Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - fuori dal combattimento.......

lungo thread su enworld dove interviene Keith Baker con il nick
Hellcow (mucca infernale!), i suoi interventi sono troppi per
listarveli tutti quindi vi tocca leggere il thread (hahahahha) però ci
sono parecchie cose interessanti sopratutto sulle skill non combat ecc
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221979&page=1&pp=30
--
Fabio

On Mar 23, 12:01 pm, fabio milito pagliara

ma ovviamente non sto bene, ecco i link a tutti i suoi interventi (poi
dopo me li leggo meglio)
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119472&postcount=84
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119540&postcount=88
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119584&postcount=90
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119633&postcount=94
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119676&postcount=96
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121635&postcount=188
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121660&postcount=189
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121746&postcount=195
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121813&postcount=208
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121814&postcount=209
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121824&postcount=211
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121839&postcount=217
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121844&postcount=219
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4121995&postcount=242
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122477&postcount=280
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122494&postcount=281
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122653&postcount=289
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122665&postcount=291
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122690&postcount=295
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122698&postcount=297
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122756&postcount=301
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122935&postcount=309
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122949&postcount=312
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123001&postcount=316
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123005&postcount=317
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123054&postcount=319
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123066&postcount=322
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123086&postcount=327
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123100&postcount=331
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123112&postcount=335
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123178&postcount=338
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123200&postcount=340
--
Fabio

 sono parecchie cose interessanti sopratutto sulle skill non combat ecc
In effetti, tocca alcuni aspetti interessanti, anche se quasi tutti
già menzionati altrove. In particolare:
1- La costruzione dei PNG: ritornano i PNG di livello 0 (o Uomini
Comuni di OD&D), con skill a scelta (più o meno come in AD&D ed OD&D);
è importante, perchè in 3e, almeno nei manuali/avventure ufficiali, i
PNG /dovevano/ avere una classe, e skill equivalenti a quelli di un PG
di pari livello.
2- I multiclasse: Baker conferma che non ci saranno multiclasse
"bilanciati" -- A che multiclassa in B è diverso da B che multiclassa
in A; la classe iniziale è quella che definisce la maggior parte delle
capacità del personaggio. Questo è diverso da tutte le edizioni
precedenti: saltando 3e (lì i multiclasse non funzionano bene), in
AD&D i multiclasse sono tendenzialmente bilanciati, e i biclasse
favoriscono l'ultima classe acquisita. L'unica cosa che mi viene in
mente sono le opzioni multiclasse dei "Creature Hero" di OD&D.
3- 4e è molto diversa da 3e, al punto che le conversioni saranno molto
difficili (e per incompatibilità fra i relativi livelli, e per
differenze meccaniche).
4- C'è un po' di discussione degli skill e della separazione fra
poteri e abilità di combattimento e non. Di per sè la separazione è
una buona idea, bisogna vedere com'è implementata.
GP

dei vari post di Keith Baker questo è uno dei più interessanti come
quantità d'info
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122477&postcount=280
Originally Posted by Vomax
Haven't the designers said that mutli-classing is in fact easier now
in 4e?
Yes, and it is. You can multiclass at first level if you choose. The
key difference between 4E and 3E is that there is a difference between
a ranger who's multiclassed to paladin and a paladin who's
multiclassed to ranger. The paladin is still first and foremost a
defender, the ranger a striker. But the ranger-paladin is distinctly
different from a ranger-rogue - or a ranger who hasn't multiclassed at
all.
I wish I could lay out all the options that are available, because
there are a few things I really like that make characters of the same
class completely different from one another. You haven't seen them,
because what you've seen are the base characters from DDXP. So you
don't know how multiclassing works, what options feats provide, and so
on. But there's ways to make three paladins very different from one
another (and I don't mean "One took Power Attack and the other took
Dodge"); they simply don't involve taking a LEVEL of ranger.
Looking back to SWG: I'll note that I never said you HAD to be a
janitor - I said you COULD be a janitor. And that KotOR does not give
you that option. It's a difference in design goals, and SWG put a
great deal of design time into supporting the "world sim" role. KotOR
focused on the hero experience, and that's what 4E is doing.
But beyond that - Lizard, you see to be under the impression that you
CAN'T stat out NPCs in 4E. Why is that? In the campaign I'm running at
the moment, I've got a large cast of NPC characters. A few are statted
out with all the detail of PCs, and in fact I've used the PC class
system for them - just as if I was making a NPC with PC class levels
in 3E. A few are statted out at the level of the typical monster:
critical skills and powers, ability scores, hit points. And a few are
background characters I haven't bothered to stat - names, treated as
minions if they get attacked.
4E doesn't provide special CLASSES for these characters. I didn't have
to say "Hmm... I guess he'd be an expert instead of a commoner,
because I've given him four skills and Heal isn't a commoner class
skill." It hasn't devoted significant design space to NPC classes -
although as a disclaimer, I have not seen the DMG and thus don't know
exactly what is said about creating NPCs. But I do know that NPCs are
not supposed to be treated as interchangible cogs with identical
ability scores; you simply don't have a twenty-level class system tied
to them.
Oh, and as an aside, you DON'T have to have an epic destiny. I
probably shouldn't say more than that, but it's not like lightning
strikes every character at level 21; that's the point at which it is
POSSIBLE to discover your epic destiny.
At the end of the day, it's true: 4E is more like KotOR than SWG. It's
designed to let you play a hero, and if you WANT to play the janitor,
it's not the right game for you. It doesn't provide all the options of
3E, because unlike 3.5, it's not an evolution of 3E; it is a new game,
which shares some basic principles but completely redevelops others
(for example, magic). For you, that may make it a flawed system, and
that's fine; you can stick with 3E. Meanwhile, I WANT to play a hero -
and 4E, IMO, does a much better job of it than 3E. I'm having more fun
than I ever did with 3E. But, of course, I had more fun with KotOR
than I did with SWG. So I think they are focusing on a particular
flavor of play - focusing on the hero's tale as opposed to the world
simulation tool. But essentially it's a question of doing one thing
well instead of being a jack of all trades and master of none. And if
you think 3E DOES do all things well, no one's going to stop you from
playing it, and some companies are going to continue to support it.
Me, I'll be playing 4E. I've got an epic destiny to fulfill.
And let's face it, we're talking about a core system here. All it
takes is a single rulebook - "The Anti-Epic Handbook" - to provide a
commoner class, 0-level characters, and supporting rules, and you're
good to go.
__________________
Keith Baker
Eberron Designer
I am NOT a 4E designer, and nothing I say on the subject should be
considered official or even necessarily accurate!
Warning! Any posts I make concerning Eberron are unofficial and could
be contradicted in future material.
--
Fabio

