4 Ed Elf preview

[Thinker]

Mixed feelings here. Seems okay overall, but I don't like the lack of racial penalties. Also, I'm damned if I know why they decided to use abstract "squares" instead of feet.

Maybe not all campaign worlds should have to rely on feet? The less things dependent on that, the better.

[Starsinger]

I know elves are lithe but I am picturing someone 6'0 tall and 100 pounds and it's kinda icky. They must have tiny little breakable bones, little popsicle bone elves.

Or slightly hollow bones, like birds. (although I think bird bones are totally hollow)

[Nightgaunt]

Maybe not all campaign worlds should have to rely on feet? The less things dependent on that, the better.

That's actually a good point, although for abstraction purposes I wish they choose an arbitrary system of measurement that was not identical to the mats we're playing on. It's nit-picky but my head sees this:

Ranger: Keldurn, you must attack the enemies are closing in!
Keldurn: Aye, lad I can't, me axe only flies three squares and they be five squares away.
Ranger: Keldurn, I told you to buy the bow, I can strike at ten squares!

Or even better...

Shopkeeper: What can I do for you today?
Keldurn: Aye, I'm looking to get to Tarmok's Falls, where is that?
Shopkeeper: Oh, Tarmok's Falls is 100 Decasquares from here, they have a tower that raises at least 10 squares up, you can see from quite a distance.
Keldurn: Aye, thank ye kindly.

[Green Bean]

That's actually a good point, although for abstraction purposes I wish they choose an arbitrary system of measurement that was not identical to the mats we're playing on. It's nit-picky but my head sees this:

...

It beats:


Ranger: Keldurn, you must attack the enemies are closing in!
Keldurn: Aye, lad I can't, me axe only flies 4.56 meters, and they be 7.62 meters away.
Ranger: Keldurn, I told you to buy the bow, I can strike at 15.42 meters!

[hamlet]

I had a nice, long, ranting post going that the internet ate. Which I'm sure many of you will celebrate.

Suffice to say, I don't like it. Not one freakin' bit.

It seems that, despite claims to the contrary, 4th edition will be so tightly tied with the minis and battlemat concept that playing it without them will be almost impossible. It strikes me as tremendously stupid to measure movement in "squares."

Player1: How big is the cavern?
DM: 10 squares by 15 squares.
Player1: Wow, that's big . . .
Player2: Ok, how the <blank> much is a "square"?
DM: . . . don't know.

[Thinker]

I had a nice, long, ranting post going that the internet ate. Which I'm sure many of you will celebrate.

Suffice to say, I don't like it. Not one freakin' bit.

It seems that, despite claims to the contrary, 4th edition will be so tightly tied with the minis and battlemat concept that playing it without them will be almost impossible. It strikes me as tremendously stupid to measure movement in "squares."

Player1: How big is the cavern?
DM: 10 squares by 15 squares.
Player1: Wow, that's big . . .
Player2: Ok, how the <blank> much is a "square"?
DM: . . . don't know.

Player1: How big is the cavern?
DM: 10 <campaign specific measurment> by 15 <campaign specific measurement>.
Player1: Wow that's big . . .
Player2: Ok, how the <blank> much is a "<campaign specific measurement>"?
DM: Oh its about 4 feet.

[Telonius]

Honestly, I don't care if they measure distance in squares, feet, glorpleprodgers, or light-years. As long as the scale is consistent, it doesn't matter. It's been years since I've played without a battlemat anyway, so that won't alter anything for me.

I really like the skill-folding that's implicit here. For the fluff - going by Tolkien, these guys look like they're the Mirkwood elves, with Eldarin being the Noldor. Very, very interesting. I like it so far.

EDIT: For the weight ... I'm 6'0, and was about 140lbs back when I was in college (yay Ramen and mac&cheese ). It was teetering over the border of really unhealthy-looking, but I have a pretty big frame. Something with narrower shoulders and hips, or wirier muscles, might not look that weird.

[Dausuul]

Player1: How big is the cavern?
DM: 10 <campaign specific measurment> by 15 <campaign specific measurement>.
Player1: Wow that's big . . .
Player2: Ok, how the <blank> much is a "<campaign specific measurement>"?
DM: Oh its about 4 feet.

Yeah, that's silly too. Except that in that case it's the DM being silly rather than the rulebook. In my experience, most people just use "feet."

