fits with what some of us are familiar with, he rages and can take lots and lots of damage and deal out lots of damage.
1:13
Comment From monstermanual
I want to hear about the class packages they mentioned yesterday - a noble package for the fighter, etc
1:13
Comment From Stephen
Are there still Martial Encounter and Daily Exploits?
1:14
Bruce: As some of you have seen the cleric has an interesting mix of healing and other options. We're working on some things that focus on different kinds of clerics like healing, or marshal, or ranged focus.
1:14
Comment From Kier
When will we be able to play test the rules?

1:14
Comment From Reaperbryan
Does this Iteration assume a default world - ie. Greyhawk/Dark Sun/Eberron, or does it assume Point of Light and leave the world building to the GM and future splatbooks?
1:14
Comment From Excalainen
Will power sources still be part of the classes at mechanical level?
1:15
Comment From mbeacom
What has the design team thought about how healing surges work? I like the idea of characters having some internal healing, but surges were a big deal in 4E. Would love to hear the new thinking on how they worked.
1:15
Comment From Laurence J Sinclair
Will the design of monsters be changing significantly from 4E?
1:15
Rob: The last time we were in seattle we were thinking about the cleric, and my big thing with the cleric was getting back to the cleric of 1E that fighst with a mace and shield and gets his party back up. But 2nd edition introduced the other option that is very closely related to your god and had more spell casting. So we're looking at keeping the cleric as this guy who fights and is that classic cleric, but the priest is that guy that is closer to his god, maybe doesn't wear that armor is laying down more divine effects and spells.
1:15
Comment From Daniel
Will many of the new classes introduced in 4th ed survive into the new edition (eg avenger, hunter, warden)?
1:16
Comment From ZanderKreegan
It seems you guys are trying to cover most of the thematic bases from the start. How is this working out?
1:16
Question: How do you think Magic items fit in this next itteration?
1:16
Comment From Devastator001
magic item customization will it retrun?

1:16
Comment From Edheldude
If there are physical resources like hit points and Healing Surges, could there be mental resources like Knowledge?
1:16
Comment From TheCrankyMage
How do you feel alignment has worked out so far, and where is it going? Not only for class restriction, but for things like magical effects, damage, etc?
1:17
Comment From Markelhay
Magic items should be rare and wondrous.
1:17
Comment From Severo Queiroz Jr.
The healing surges are one of the best elements introduced in the game in my opinion.

1:17
Bruce: Magic items have always been a part of the game, but with 4th it became part of a player's natural progression so that you would have to pick up items from stores or other places to keep up. One of the negative things that brought up was that it eliminted some of the exploration that was so integral in earlier editions. You no longer had to go questing or searching for that magic item. We want to decouple magic items from character progression so they're not needed, and return that exploration and excitement of finding magic items.

1:18
Comment From JesterThew
Will Psionics be included in a Base Player's guide?

1:18
Greg: Monte you had a poll like this in your L&L, do you remember what the results were?
1:18
Comment From Style75
Will race and alignment restrictions be a part of the game?

1:19
Comment From Justin
Very interested in how they will handle multiclassing

1:19
Monte: Yeah, it was surprising. A majority wanted magic items to be special and not to be able to buy them in shops and such. Of course that could be campaign specific. We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression, though things could change through playtesting. But we want it to be something that the DM plans, or something that a player/character wants to go on a quest to get that magic item they've heard of or need to accomplish there goals.
1:19
What are you planning for multiclassing?
1:20
Comment From ZanderKreegan
The question we've all waited for!

1:20
Rob: We're shooting for the 3E style of multiclassing that makes it easy to multiclass into any other class. It's been on the forefront of our minds when we're doing all this class work.
1:20
You mentioned that fighters are necesarily focused or super iconic. Why don't you split all the different figher ideas out in to different classes, like a dervish or fencer?
1:20
Comment From Devastator001
if multi-classing is done right then there's no need for hybrid rules
1:21
Comment From Dreamstryder
Happy to hear Magic Items aren't "expected" mathematically anymore.
1:21
Bruce: If something comes along that's really evocative and has it's own flavor and story, it's definitely not off the table that it could be it's own class.
1:22
Comment From Nathaniel P Phillips
What about powersources? Are they being carried over?
1:22
Comment From Burke
Wonder what the fate of the Paragon Path & Epic Destiny is
1:22
Comment From TheOldDragoon
Huzzah to decoupling magic items from character progression. I'm in the "rare and wondrous" camp. Every +1 weapon in my campaigns has a name and a history...

1:23
With the vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind?

1:24
Comment From Dreamstryder
In 1e, different classes had different options when reaching "name level," like building a Wizard's tower, running their own manor, etc. Is that being looked at as perhaps alternate to Epic Destinies?