 mente sono le opzioni multiclasse dei "Creature Hero" di OD&D.
non sono molto daccordo con quello che scrivi
di fatto nelle edizioni precedenti i multiclasse non erano bilanciati
erano più forti!
1 e 2 edizione i multiclasse avevano 1 livello di ritardo rispetto a
un monoclasse rendendoli molto più forti
3 edizione i multiclasse avevano da 2 a 3 livelli di ritardo e poi
dovevano prendere una prestige per sviluppare il concetto (e alla fine
si è visto non funzianava tanto bene
non dice che non sono bilanciati dice solo che saranno diversi :)
--
Fabio

sempre Baker sempre lo stesso thread
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122653&postcount=289
[quote]Originally Posted by Vempyre
3E's popularity had everything to do with the simpler and more
consistent D20 rules (compared to 1e/2e's many subsystems) than the
fact it seems to have rules for almost everything (especially after
3.5).[/quote]
This was certainly true for me. From the very begining, the things I
liked about 3E were things like:
The fact that all abilities followed the same modifier/penalty
structure.
The fact that all classes used the same experience structure.
The way in which BAB and saving throws simplified multiclassing.
BAB and saving throws chucking all the separate tables for each class
out the window.
The fact that feats allowed me to make two fighters feel different
from one another.
(... and more, of course, but that's a starting point.)
I never particularly liked 3E's combat system. It felt to me as if it
had been designed by an entirely separate team - that one person had
actively set out to streamline character generation, while someone
else had sought to add layers and layers of complexity to combat.
I liked NPC classes (and still do), not because I wanted an accurate
way to simulate the life of the farmer, but because for me they call
out the fact that PCs are special and superior to NPCs - that 90%+ of
NPCs are commoners, and that there's no expectation that the bartender
is going to be a 10th level fighter. Essentially, NPC classes showed
me that a PC IS a unique snowflake... because he's a rogue, not an
expert. Hence any Eberron product I worked on emphasizing significant
use of NPC classes by NPCs.
4E keeps the things I like. Abilities use the same modifier structure,
and actually, abilities are now more broadly useful than they used to
be; every character has something to gain from Charisma aside from
just skill modifiers. There are still ways to differentiate characters
from each other, and while multiclassing is very different in its
effect, it is easy to use. It's just that now, for me, combat and
character generation feel as though they follow the same philosophy.
And personally, I'm just not going to miss dealing with the Shifter
Monk 1/Ranger 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Frenzied Berserker 2/Warshaper 3
characters. Yes, the multiclassing/prestige class system can be seen
as allowing you a tremendous amount of personalization. However, it's
also a game balance nightmare... and more than that, if I want a game
where I can have absolute personalization, I'll play Hero (and I do!).
The "roles" of 4E are essentially the same basic principle of fighter-
rogue-magic user-cleric we had all the way back in 1E, even if we
might have a warlord in our group instead of a cleric or a ranger
instead of a rogue; I'm content with a D&D system choosing to cleave
to those roles. 4E provides me with enough versatilty that we can have
two paladins in the party and have them feel unique, with different
options and abilities (something 1E had trouble with). But if I want
ultimate versatility, I'll play Fantasy Hero; it's not what I expect
from D&D. You can't make the ranger 1/paladin 1/monk 1 who (aside from
initial skill points) has absolute equal weight towards all of these
classes; at the heart, you're going to be a ranger or a fighter or
whatever. But you can certainly add unique flavor and options to your
character - and you can still be a ranger-paladin, it just has a
different meaning than it used to. Paragon paths are more limited than
prestige classes, but that also means that they're going to be far
easier to balance - no more "If you combine one level of this with one
level of this with one level of this, you get the crazy combo no
designer ever intended or considered" - and they still serve the
purpose of providing unique flavor to each character. It's true, 4E
doesn't provide as many options. But I don't need 4E to become GURPS
or Hero - because I've got GURPS and Hero already. Instead, it takes
the fighter-rogue-cleric-MU roles that have always been part of D&D
and embraces them.
--
Fabio