I have no objection to including measurements in squares; it's very handy for combat with minis. But I'd like it if they included the distance in feet as well, probably in parenthesis:

Movement: 7 squares (35 feet)

[fendrin]

squares vs 5' increments... using squares makes the math easier.
It's easier to multiply the # of squares by 5 to get the distance in feet than to divide the distance in feet by 5 to get the # of squares. Even in 3.X everyone (who had played for more than a couple sessions) knew that a square was 5' and vice versa.

Don't like it? White out and a pen. It's the same in the end, just a little easier now.

As for the battlemat, no battlemat, no issue. It's been the same all along. I remember the "good ol' days" having an effectively infinite amount of space to run a a battle in, because no one knew where anybody was. I also remember using dry erase boards where the scale was vague, and distance only as relevant as the DM's artistic skills (mine suck). then I had the bright idea to use graph paper and push pins on a cork board (wait which red pin is orc #1?). Then I shelled out for a vinyl battlemat, put some numbers on some colored discs (poker chips) and never looked back. you don't want to use a battlemat? Go for it. It's no harder now than it was then.

EDIT:
For reference, I made the change from 2e to 3e during the dry erase board era.

[Mr. Friendly]

Yeah, that's silly too. Except that in that case it's the DM being silly rather than the rulebook. In my experience, most people just use "feet."

I have no objection to including measurements in squares; it's very handy for combat with minis. But I'd like it if they included the distance in feet as well, probably in parenthesis:

Movement: 7 squares (35 feet)

I also think they are leaving it as blank "squares" so people can scale up and down distance as they need.

It's also useful for saving the lives of catgirls. By not tying a "square" to 100% exactly five Imperial feet you can avoid all sorts of bizarre things that come up. Like the whole replacing 5' step with "shifting"; it just gets rid of ridiculous arguements that happen WAY too often.

[KIDS]

It... it's very awesome. I am quite impressed by the elegant design; of course I won't be cheering until I see the whole game but it looks quite promising.

[Starsinger]

I also think they are leaving it as blank "squares" so people can scale up and down distance as they need.

It's also useful for saving the lives of catgirls. By not tying a "square" to 100% exactly five Imperial feet you can avoid all sorts of bizarre things that come up. Like the whole replacing 5' step with "shifting"; it just gets rid of ridiculous arguements that happen WAY too often.

Like hallways being exactly 5/10/15 feet wide. Never 7 feet wide halls, or 21 feet wide, or 13 feet wide.. always some multiple of 5.

[Mr. Friendly]

Like hallways being exactly 5/10/15 feet wide. Never 7 feet wide halls, or 21 feet wide, or 13 feet wide.. always some multiple of 5.

Well that's precisely my point. Virtually every module WotC comes out with has some bizarre distance for height or width, some non-divisible by 5 width specifically. Then they think you will draw that out on a battlemap? I usually round it off, but sometimes you can't.

Then there are idiotic arguements that will happen every so often...

This is an example of an actual arguement:

Player: Ok I move here. *moves miniature* I attack this guy *indicates enemy*
DM: He's too far away.
Player: But I have a Spiked Chain, it has reach.
DM: Yeah it does have reach, but in this case he is on the back side of his square about to coup d'grace your friend. You just moved as far as you could, so you just barely entered your square. Clearly the book says this chain is exactly 7 feet long, so you can't reach him.
Players: WTF?
DM: *coup d'grace PC*

Obviously it is a stupid arguement, but it wouldn't have happened if we generically quantified it as "squares" not a specific distance.

[Morty]

Maybe not all campaign worlds should have to rely on feet? The less things dependent on that, the better.

It's still better that relying on abstract "squares". I just hope they'll provide square/feet table, otherwise how will DM know how many squares does an area cover?
And I still think that lack of racial ability penalties is dumb idea.

[Telonius]

Like hallways being exactly 5/10/15 feet wide. Never 7 feet wide halls, or 21 feet wide, or 13 feet wide.. always some multiple of 5.

Oh yah, dem's da union regs. Can't be makin' any oddball hallways now, it'd trow de accountin' gnomes all in a futz. Hey, we don't make da rules, we just build da hallways.

[Theodoxus]

I don't understand how the elf is supposed to be granting the group awareness thing... I mean sure, it might have a higher base chance for perception, but that doesn't mean it will succeed 100% of the time.

"Shh, I think I heard something" the elf ranger said. The party gathers around and listens intently. "Yeah, definintely coming from the left" says the halfling. - that I get.

"Uh, i think I just missed my perception check" the elf mutters. "Yeah, there's a goblin ninja in your face, you ninny" the halfling giggles.