1:24
Monte: Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of optoins and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting higher level ability.

1:24
Comment From Style75
Are you planning for high level demigod style play like we saw in 4e epic tier?

1:25
Comment From Jeremy
What is going to come of Class roles and of Standard minor and move actions? I really liked those.

1:25
Comment From ZanderKreegan
That sounds somewhat similar to progression in 4e. So Vancian casting still draws somewhat from the 4e progression?

1:25
Comment From Charlemagne
I absolutely hated the vancian magic system... however, I would like to see a return to the idea that characters (wizards, clerics, even fighters) can learn additional spells, exploits, prayers, etc. just through exploration, treasure, and training.

1:26
Monte: And for managing how you those resources work throughout a day and looking at encounters, and keeping that trading in mechanic in mind, we can look at average encounters a day, how long an average encounter will last, the resources an average character/player will go through and balance that that way.

1:26
Comment From TheCrankyMage
Will we see the return of Leadership, or Reputation, or any other means of gathering followers/apprentices/acolytes?

1:26
On power sources:

1:27
Comment From Drowbane
How would "cashing in" low level abilities work, from a role-playing perspective? I mean, how do you explain the fact that your character just "forgot" how to do things they had been doing for years?

1:27
Comment From Devastator001
how would power soruces also factor in in multi-classing?

1:27
Rob: We're not going to be using the power sources as keywords or anything any more (probably). You'll still have psionic characters and primal characters for example, but we won't be using those words or jargon to separate things.
1:28
Comment From Heath
I'm curious about the AC of the classes, I'd like to see more reason for heavy armor, but I also don't want to loose options like the Con based defenses of the Warden.
1:28
Comment From Ahearn Condon
Thats good to hear, I don't feel that seperating the power sources was really all that needed for anything.
1:28
Comment From nick
Makes sense. Why should a cleric swinging a mace be different than a fighter swining a mace, provided they had the same physical stats?
1:28
Comment From doctorbadwolf
That's too bad. Power sources were one of the better ideas in 4e.
1:28
Comment From Dragnog
Will there still be the different roles: defender, controller, leader and striker?

1:29
Comment From TheCrankyMage
Are the 8 schools coming back?

1:29
Bruce: We really want to get away from jargon that is just there for the sake of the game. For example you might use the word arcane, but a class wouldn't be labeled as an arcane class.
1:29
Comment From Dreamstryder
"No more power source keywords" feels like a relief to me, somehow. It felt unneccesary.
1:29
Comment From Justin
What about defined roles?
1:29
Comment From guest
Will things be balanced on a multi-fight day, or will there be good gameplay even for those of us that run one-fight sessions?
1:30
When thinking about archtypes and iconic classes from previous editions and how that affects the classes version in the next iteration of D&D?
1:30
Bruce: We want to have each class be the most iconic and archtypal it can be, based on what a D&D version of that archtype is or should be. The story of the character or class is really important when looking at this.
1:31
Comment From Neko--kun
Will character build planning be a requirement, or will it be viable to progress a character "organically" as the game progresses?

1:31
Comment From Ron
Defining the roles is really important to me. It gives you a clear goal to build the classes towards and a clear concept of what they're supposed to do on the battlefield.
1:31
Comment From Style75
How much does race affect class?
1:31
How do you see advancement and experience acquisition and leveling?

1:32
Comment From kozaim
Social skills will be used for particular classes or left to the roleplay?
1:32
Comment From Ben
Will there still be arcane spells as opposed to divine spells?
1:32
Monte: I don't want any class to have to take longer than any other class to come into it's own. Story wise, I want all the classes to progress at the same rate. So that a third level assassin feels the same as a third level bard in as much as how assassiny or how bardy they feel.
1:32
Comment From Mike
I know this sort of thing is supposed to alleviate edition wars. But suppose everyone at my table already likes one edition? Will there be a strong incentive to try this latest one?
1:33
Comment From TheCrankyMage
How much will ability scores affect class?
1:33
Monte: I think character advancement should go as fast as the group wants it to go. So I want information available so that you can control that entirely based on your gaming group. Yes, there will be a base progression, but I want there to be information on speeding that up or slowing that down as necessary.

1:33
What's the philosophy on status effect design?

1:34
Comment From Happymoney
Will combat be easier to run as a dungeon master?

1:34
Comment From Armisael
So XP per monster would still be a thing then, as opposed to say, milestone advancement?

1:34
Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun in and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.

1:35
Comment From Excalainen
Will save-or-die return? (I hope not)

1:35
What's your focus on high magic or high fantasy and low magic or low fantasy?