stesso Baker stesso thread
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122665&postcount=291
Originally Posted by Lizard
Maybe Keith is right and all that's still in 4e, just hidden away
where we can't see it just yet.
Hey, check my posts again. I'm not promising any of that's there. I'm
the one saying that 4E is KotOR, not SWG. I'm saying that it takes the
hero's journey and does it really well. But in some ways I think you
might look at it as an evolution of 2E that uses some of the same
principles as 3E, as opposed to an evolution of 3E. Again, it's not
GURPS or Hero, both of which have the strength of letting you model
virtually anything. 4E goes back to that core - that idea of the
adventuring party built around fighter-rogue-cleric-magic user - and
runs with it (though your party could be paladin-ranger-warlord-
wizard). I haven't had any trouble telling the stories I want, and one
of the big things I do feel is that people ahven't had an opportunity
to see the depth of NONCOMBAT play (which I feel is stronger than 3E).
But if I want to tell a story that doesn't fit the traditional class
roles at all? If I want to run a campaign about a traveling circus
troupe? I'm more likely to use Hero to do it.
(With that said, you could certainly make a strong man a fighter, a
juggler/acrobat a rogue, have a hedge wizard doing prestidigitation
for the kids, and have a retired warlord as the ringleader, using his
inspirational skills to hold the troupe together - but each one would
certainly have more firepower on hand than you might expect from a
group of 3E experts.)
I'm not promising that 4E will be all things to all people. My point
is that I think it's a stronger system for not trying to do so. It's
chosen a direction and wrapped the mechanics around it; meanwhile
there are many other systems that work well for stories you CAN'T tell
in it. Aside from D&D and Champions, the main game I've played over
the last few years is Over The Edge, and one of the things I love
about OTE is that it's a setting where the typical hero is more likely
to be an android cocktail waitress or a recently divorced exterminator
than a sacred champion of the Silver Flame. And when I want to tell a
story about an android cocktail waitress and recently divorced
exterminator (they fight crime, in case you're wondering), I'll do it
in OTE; I don't feel cheated because 4E isn't designed to support it.
4E provides many options to make characters unique, but it still holds
to those core roles. It won't be for everyone - but for those who
don't like it, there's 3E, Hero, GURPS, Traveler, OTE, and on and on.
For me 4E does a great job at what I've always wanted from D&D - but
your mileage will certainly vary.
--
Fabio

 si è visto non funzianava tanto bene
In 3e i multiclasse non funzionano proprio. Non hanno 2 o 3 livelli di
ritardo: all'estremo il F/W di prima portato al 20° livello diventa
equivalente ad un mago di 10° e un guerriero di 15° (tenendo conto
solo di BAB e HP).
In 4e, la progressione dei multiclasse non sarà bilanciata nel senso
che il F/W sarà un guerriero con qualche potere magico, e il W/F sarà
una cosa diversa (un mago con alcune capacità in combattimento), ma
non esisterà un guerriero/mago che sia circa 50% guerriero e 50% mago.
Quanto al bilanciamento rispetto alle classi singole, immagino che
sarà buono (nel senso che non se ne sa nulla, ma mi sembra che ci
siano i margini perchè funzioni bene).
GP

