PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition Dragon Article



kpenguin
2007-08-22, 12:05 AM
Well, there's an article up about dragons in 4th ed. Seems interesting. Things I noted:


The dragon gets a lot of actions. Breath weapon and tail slap as free actions and two claw attacks as a standard action. Perhaps multiple body parts (head, claws, tail) give you more actions? An extra standard action as a special ability? The dragon also has one immediate action as well. Dragons seem far scarier in 4th ed. than in 3.x, even considering this is an ancient dragon.

Fire ball spitting. The dragon isn't just limited to cones of fire anymore.

The rogue that was tail slapped was trying to sneak up from behind. Facing rules are core?

The fireball actually put the wizard on fire! Also, it said the fire resistance was scoured away by damage. Perhaps energy resistances have been replaced by a replenishable effect similar to Protection from Energy?

When the wizard zapped the dragon, it did only normal damage. No more vulnerability to cold, but is it a removal of the vulnerability system or just the vulnerability for the dragon.

The cleric swung a halberd at the dragon, not only causing damage but healing the wizard. Perhaps that "Calling on the power of her god" was invoking some sort of special ability? Also, is a halberd a simple weapon now, do clerics get martial weapons, or does this particular cleric have the War Domain and/or the Martial Weapon feat?

Gralamin
2007-08-22, 12:08 AM
Some more notes:
It seems to of had 1000hp, and 49 AC. It also seemingly could use a centered on self burst effect.

Also, I was just planning on posting this.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 12:11 AM
It also said that each type of dragon, age and color, would be more unique. It said that the reds and whites would have different attacks, for instance. To me, this makes sense. I'm tired of the blue dragon lugging that rhino horn around and not using it.

Gralamin
2007-08-22, 12:16 AM
Good Point, the exact quote is:

They’re different from each other, across categories (the metallics aren’t like the chromatics), across colors (reds and whites don’t have all the same attacks), and across age categories (fear the ancient dragons).
Assuming that ancient corresponds to the 3.5 Age Category, and it saids that the example was an ancient dragon, Wyrm and Great Wyrm are going to be even more powerful.

leperkhaun
2007-08-22, 12:48 AM
Id be very very happy if they upped the power of dragons. To me dragons are one of those super iconic biengs of DnD. A dragon should be one heck of a challange even for high levels (meaning its very very very possible several of the party will die).

Pokemaster
2007-08-22, 12:57 AM
I'm hoping that fighters get some sort of special attack that can reduce the target's hit points by half. Letting them do 500 damage in a single attack probably isn't the best way to balance out fighters and wizards.

The fire resistance thing could be a special ability of the dragon's fireball, or resistances could be capped at a certain amount of damage per encounter.

I'm guessing that the Cleric picked up Martial Weapon Proficiency and had a talent or special class ability that lets him heal allies within a certain range whenever he gets a critical hit.

I hope we get more articles that present parts of the game mechanics. They're a lot more useful than comments by the designers.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-22, 01:06 AM
It should be limited to like 1 Dragon per Mountain(or equivalent). They should at the very least be the "Grand Vizier", if not the BBERG themself.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 01:20 AM
It should be limited to like 1 Dragon per Mountain(or equivalent). They should at the very least be the "Grand Vizier", if not the BBERG themself.

Mountain? Grand Vizier? BBERG? Clarification, please?

TheOOB
2007-08-22, 01:28 AM
I like how many actions the dragons has, a dragon just isn't as intimidating when it only acts once for every 4+ actions the party makes, this fella is dangerous, even when it's not their turn. I also like the mentioning of attacks having secondary effects, like setting people on fire, knocking them back, or possibly slowing people down.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:29 AM
I think I can say I am not impressed with this. In fact, I am feeling fairly discouraged about the way D&D is heading altogether.

Green Bean
2007-08-22, 01:46 AM
I think I can say I am not impressed with this. In fact, I am feeling fairly discouraged about the way D&D is heading altogether.

What do you mean? As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is that dragons are going to be given an upgrade (a needed one, but that's just my opinion), and the different varieties are going to be different from each other. What's wrong with that? :smallconfused:

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:06 AM
What do you mean? As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is that dragons are going to be given an upgrade (a needed one, but that's just my opinion), and the different varieties are going to be different from each other. What's wrong with that? :smallconfused:

Basically because this is symptomatic of the way the game is heading. 1,000 HP for a Dragon and a Fighter who can reduce it to below 500 with one blow? What's the point? Why massively increase Dragon Hit Points along with Fighter Damage? Sounds like Final Fantasy to me. Add in the Cleric who heals as a result of hitting his opponents and I am pretty much out of interest points.

That's not to say this article by itself is what is turning me off, this is just one part of the larger whole. I think I'm just going to go and languish amongst my 2e Books, bemoaning the fate of its descendents.