1:35
Comment From TheCrankyMage
Will save-or-die return? (I hope so)

1:36
Bruce: Right out the gate, since magic item acquisition isn't part of the level progression a DM can say that you're going to have to work really hard for your magic. Also, the thing that Monte was talking about with your xp progression being modifiable, you could really stretch out those levels to have a low fantasy or lower power kind of game.

1:36
Comment From Happymoney
How common will character death be? Or will that be modular as well?

1:37
How are you handling campaigns that may not have any traps or any social settings? Are you going to have the strong bard for example?

1:37
Rob: The bard as example, you may be in a campaign that's going to do more dungon crawling and not have a lot of social. There will be options that you can opt into where you can pick those combat relevant options in place of those social ones.

1:38
Comment From GodsdoG
Low magic, High fantasy. It's possible!

1:38
Will classes like the bladesinger and swordmage still exist and be distinct from each other?

1:39
There is some place for story seperation with those two classes and we're looking into it.

1:40
Comment From Aedeon
Will roles still be important? The defender roll was one of the most interesting mechanics added to 4ed and added alot to the game.

1:40
I know you're trying to have a game where people can play what they want, and party balance works out and you don't need any particular class to play. How are you guys making this game so that somehthing like three rogues could show up at a table and play?

1:40
Comment From Ainamacar
What is the current planned maximum level for characters and classes? Is this intended to be a hard cap like 4e, or a soft cap more like 3e?

1:41
Monte: I don't want any class to be mandatory, but I do want options and events that make you really happy that X class is with you. For example, when fighting undead, you don't need a cleric, but you'll be happy if you have one. If you're out in the wilderness, you'll be happy that the druid is in your party.

1:41
Comment From Yohen
Will some of the non-traditional classes like the Ninja appear early in the next edition?
1:41
Comment From Styxwater
The Great Wheel?
1:42
Comment From Matt
When you mention things keeping to "the story of the world", are you assuming a default setting?
1:42
To Yohen - The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.
1:42
Comment From Jimmy
Martial daily and encounter exploits?
1:42
How are you addressing the linear fighter and quadratic wizard damage progression issue?

1:43
Comment From Kadzar
Is anything like 4e's encounter powers going to be in the next edition? It was nice having resource type that was in between At-wills and Dailies.
1:44
Comment From Happymoney
How will healing work in the new edition?
1:44
Bruce: When a wizard gets fireball, he can do a lot of damage in the round, but he only has so many fireballs. The fighter doesn't have that limitation. We have a lot of math and play evidence that tells us how long average parties or play is going to last, so we feel like we've got a good grasp of how to make the fighter and wizard relevant throughout the day.
1:45
Rob: As Monte mentioned earlier, some spells and options drop out and are replaced with higher ones, so that addresses some of the problem - you don't end up with all of those options. With that in mind, and the math backing it up, we can balance that figher damage to make sure that it stays relevant.

1:45
To the chat users: please do ask questions, even if they can't be answered today; we are trying to keep some in the queue for Trevor to ask at the seminar; we also have a chat log, to show R&D what questions are on your mind.
1:46
Comment From Nathaniel P Phillips
How long will combat take in this edition? While 4E was more streamlined than 3.5E, it would be nice if I wasn't burning half an hour to take down minions.
1:47
Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.
1:47
Comment From Excalainen
Will you separate combat and non-combat options so that they don't compete for the same character resources (feats, powers, etc.)?
1:48
Comment From Nightray
When will we see psionics released?
1:48
Comment From YRUSirius
Are feats strictly class-specific (like fighter feats and wizards magic feats) or is the feat system universal?
1:48
Trevor: And that about wraps it up for the seminar and chat today folks. Thanks much for coming out and joining us. Tomorrow at 12:30 Eastern will be doing this again, focusing on the product release schedule and what you can expect to see this year.


6 komentarzy:

  1. Cóż, póki co wiadomo, że niewiele wiadomo. Wygląda to na niezły bałagan. Chyba nie mogą się zdecydować, w którą stronę podążyć. Mam co raz więcej wątpliwości odnośnie tego ich pomysłu na 5e. Nie wiem, czy nie lepiej by było wspirać dalej 4ed i ewentualnie wskrzesić dawne edycje w wersji all-in-one, jako D&D Classic, czy cośw tym rodzaju.

    OdpowiedzUsuń
  2. Na razie dużo gadania o filozofii, a mało konkretów. Ale tak musi być, muszą przygotować grunt. Zdanie zacznę sobie wyrabiać po tym, jak ukażą się materiały i zagram/poprowadzę. Na pierwszy rzut oka 5E wygląda na niezły burdel, ale mam zaufanie do tej ekipy, co jak co, ale to uporządkowani ludzie.