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122756&postcount=301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
This is odd, since it's a major problem I have with 4e -- everyone
gets better at everything. The tenth level wizard has +5 Athletics, +5
Acrobatics, +Streetwise, +5 Everything.
But in practice, this means less than you'd think. Because the wizard
hasn't been improving his Strength, isn't trained at the skills, won't
have magic items to help him with them, won't have used feats to boost
them, and so on. Assuming your wizard has a 10 Strength, yes, at level
10 he'll have a +5 Athletics - which means he can probably climb a
ladder without worrying about falling off of it. Meanwhile, my Str 20
Shifter fighter with the belt of the Olympian (Note: completely made
up item) is sitting on a +15 Athletics, and he's jumping chasms the
wizard won't take a chance on and scampering up slopes like a goat.
I had the exact same reaction to universal skill advancement when I
first heard about it, but in play it's just not that big a deal. What
it means is that by tenth level you CAN perform basic actions you
would have had trouble with before. You can climb a rope without
falling. You can swim a little. You're better at keeping your balance,
and more likely to notice the kid trying to pick your pocket. But
you're still likely to miss the super-ninja who tries to pick your
pocket - who the sharp-eyed ranger who's focused on Perception will
spot as easily as he spotted the child pickpocket back at first
level.
People aren't equally good at all skills. It's simply the case that as
you advance, you become capable of handling simpler challenges that
would have been difficult for you before. But since you're higher
level, you'll be facing even greater challenges - and that's where the
specialists will continue to shine.
Beyond that, certain skills do have trained-only effects. Joe the
fighter may have a +5 Arcana check from listening to the wizard
blather on, but he can't use it for everything the wizard can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
Further, everyone can heal themselves (Second Wind)
Yes, but this isn't quite as simple as that. There's tactical and
practical restrictions on second wind, and you're always better off if
the Leader lends a hand. And if the leader goes down in battle, you've
got to start playing things cautiously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
The difference between a 4e Magic Missile and a 4e crossbow? Not
much.
I beg to differ. The crossbow is a two-handed weapon. It requires
ammunition to use, and needs to be reloaded between use. It has
penalties when used at long range. Attacks with the crossbow are made
against the target's armor class.
Meanwhile, the magic missile doesn't require ammunition or reloading.
It has a single flat range. It does force damage, so it interacts with
certain targets in a way a crossbow won't. It targets Reflex instead
of armor class, which makes a HUGE difference when you are fighting a
heavily armored foe (and the vast majority of creatures have a
significantly higher AC than Reflex, with the notable exception of
rogues and the like).
And all of this isn't even getting into the difference that comes into
play with feats, since different feats play to magic and weapons.
Sure, it's possible for it to miss, which wasn't the case in 3E - but
the fact that it targets Reflex means that it's less likely to miss
against most creatures, and the fact that it's force damage is
significant (as is no ammo, no load, better range, etc.).
Beyond that, there is a question of flavor. I assume you're speaking
to the common complaint that the 3E wizard uses two magic missiles and
then turns to the crossbow, and saying that in 4E is this so different
from using encounter powers and then turning to magic missile. Aside
from the tactical differences between them, as outlined above, it
certainly is to me in terms of flavor. I don't see my wizard as having
anything to do with weapons. He's a scholar at the library of
Korranberg who doesn't even like to fight. I don't want him to have to
carry a crossbow around because if he doesn't, he's going to be
utterly useless; I like being able to grumble and say "All right, if I
must fight, I'll draw on the blistering arcane secrets I possess - but
I do hate to use them in such a tawdry way."
It's back to flavor - being able to play the character I want to play.
And in this case, I don't want to play the wizard who needs a crossbow
to be of any use. Of course, this comes at the expense of your playing
the wizard who NEEDS to use the crossbow - but hey, you could
certainly make a wizard who CAN use the crossbow, if that's something
you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
Warlocks are no longer unique blasting machines; Wizards are no longer
masters of a wide range of magical effects.
But do you understand the difference between the two? Because they do
fill completely different roles (the warlock is a striker, the wizard
a controller). Speaking magically, the warlock IS still the best
eldritch blaster, and the wizard is in fact master of a wider range of
magical effects than the warlock. Meanwhile, speaking of unique
elements, choice of pact is going to have a significant impact on your
warlock. And that's not even getting into rituals.
These things don't work the same way they did in 3E, and bear in mind
that if all you've seen are 1st level characters you really haven't
gotten a sense of the full depth of what these classes do... let alone
the range of customization that's possible within a class. But there
is depth there.


http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122935&postcount=309
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenShallBurn
In comparison to 3e the 4e Wizard has been massively pared back.
The 4E wizard is completely different from wizards in any of the
previous editions, no argument. The Vancian wizard/magic-user really
doesn't change much from 1-3E - sure, you've got spell DCs,
specialties beyond illusion, and all that. But look back at 1E and
you've got the same "Spells per day" table, same d4 hit die, etc. The
4E wizard is substantially different. However, it does have a level of
versatility you don't get from any other class in 4E (and I suspect
this may not have been fully exposed at DDXP).
And with that said, do you know how rituals work, HSB? Because if you
haven't seen rituals, you're only seeing half of the magic system. As
I've said elsewhere, what people have seen so far has heavily focused
on COMBAT, because you're dealing with short delves and because WotC
doesn't want to introduce too many new elements all at once. But
there's more depth to the game than people have seen. And as noted in
my recent LJ entry, rituals are one of the things I really like about
4E, both for Eberron specifically and as a ruleset in general.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Hellcow : Today at 01:47 AM
_________________
ciao, Fabio

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4123001&postcount=316
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenShallBurn
And rituals won't help that because I saw no problem with such effects
as they already existed.
But when you say "Such effects", what are you talking about, HSB?
Because when I say that I like rituals, I'm not talking about
polymorph, flight, or wildshape. Essentially, I'm handicapped by the
fact that i can't reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed by
an official source. So I don't know what you already know about
rituals. I like the ritual system not because of the specific effects,
but because of the system itself; I think it's a better way to handle
noncombat magic than the current method of forcing a Vancian caster to
choose between combat and noncombat effects. But there's all sorts of
other things that I like about what the ritual system does for
character development, identity, and versatility - but again, not
something I can really go into if it hasn't already been revealed.
Again, rituals are especially good for Eberron - but beyond that, I
just think that rituals are a strong and interesting system (with that
said, lest I sound too much like a cheerleader, there are a few
SPECIFIC rituals I really DISlike - but I think the system itself is
good).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filcher
So no need to make the switch, right? 4E is not every game for
everyone.
Right. Paizo will keep you going with good 3E products. Personally,
while the magic system has changed, as I've said before where I see
the continuity with previous editions of D&D is in the theme of a team
of adventurers filling specific archetypal roles - fighter-thief-
cleric-magic user - engaging in action and adventure. 4E changes the
precise mechanics of the wizard, but you've still got that solid
fighter-thief-cleric-MU party base... something that is totally
different when I play Fantasy Hero or Over The Edge. Specific
mechanics have changed, but I still feel like I'm playing D&D - not
like I've just pulled out, say, The Dying Earth RPG (which is a fine
thing - but truly a completely different play experience).
Again, my goal here isn't to convince you that you WILL like it. If
you feel that 3.5 is perfect as is, or if your love of the game is
tied to a very specific element that isn't going to be there (Vancian
wizards or wild-shaping druids), there's an excellent chance you
won't. I'm just trying to clarify when I see confusion.
_________________
ciao, Fabio