So, the elf provides a +1 perception how? Fluffwise it makes no sense, mechanically it makes no sense... if the elf fails his perception check, everyone else still gets theirs? wtf?

[Telonius]

... maybe the elf makes people a little jumpier than usual, so they're more likely to notice things? Or maybe they just radiate an aura of elfiness that makes people more perceptive? Kind of a stretch, yeah. That particular bit of fluff would have to be described in some better detail.

[Artanis]

The thing about feet vs. squares is that as far as I can tell, they already do everything in squares on the back-end, and then multiply that by 5 and put the feet measurement in the books. "Adjacent" is always adjacent squares, which could in theory be anywhere from 1' to 14' apart. A 5-foot step? One square. And nearly all the official maps I've ever seen (on the website and such) have everything fit nice and neat into the grid.

[Uncle Festy]

...Varis is an elf ranger and a devout worshiper of Melora, the god of the wilds. When a goblin army forced...

...Lia is an elf rogue whose ancestral forest burned to the ground decades ago. Lia grew up...

...Heian is an elf cleric of Sehanine, the god of the moon. The elven settlement where he was born still thrives...

What I was refering to by "rangers worship gods" was that the cleric and the ranger both mention gods worshiped, whereas the rouge doesn't. If the god worshipped is always mentioned, then why doesn't the rouge have it? Admittedly, the link between the ranger and the god, "devout worshipper" is looser then the one between the cleric and the god "cleric of", so it's possible that rangers are more like paladins, in that they worship a god, but don't draw their power from said god. It seems relatively clear (relative to anything else we can surmise from an incomplete game) that there is, at least, more of a link between ranger and god, and rouge and god. What that actually means is up for discussion.

[Tallis]

I like it. It has a good feel to it. Splitting the elves into 2 races is a good move I think. The fact that the two races are still related to each other is also a good move.
Shorter lifespens I'm not sure about, hopefully the Eladrin keep the longer elvish lifespans. I don't much like the long shaggy sideburns idea, they do seem to lean towards the anime type depiction of elves, but thats just fluff and easily changed so no big deal.

They refer to Lolth as a god. Wonder if they're actually changing her to a male or just using the wrong word there. Of course they could also be changing gods to more abstract genderless concepts...

As for the movement being measures in squares; they do the same thing in Star Wars saga edition and then define a square as 2 meters (maybe 1, not sure). Presumably they will tell us how bg a square is and are just writing it this way to minimize the math necessary during combat.

[Tallis]

What I was refering to by "rangers worship gods" was that the cleric and the ranger both mention gods worshiped, whereas the rouge doesn't. If the god worshipped is always mentioned, then why doesn't the rouge have it? Admittedly, the link between the ranger and the god, "devout worshipper" is looser then the one between the cleric and the god "cleric of", so it's possible that rangers are more like paladins, in that they worship a god, but don't draw their power from said god. It seems relatively clear (relative to anything else we can surmise from an incomplete game) that there is, at least, more of a link between ranger and god, and rouge and god. What that actually means is up for discussion.

Devout worshipper could also just be a character description with no mechanical effect.
The rogue might not worship any particular god. Maybe she turned away from her god when her home was burned down and living among humans has kept her away from them.
Maybe rangers do get their powers from gods now.
There isn't enough information to know the writers intent here.

[Thinker]

It's still better that relying on abstract "squares". I just hope they'll provide square/feet table, otherwise how will DM know how many squares does an area cover?
And I still think that lack of racial ability penalties is dumb idea.

Yes, but you hate everything you see about 4th Edition. Every time a new excerpt comes out you shout about how you don't like it. I'm beginning to feel that I should dismiss your arguments as you seem to be trying to find any flaws you can.

[Leicontis]

What I was refering to by "rangers worship gods" was that the cleric and the ranger both mention gods worshiped, whereas the rouge doesn't. If the god worshipped is always mentioned, then why doesn't the rouge have it? Admittedly, the link between the ranger and the god, "devout worshipper" is looser then the one between the cleric and the god "cleric of", so it's possible that rangers are more like paladins, in that they worship a god, but don't draw their power from said god. It seems relatively clear (relative to anything else we can surmise from an incomplete game) that there is, at least, more of a link between ranger and god, and rouge and god. What that actually means is up for discussion.

First, makeup doesn't worship anything. [/petpeeve]

Second, maybe the rogue isn't particularly reverent? She might not have a great education, and as such might not even know enough about the gods to have any particular desire to venerate one. Different characters have differing levels of piety - some non-clerics are still fanatical followers of their gods, while others take more of a live-and-let-live attitude towards the gods.