Charity
2007-08-22, 02:20 AM
You know what this thread really needs.... a link. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)

ZekeArgo
2007-08-22, 02:21 AM
Basically because this is symptomatic of the way the game is heading. 1,000 HP for a Dragon and a Fighter who can reduce it to below 500 with one blow? What's the point? Why massively increase Dragon Hit Points along with Fighter Damage? Sounds like Final Fantasy to me. Add in the Cleric who heals as a result of fighting and I am pretty much out of interest points.

That's not to say this article by itself is what is turning me off, this is just one part of the larger whole. I think I'm just going to go and languish amongst my 2e Books, bemoaning the fate of its descendents.

Well good, maybe that'll stop you from moaning about every other damn thing from a system that no one has even seen yet. Yes, there might be some power creep. It *is* nice to see big numbers, but who knows what that fighter was using/doing? It's obviously an extremely high level encounter, perhaps even epic-level, we can only guess. But I for one find it far more interesting than the current situation he would be in.

Sitting at the edge of the field, with the rogue "So, do you think the wizard's epic spell will drop the dragon, or the clerics?" The rogue shrugs as he idly draws lines in the dirt with his +7 Vorpal Keen dagger of awesomeness. "Eh, thinking the wizard will do that whole 'I disapear for a moment then a whole bunch of things happen' thing that hes been doing for the last couple of months." He replies with a sigh. "Yeah..." the fighter joins in his companion's sigh as he sits back against his Shield of Prator that he'd shoved into the ground. "Remember when we could actually help out?"

Thats how you'd like high-end combat to be? Cause thats what you've got now. For me, I'll take the 4.0 version.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:23 AM
You know what this thread really needs.... a link. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)

Good point. I just watched an interview with James Wyatt. He seemed like the nicest one of the three, but I still found him annoying. In fact, all three of the designers interviewed for 4e struck me as people I wouldn't want at my gaming table. Just a knee jerk reaction, though.


Well good, maybe that'll stop you from moaning about every other damn thing from a system that no one has even seen yet... Thats how you'd like high-end combat to be? Cause thats what you've got now. For me, I'll take the 4.0 version.
Kettle/Pot much? So, I'm not allowed to dislike 4e because I haven't seen the full system, but you're allowed to like it even though you haven't seen the system? Also, what other aspects of 4e have I been loudly bemoaning to incur your criticism?
Moreover, what makes you think that languishing amongst my 2e Books and bemoaning the fate of its descendents is going to prevent me doing it loud enough for you to hear?

Bosh
2007-08-22, 02:29 AM
Seems they're really going high fantasy whole hog. I really like a lot of the rules concepts and think they'll do a good job of modeling high fantasy, but I really don't like high fantasy all that much. Oh well, I think its better to do one thing well (like hopefully 4ed does high fantasy) than doing a very mediocre job at slightly more things (3.5ed in my opinion).

4ed looks absolutely perfect for the next campaign I have planned, but I can't see it be a system that I consistently use for most of my campaigns for the next five years, its just too sparkly. What I'll probably cobble together is more of a a bastardized version of Conan d20/4ed/a bit of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for good gritty low magic historical RP.

Fhaolan
2007-08-22, 02:29 AM
Fire ball spitting? Oh, now that's just annoying. That was the signature thing for one of the really nasty dragons in my campaign. Having it be a standard feature for all red dragons takes a bit of the uniqueness out of it.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll figure a way around it.

ZekeArgo
2007-08-22, 02:30 AM
Kettle/Pot much?

Not really, because I still haven't seen a defense for the current system that consisted of more than "Wah! Anime moves?! Wizards with less power?! Fighters contribuiting at high levels?! It makes no sense!"

Since post one you haven't stopped posting and posting about how horrible the new system is, how bad and non-DnD it is and yet you never offer a reason why outside of those above. Hell, I didn't even get a reply to the whole. "Yeah, but fighters are useless now" point that I made.

So please, educate me as to why the current system isn't in desperate need for these kinds of changes so, yknow, more than full casters can fully express the concepts they want to play?

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:31 AM
Please point me to post #1 and where I horribly criticise the new system unseen. If you link to your post that 'didn't get a reply', I'll see if I can tell you why.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 02:33 AM
Fire ball spitting? Oh, now that's just annoying. That was the signature thing for one of the really nasty dragons in my campaign. Having it be a standard feature for all red dragons takes a bit of the uniqueness out of it.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll figure a way around it.

The fireball spitting might be an ability of older dragons. According to the article, each age category will be more unique than it was in the previous system.

Starsinger
2007-08-22, 02:35 AM
Basically because this is symptomatic of the way the game is heading. 1,000 HP for a Dragon and a Fighter who can reduce it to below 500 with one blow? What's the point? Why massively increase Dragon Hit Points along with Fighter Damage? Sounds like Final Fantasy to me. Add in the Cleric who heals as a result of hitting his opponents and I am pretty much out of interest points.