 siano i margini perchè funzioni bene).
yep
--
Fabio

una buona idea, bisogna vedere com'è implementata.
Per la verita', piu' che una buona idea e' cio' che e' sempre stato in
D&D; anche nella 3.X in realta' le abilita' non di combattimento erano
relegate al contorno.
(sto pensando, per confronto, agli skill-based dove le capacita' di
combattimento sono alcune tra le varie abilita' che si possono
apprendere)
Sta di fatto che semplicemente non abbiamo ancora visto quasi nulla
della parte delle regole volta a dettagliare le scene non di
combattimento.
Parvati V
-- 
"Cosa e' celvello? Pai non ha cosa del genele" - Pai, 3x3 occhi
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino): 
http://umdd.altervista.org/
http://parvatiquinta.blogspot.com/

sempre Baker, sempre nello stesso thread
ci dà alcune conferme sulle skill (sempre che non le abbiano cambiate
dopo che le ha viste lui), in pratica che sembrano funzionare
decisamente come in Star Wars Saga, e che oltre al trained puoi
prendere uno skill focus per altri usi esclusivi di determinate skill
ci sono dunque gli usi Trained che hanno solo quelli che sono
addestrati nella determinata skill, e si può prendere Skill Focus per
avere ulteriori vantaggi/usi addestrati (per come la leggo e per come
funziona SWSE), in particolare Arcana che credo legata ai Rituali
Arcani :)
questo post: 
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4124157&postcount=364
Sure. The question is whether in a game like D&D - in which combat is
expected to play a significant role in the typical campaign (how many
adventure paths have you see that are entirely social?) - should it
have to be a choice? Or should characters be able to shine in both
melee and noncombat - just in different ways?
Looking at the party I mentioned before, in combat each character has
their role. The paladin is healer and steadfast defender. The warlock
is the eldritch blaster raining down destruction from afar, while the
ranger gets in close and does the dicing. The cleric heals and
provides general support on both attack and defense. The wizard adds a
level of versatility andis extremely helpful when dealing with large
groups.
Yet all of these characters has something unique to offer out of
combat. The ranger is the expert in stealth and reconnaissance, backed
up by the (changeling) cleric. Not only can he scout unseen, his sharp
eyes will notice things the others may miss. The cleric is the expert
diplomat and master of insight, able to read the people around him
with ease. And yet, he's a good-hearted person with little
understanding of the ways of intrigue - that falls to the warlock,
expert in Bluff, Intimidate, and Streetwise. He knows the streets, he
lies with ease, and he's the bad cop to the cleric's good. Beyond
this, as a historian, he can recognize relics and ruins. The wizard is
a linguist and scholar, version in all forms of arcana and academia.
And the paladin is as intimidating as the warlock, but has the
physical might to face challenges of strength and endurance (and could
have gone in other directions if he so chose; it's not "Paladin =
Jock", but rather that the group otherwise was lacking jockness). And
then there is noncombat magic, about which there's little I can say at
this point.
The wizard is a expert in Arcana. Not only is he substantially better
at the skill than any of his comrades, he can perform trained actions
with this skill that none of the others can. If he wants to be a true
MASTER of Arcana, he'll eventually want to put a feat into Skill
Focus, and this admittedly would be a minor drop in combat efficiency.
But by and large he doesn't have to make a sacrifice to shine out of
combat.
So the system ISN'T designed to let you make a character who just
basically sucks, aside from willfully putting bad scores in your key
attributes and the like. All characters should have something useful
to contribute to any situation, combat or otherwise. You DO have
certain choices which lean towards combat or noncombat - for example
feats. They don't have a HUGE impact, so you're neither crippled in
one area nor overwhelmingly powerful in the other - but it is still a
point at which you can choose whether you want Skill Focus (Diplomacy)
or something with some direct combat application. And as I've said all
along, it does let you creating interesting and colorful characters;
three fighters aren't all cookie-cutter combat clones.
(Bear in mind, I didn't list every skill each character possesses; the
description focusses on the skills that define their characters and
non-combat abilities. As it turns out, the Ranger is also trained in
the Heal skill, but it's not hugely relevant to the point.)
And NOW I'm going to step out of the discussion. Really.
__________________
Keith Baker
Eberron Designer
I am NOT a 4E designer, and nothing I say on the subject should be
considered official or even necessarily accurate!
Warning! Any posts I make concerning Eberron are unofficial and could
be contradicted in future material.
e questo post:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4124171&postcount=366
As a side note, I'm not suggesting that the fact that characters have
something to do out of combat is somehow new or unique to 4E. Cleric-
as-Diplomat, Ranger-as-keen-eyed-spy is classic D&D. Which is
essentially my point. 4E doesn't somehow take away the ability to make
a character who shines in a noncombat role; it also doesn't force you
to sacrifice significant combat efficiency for that role. It's true
that you can't CHOOSE to make a comically handicapped character - or,
for that matter, a tragically handicapped one. A rogue will have some
form of combat power (just as all 3E rogues get sneak attack
regardless of build). But the system does support combat and noncombat
roles for PCs, and allows PCs of the same class to take different
directions in both of these arenas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Hellcow : Today at 03:13 AM.
--
Fabio

 combattimento.
In realtà qualcosa si è visto, e Baker ne parla nel thread citato.
Non c'è molto di innovativo, intendiamoci, più che altro è un
rilassamento dei vincoli sull'uso delle abilità.
Ma non è questo IMO l'essenziale
GP