I'm wondering what they're going to do for humans. Racial ability penalties were there to put ability scores on balance with those of a human (in theory), with "average human" being 10-11 across the board. With no racial ability penalties, does this mean that humans are going to have ability score bonuses? In what? If not, what are they going to have instead?

[Morty]

Yes, but you hate everything you see about 4th Edition. Every time a new excerpt comes out you shout about how you don't like it. I'm beginning to feel that I should dismiss your arguments as you seem to be trying to find any flaws you can.

First, it's not my fault I don't like most things I recently see about 4ed- though maybe I've really been to whiny. Second, I tend to focus on things I don't like, because otherwise I'd just say "alright, that was good". If you want to interpret it as "hating everything about 4ed", that's your choice. I actually found this article perfectly fine, except those two issues- but since everyone likes it as well, why should I repeat what everyone else says? And while squares are quite minor, lack of racial ability penalties is preety bad.

[Starsinger]

I'm wondering what they're going to do for humans. Racial ability penalties were there to put ability scores on balance with those of a human (in theory), with "average human" being 10-11 across the board. With no racial ability penalties, does this mean that humans are going to have ability score bonuses? In what? If not, what are they going to have instead?

In place of 2 +2 bonuses in designated spots, humans might get a single +2 to any ability score of their choice.

[fendrin]

They refer to Lolth as a god. Wonder if they're actually changing her to a male or just using the wrong word there. Of course they could also be changing gods to more abstract genderless concepts...

I noticed this too. In fact, all deities mentioned are described with 'god'. Sehanine is also typically female, if my realms-knowledge serves me...

Thy could be moving in a gender-neutral deity direction, or just gender-neutral terminology ('god' is typically a male term, but can also be used gender-neutrally; the same as is happening with 'actor' and 'alumni'. really, it's a limitation of the English language that such terms don't exist separate from the masculine, but it's a lot easier to change how words are used than to introduce new variants on words)

[Kiirseva]

"Group Awareness: You grant non-elf allies within 5 squares a +1 racial bonus to Perception checks."

Here's to hoping that Group Awareness, and other party bonuses, just flat-out apply to your party/allies/friendlies.

I'm surprised they aren't moving towards that just with the way spells like Bless work in D&D Minis (it hits your entire warband for simplicity, and last the entire battle) and other spells are moving towards per day/per encounter/at will.

[Mr. Friendly]

"Group Awareness: You grant non-elf allies within 5 squares a +1 racial bonus to Perception checks."

Here's to hoping that Group Awareness, and other party bonuses, just flat-out apply to your party/allies/friendlies.

I'm surprised they aren't moving towards that just with the way spells like Bless work in D&D Minis (it hits your entire warband for simplicity, and last the entire battle) and other spells are moving towards per day/per encounter/at will.

I think they are. We haven't seen Bless yet, but they have talked about Per Encounter rituals, which I wouldn't be surprised that Bless was one of. What they do mention of per encounter buffs is they last the encounter so you don't need to keep tracking it.

[Kiirseva]

I think they are. We haven't seen Bless yet, but they have talked about Per Encounter rituals, which I wouldn't be surprised that Bless was one of. What they do mention of per encounter buffs is they last the encounter so you don't need to keep tracking it.

Well, I mean more for the range.

Why stop to check 5 squares when you could just have that +1 on your sheet?

Maybe just when in the same encounter with your elf buddy? It's not that big of a deal with this one, but I'm thinking of the bonuses that players will always be moving just a few more squares to get, whether they're aware of them IC or not. I care less about the IC/OOC awareness of these things, and more about it slowing the combat round down with players counting squares and hmming and hawing about saying they're done.

[Dausuul]

I don't understand how the elf is supposed to be granting the group awareness thing... I mean sure, it might have a higher base chance for perception, but that doesn't mean it will succeed 100% of the time.

"Shh, I think I heard something" the elf ranger said. The party gathers around and listens intently. "Yeah, definintely coming from the left" says the halfling. - that I get.

"Uh, i think I just missed my perception check" the elf mutters. "Yeah, there's a goblin ninja in your face, you ninny" the halfling giggles.

So, the elf provides a +1 perception how? Fluffwise it makes no sense, mechanically it makes no sense... if the elf fails his perception check, everyone else still gets theirs? wtf?

That aspect doesn't really bother me, actually. I chalk it up to the elf's innate attunement to her surroundings; the elf's allies pick up some of that attunement simply by being near her.

My problem is with the mechanics of tracking piddling little situational bonuses.