    Natomiast powiem Ci, że po jednej sesji S&W gra mi się podoba, ale z nostalgią i zainteresowaniem zaczynam myśleć o powrocie do AD&D 2E. Im dłużej badam temat i edycje, tym bardziej wydaje mi się, że był tam odpowiedni balans zasad i wolnej reki dla graczy i Prowadzącego.

    OdpowiedzUsuń
  3. Tak, jeśli chodzi o AD&D 2E to też lubię te zasady i ich modularność. Za to 1E jest znacznie bardziej klimatyczna i niepoprawna politycznie, choć niestety w podręcznikach jest straszny bałagan. Ale tu łatwo zrobić mix. Pamiętam, że niegdyś prowadziłem bez większych trudności moduły z 1E na regułach z 2E. Np. do 2E można dołożyć brakujące klasy postaci (mnich, zabójca), potwory, oraz wykorzystać tabelki losowe z pierwszego DMG, albo odwrotnie, do 1E dodać system walki i liczenia XP-ów z 2E oraz zmodyfikować limity poziomów dla nieludzi.

    Co do OD&D (i S&W) - już chyba czujesz, że, mimo pwnego podobieństwa, jest to właściwie zupełnia odrębna gra od AD&D, oparta na kompletnie innnej filozofii, nie mówiąc już PF czy 4E. Btw., wprowadziłeś już jakieś ciekawe house rules na swoich sesjach S&W?

    OdpowiedzUsuń
  4. Ujmę to tak. Przy całej mojej sympatii dla 4E i szacunku dla 3E/PFRPG, są dla mnie jak sztywny gorset z reguł. Szybki przykład: Bedwyn, postać Smartfoxa, strzela z łuku do gnolli. Kiedy pytał o zasię mówię, 20 metrów. Gnolle rzucają się w jego stronę, mają ruchu 9. Czyli dobiegnięcie zajmie im 'jakieś' dwie rundy. Żadnego liczenia pól, żadnego zamieniania 'standard action' na 'move action'. Walka była szybka i emocjonująca (tu więcej do powiedzenia ode mnie ma Smartfox, trzeba by jego spytać). Mogłem poświęcić się opisowi, a nie myśleć mechaniką. Nie mam rzeczy typu:

    JA: "gnoll nabiera rozpędu, widzisz muskuły i futro, które..."
    GRACZ: "ee, mam w niego attack of opportunity, bo przebiega obok"

    Wydaje mi się, że w AD&D tak graliśmy. Potwornie mało tabel zasad używaliśmy. Pewnie byliśmy bliżsi oD&D, niż nam się wydawało.

    Houseruli na razie nie musiałem wprowadzać, ale dopiero jedną sesje mamy za sobą. Za to kończę budować całkiem fajne narzędzie tabelkowe. Chciałem wykorzystywać suplement Kelriego (sp?), ale do szybkiego korzystania bywa trudny.

    OdpowiedzUsuń
  5. Cóż, mnie od AD&D (zarówno 1 jak i 2) odrzuca brak zrównoważenia klas. Najpierw kiepsko gra się czarodziejem, potem kiepsko gra się wojownikiem. Zależnie od poziomu postaci kto inny narzeka, ale właściwie nie ma sytuacji by wszyscy byli zadowoleni ze swoich możliwości.

    OdpowiedzUsuń
  6. @ Ifryt

    Od samego początku (czyli OD&D) klasy nie były i nie miały być zbalansowane, a już na 100% nie w tym stylu jak w 4E. Wystarczy zajrzeć do opisu magic-usera w 3LBB. Z drugiej strony, pierwotne Original D&D było wyraźnie planowane pod grę na poziomach 1-10 (mniej więcej). Co do magów, to ich lista czarów kończyła się na 6 poziomie zaklęć, a różnice w Hit Points między klasami postaci nie były aż tak wielkie jak w późniejszych edycjach. Główną bronią początkujących magic-userów w OD&D jest "charm person" oraz "sleep". Ten drugi działa bez rzutu obronnego, a ten pierwszy (chociaż występuje "save") - aż do rozproszenia magii. Odpowiednio używane, mogą się stać bardzo potężnym narzędziem. To raz. A jak nie, to trzeba brać nogi za pas lub kombinować w inny sposób. W dawnych edycjach D&D gra magiem nie kończy się na szastaniu fajerbolami. To jest nawet najciekawsze. Poza tym, nikt nie powiedział, że gracze muszą pokonać każdego potwora na swojej drodze i mieć możliwość popisania się mechanicznymi fajerwekami. Jeśli przestanie się dbać o tzw. dostosowanie spotkań do leveli graczy, problem balasnu klas postaci przestaje mieć właściwie takie znaczenie.

    Generalnie, jak już mam ochotę na system "mechanicznie zbalansowany", to wyciągam z szafy GURPS-a.

    OdpowiedzUsuń