Ma non è questo IMO l'essenziale
Beh, per me le abilita' sono una parte molto importante nel gioco,
sicche' anche un modesto miglioramento in questa direzione (ma i
miglioramenti proposti sono piu' estesi di quelli di Lupo Solitario, o
dell'Unearthed Arcana se e' per questo) per me ha un peso notevole.


 sicche' anche un modesto miglioramento in questa direzione
Anche per me le abilità sono un punto fondamentale (e una delle
ragioni principali per cui non mi piace 3e è proprio il sistema delle
abilità), solo che questo specifico miglioramento mi sembra (per
quanto se ne è visto finora, intendiamoci) meno rilevante che non
l'aver cassato gli skill point e la crescita lineare delle abilitità.
Il sistema di 4e sarà a numero limitato di abilità (e questo non mi
piace particolarmente, preferisco che il personaggio conosca la Storia
di Karameikos piuttosto che la Storia in generale), ma,
fondamentalmente, non ci sarà una crescita delle abilità nel tempo (la
distanza fra Trained e Untrained rimane invariata nell'arco dei 30
livelli).
GP

 livelli).
anche se sono abilità collegate e non basta il cross-skill, se sei
storico sai la storia in generale e poi ti specializzi su alcuni
periodi, immagino che il trained espandibile copra questo problema (o
almeno lo spero), oppure qualcosa come il Tracking che si appoggia
alla skill Nature (ma non sappiamo come e quanto)
--
Fabio

 alla skill Nature (ma non sappiamo come e quanto)
Mi sembra di capire che, fondamentalmente, il Training dia un +5
all'abilità, e l'accesso ad alcuni usi specifici. Non credo, invece,
che sia previsto un sistema di specializzazione (nel senso di
conoscenze specifiche).
GP

livelli).
Solo perche' crescono entrambe. Cosi' il guerriero di 10° sara' in
grado di scalare una corda.
Per quanto riguarda la crescita delle abilita' nel tempo si misurera'
dalla CD che riesci a raggiungere... il fatto che questa si alzi
dipende dal fatto che i personaggi *hanno un livello* ed affrontano
situazioni di crescente distacco dall'uomo comune. 
Ma questo e' D&D, e fare altrimenti andrebbe contro lo spirito del
gioco.


 gioco.
Mah, personalmente non vedo perchè il guerriero dovrebbe affrontare
dilemmi storiografici di proporzioni eroiche, a meno che non abbia
specificamente studiato la storia. In D&D, i PG affrontano situazioni /
di combattimento/  impossibili per l'uomo comune, ma non
necessariamente sono dei pozzi di scienza o dei tuttologi.
GP

necessariamente sono dei pozzi di scienza o dei tuttologi.
Guarda, le abilita' conoscitive se vogliamo sono un caso limite. 
Per la maggior parte delle abilita' (come arrampicarsi, resistenza, ma
anche percezione e intuito) ci viene piu' spontaneo dire che si',
l'esperienza sul campo, se non ti uccide, affina il tuo fisico o il
tuo istinto.
Ma quando viaggi molto, vedi il mondo e parli con le persone, questo
apre la mente. E un +5 su 1d20 indica proprio quello - hai dei
rudimenti. Viaggiare gomito a gomito con il mago che e' un pozzo di
scienza ti ha fatto bene.
Non abbiamo tutti gli elementi per valutare il gioco di alto livello;
tutto quello che posso fare e' credere a quel playtester che afferma
(non mi ricordo dove) che nelle abilita' nelle quali non sei
specializzato non diventi certo un guru, solo uno che ha dei
rudimenti. Se condivido o no l'affermazione lo decidero' quando sara'
il momento.
Ma GURPS, che citiamo ultimamente come esempio massimo di realismo, ha
dei defaults alle varie abilita', ovvero a partire dalle tue
caratteristiche hai comunque un punteggio su una data abilita' anche
se non ce l'hai; sara' magari basso, ma ce l'hai. Mi sembra che qui in
fondo avvenga solo la stessa cosa.


sempre baker su enworld 
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4125541&postcount=422
un post più che altro di logica di progettazione e del fatto di poter
contare o meno su un buon DM
OK, ok, just one more (it's like potato chips...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutluck
A good GM works with her players to make sure they make characters
that fit and can work in the story she is telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamburger Mary
But that's exactly the problem, Nutluck. A good DM does this. But what
if she's NOT a good DM? What if she's never run a game before, and has
just picked up an RPG for the first time in her life?
This is what I see as the core of the issue. One of my favorite game
systems is Over The Edge. One of the things I love about it is that
every campaign is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. There's no class roles, no
expectations; you can play virtually anything.
So let's take two groups I've run for as examples:
Group A: A woman who can enter your dreams if she can touch you (when
you dream, mind you); a well-known gambler (well-known, but not always
well-liked); and a drug-addled gonzo journalist who litterally can't
tear his way out of a paper bag.
Group B: Five ducks in a battlesuit; a James Bond-level (amnesiac)
secret agent; a prepubescent embodiment of chaos; and a homeless mad
scientist who can build atomic weaponry out of trash.
To really give each group a satisfying experience, I have to create
two entirely different stories. They're just too different. Group A
will be seriously threatened by a gang of simple muggers with chains
and knives; Group B would have the muggers laid out before they had
time to say "Your money or--" Meanwhile, Group A has all sorts of
noncombat talents group B doesn't possess - such as the ability to
enter peoples' dreams, something that's not going to play a role in
one of group B's stories.
I LOVE the fact that Over The Edge is so versatile and so interesting.
But it means that I can't simply pick up a random Over The Edge
adventure and expect it to work for my group. I can't even expect to
be able to reuse an adventure I've written before. Every story has to
be tailored to the group at hand.
Even with 4E D&D, I'm GOING to do the same thing; that's what a good
DM does. If I've got the PC who's backstory is that he was driven from
his ancestral fiefdom and now intends to depose Kaius and conquer
Karrnath, well, I'll steer events in the stories towards that.
Likewise, it turns out that the paladin and warlock in my group both
have Intimidate and are good at it, and they used that to good effect.
But not ALL paladins and warlocks are good at Intimidate. My second
group has poor initimidation coverage, but strong diplomacy - so when
it comes to social challenges, they'll take a different angle. Another
group could simply have built themselves with no social skills at all;
nothing's preventing you from doing that. There's no "EVERY GROUP
AUTOMATICALLY HAS A +10 DIPLOMAT" rule. As a DM, I may point out to
the group that they are weak in a certain area; one of my groups
sucked at Perception, and they've since rectified it. It's EASY to set
things up so that you can get a well-balanced group. But it's still
about player choice; you aren't good at everything, you'll simply be
good at SOMETHING in both the combat and noncombat arenas.
And now I'm running late... $%@^!
__________________
Keith Baker
Eberron Designer
I am NOT a 4E designer, and nothing I say on the subject should be
considered official or even necessarily accurate!
Warning! Any posts I make concerning Eberron are unofficial and could
be contradicted in future material.
--
Fabio

 fondo avvenga solo la stessa cosa.
No, è diverso. Sono d'accordo anche io sul dare un punteggio minimo
per le abilità e le conoscenze non addestrate (entro certi limiti,
s'intende). Ma la crescita automatica di queste stesse competenze di
base è una cosa diversa, e non mi piace molto.
GP

 (in parole povere, A1 è due volte più utile di A2),
Qui mi permetto di interromperti.
Mi considero un buon conoscitore di GURPS,
perciò intervengo (avete già recitato la Parola di Evocazione ben due
volte... ^__^)
L'idea è che, di base, in GURPS non esistano abilità necessariamente più
utili di altre.
Proprio perché l'acquisizione di px (che in GURPS si chiamano Punti
Personaggio)
è svincolata dall'ammazzare mostri o dall'accumulare tesori,
non è necessario porre particolare enfasi sulle abilità di combattimento.
L'idea è che dipenda tutto dall'avventura.
Sia il concetto di base del personaggio che la progressione delle abilità
sono molto variabili,
ed esistono tuttora dibattiti (IIRC) se GURPS incoraggi più la
specializzazione o l'eclettismo.
GURPS
\/\/\/||==o
Kriss
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 base è una cosa diversa, e non mi piace molto.
punto di vista comprensibile, ma molti dubbiosi su questo punto hanno
verificato che non c'è stata alcuna rivoluzione
per le craft probabilmente vanno legate agli npc come eccezioni o come
Feat che si appoggiano a determinate skill non ne ho idea vedremo
--
Fabio

una playtester interviene nel thread di Baker su enworld (da prendere
con le pinze visto che non so chi sia)
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4125765&postcount=428
Originally Posted by nutluck
But for me to put it in simple terms, it looks like 4e will have a
scale of 1-5 on how good you are at combat and how good you are at
social stuff. Most people are a 3 but can go up or down a little.
Looking to noncombat, as a playtester, this isn't true at all.
In 4E, at 2nd level, by my calculations skill values ranges from +0 to
+15 (assuming an ability score range of 8 to 18). As that's divisible
by 5, it's easy to use the 1-5 scale. The average person - no skill
training, average ability score - will have a rank 1 on that scale - a
modifier of +3 or below. In order to get to "3 out of 5" - a value of
+9 - you'll need to have skill training and a decent statistic.
I think you're assuming these bland characters that are sort of
equally good in all things. COMBAT is far more balanced. It's hard to
make a character who just sucks at combat - though in all likelihood
he WILL suck at a certain ASPECT of combat (melee, ranged, etc),
because that's what class roles are about; each class has a role. And
things like feats are a case where you have to choose whether to get
abilities that will help you in combat or those that will help you out
of it; it is the place where you shift the balance. To get to a
ranking of 5 on that scale of one to five, a diplomat will need to use
feats.
So you will have trouble making the crippled sage. But the idea that
you never make ANY choice between combat or noncombat ability, that
you can't make a character who is a true specialist in a noncombat
area, simply isn't true. That 5/5 diplomat WILL be able to fight
(though to get that score, she had to max her Charisma and devote
feats to it). But she is a true master of Diplomacy - compared to the
untrained Cha 8 fighter who has a +0 Diplomacy.
So this whole "All characters are at a 3 of 5" just isn't true. You
pick your specialties, both in and out of combat, and you shine in
those areas. But you're not average at all things. And if you want to
go nuts on one thing, feats like Skill Focus still let you do that.
It's still not your system, Nutluck. I get that. It's not designed to
let you play a commoner - though again, all you need to do to do that
is to remove the class abilities from your class. But it's also not
the "absolutely bland characters" system you seem to think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Hamburger Mary : Today at 08:46 AM. Reason: Probably
said too much.
--
Fabio

 volte... ^__^)
Qui pero' non sto piu' parlando di GURPS... troppo tardi ;)
GP

 Feat che si appoggiano a determinate skill non ne ho idea vedremo
Probabilmente la prima.
G.


penso anche io, secondo me starà nella DMG sezione worldbuilding :)
non escludo però "feat" strani :)
--
Fabio

 s'intende). 
E se questi limiti non sono fissi?
Perche' e' proprio quello che accade in questo caso. Mano a mano che
si procede, in D&D, i PG sono chiamati a compiere gesta sempre piu'
eroiche...
Ah e da un punto di vista squisitamente numerico, il divario tra chi
si addestra e chi no cresce. X - 1/2X = 1/2 X, cioe' un valore che
cresce nel tempo.


 cresce nel tempo.
Stai parlando di 4e? Se è così, non credo le cose stiano in questo
modo. Per quel che ne ho capito, le abilità funzionano così: 1/2
livello + bonus abilità (fisso) + eventuale bonus di addestramento
(fisso anche questo).
Fa parte di una delle idee di design fondamentali di 4e: la differenza
fra il migliore e il peggiore dei PG in una qualunque attività è
sempre dell'ordine di 5-10 su 1d20, a differenza di quel che accade in
3e, dove invece le cose vanno come dici tu (abilità cross-classe vs
abilità di classe, o BAB minimo vs BAB massimo).
GP

(fisso anche questo).
Posso sbagliarmi, ma il fatto che un'abilita' sia "allenata" secondo
me significa che progredisce a +1 per livello, non +1/2. Ma forse e'
solo una questione di leggere la 4E con gli occhi della 3.x


 solo una questione di leggere la 4E con gli occhi della 3.x
Credo proprio di sì: i "rank" di 3e non esistono proprio. Il "+livello/
2" vale per _tutti_ i tiri sulle abilità (e.g., anche per il TxC o
l'equivalente per gli incantesimi). Le varie forme di addestramento
danno bonus fissi. Si capisce solo in parte dalle schede dei PG,
perchè sono di 1° livello, ma gli sviluppatori ne hanno parlato un po'
all'inizio, quando hanno spiegato l'idea di estendere lo "sweet spot"
di 3e -- i.e., quella zona fra il 5° e il 10° livello in cui si
verifica la differenza massima di 5-10 punti, che in 4e è stata estesa
su tutti i livelli. In sostanza, mentre la differenza fra specialista
e non specialista in una qualunque attività in 3e aumenta
(linearmente) con il livello, in 4e rimane costante (all'incirca fra
uno e due livelli di successo, a giudicare dalle schede dei PG di D&D
Experience).
L'hanno detto più chiaramente per difese e TxC (l'incremento è uguale
per tutte le classi, e pari appunto a livello/2), ma penso proprio che
valga anche per le abilità (d'altra parte, sarebbe strano il
contrario, no?)
GP

 contrario, no?)
confermo è un punto centrale e in fondo si tratta di estendere il
concetto di BAB a tutto (era ora!) e gestire le specializzazine con
bonus e non con progressioni diverse
quindi TUTTI hanno +1/2*level a tutto (tranne forse la AC? non sono
sicuro) tiri per colpire, difese, skill
poi se sei ranger prendi che so' +2 al tiro con l'arco e +1 al melee,
se sei Fighter il contrario
ma poi a ulteriore specializzazione avrai Colpo Mirato +2 con l'arco e
Mazzata Precisa +2 al Melee
per le skill uguale se sei trained +5 e hai accesso ad alcune
specialità che non potresti fare
e.g. Heal - (invento per fare un esempio non so i bonus specifici), se
non sei trained puoi giusto fare una benda, se sei trained puoi cucire
una ferita, steccare un osso ecc, se sei molto-trained puoi fare
interventi chirurgici, se hai il talento Guaritore Naturale puoi
ritirare i fallimenti ecc ecc
inoltre le skill sono di meno ma più ampie per cui ho una competenza
generica ampia ma per avere una competenza specialistica ed affidabile
ci devo spendere i talenti che potrei usare per migliorare altre cose
e.g. sono passato di livello prendo "Guaritore Naturale" o "Adepto
della Viverna Dorata" ovvero cerco di diventare un buon guaritore di
supporto o prendo la capacità di fare palle di fuoco che non bruciano
i miei alleati?
--
Fabio

 Credo proprio di sì: i "rank" di 3e non esistono proprio.
Ah. Non l'avevo capito.
--
Parvati V
http://parvatiquinta.blogspot.com/

 come piu' non si puo', Caramon nella trilogia dei Gemelli.
Questo vuol dire che, al crescere del livello (o semplicemente al
passare degli anni, nel caso dei PNG), il guerriero avra'
l'opportunita' di acquisire nuove abilita', o di incrementare le
esistenti (senza necessariamente implicare degli automatismi).
GP