That's not to say this article by itself is what is turning me off, this is just one part of the larger whole. I think I'm just going to go and languish amongst my 2e Books, bemoaning the fate of its descendents.

Matthew, noone said that was the first round of combat. That could be in media res, not saying he did 500 damage in one shot.

Charity
2007-08-22, 02:36 AM
Fire ball spitting? Oh, now that's just annoying. That was the signature thing for one of the really nasty dragons in my campaign. Having it be a standard feature for all red dragons takes a bit of the uniqueness out of it.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll figure a way around it.

Farting napalm?



I don't mind the vast numbers of HP and damage, both need to scale at the same rate. Folk like to do 670 damage when they're high level, and it is a way of increasing power of high level characters without the whole they are unhittable thing of 1st and 2nd ed, Dragons nonchalantly zorching 100's of peasants ... sounds ok to me.

ZekeArgo
2007-08-22, 02:36 AM
Please point me to post #1 and where I horribly criticise the new system unseen.

And I am full of chagrin. It's late and I think I confused you with a few other posters. Sorry about the lashing out, just kinda bleh about all of the bashing of near every aspect of the new system. Comments, at least those against you, retracted :smalleek:

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:42 AM
Matthew, noone said that was the first round of combat. That could be in media res, not saying he did 500 damage in one shot.

True. And to be honest, I was just saying so for effect, I don't really expect Fighters to be doing 500+ Hit Points conventionally in one shot. However, what I just don't see the point of, is increasing Hit Points and Damage vastly between Levels, as it makes the difference between a Level 1 Character and a Level 30 Character increasingly huge. I thought I heard they were going to do something about that this time round, not increase the gap? That said, maybe Level 1 Characters will start off with 50+ Hit Points...


And I am full of chagrin. It's late and I think I confused you with a few other posters. Sorry about the lashing out, just kinda bleh about all of the bashing of near every aspect of the new system. Comments, at least those against you, retracted

Fair enough, we all make mistakes.

Leshan
2007-08-22, 02:42 AM
Matthew, noone said that was the first round of combat. That could be in media res, not saying he did 500 damage in one shot.

I think this is the correct conclusion. The article stated that the dragon tailslapped the rogue who had been "trying to sneak up behind it" and that "It’s getting angry at the wizard"; meaning that a couple of rounds at least had transpired.

Edit: Ah, Ninja'd. Well, back to lurking

Starsinger
2007-08-22, 02:59 AM
That said, maybe Level 1 Characters will start off with 50+ Hit Points...

Well, maybe 50 is pushing it, but starting with 20 or so extra HP like in D&DO won't be that bad... I mean, you're supposed to be heroes, noone wants their level 1 gnome wizard killed by a lucky goblin who rolls max damage with his mace.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 03:02 AM
Well, maybe 50 is pushing it, but starting with 20 or so extra HP like in D&DO won't be that bad... I mean, you're supposed to be heroes, noone wants their level 1 gnome wizard killed by a lucky goblin who rolls max damage with his mace.

On the other hand, spending 4 minutes trying to slit the throat of a high-level character is stretching it a bit. I prefer my games with a reasonable lethality rate.

ZekeArgo
2007-08-22, 03:27 AM
On the other hand, spending 4 minutes trying to slit the throat of a high-level character is stretching it a bit. I prefer my games with a reasonable lethality rate.

Kinda why I like the alternative Wound Point system. Makes coup de grace attacks and "cinematic" events (ie: an assassin strikes whomever) more credible since they're striking directly at the character and not the quasi-real "protection" that HPs represent.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 03:34 AM
Well, maybe 50 is pushing it, but starting with 20 or so extra HP like in D&DO won't be that bad... I mean, you're supposed to be heroes, noone wants their level 1 gnome wizard killed by a lucky goblin who rolls max damage with his mace.

That's rather my point, though, if Damage and Hit Points are just scaling, your Character is still going to get taken out by a lucky shot.

On the other hand, spending 4 minutes trying to slit the throat of a high-level character is stretching it a bit. I prefer my games with a reasonable lethality rate.

Indeed, but I think this is something that divides the community with regard to combat and RPGs. On the whole, I preferred the idea in previous editions where a coup de grace was just an automatic kill, no questions asked.

Grey Paladin
2007-08-22, 03:53 AM
Do notice they never said the Dragon was at full HP when the Fighter dropped him beyond half . . .

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 04:00 AM
Do notice they never said the Dragon was at full HP when the Fighter dropped him beyond half . . .

I believe the consensus is that the snippet is from mid-battle and the dragon was already damaged. The problem Matthew is pointing out, however, is how rapidly Hit Points and Damage seem to scale, to the point where a mere ancient dragon has 1000 hit points.

Reinboom
2007-08-22, 04:01 AM
Do notice they never said the Dragon was at full HP when the Fighter dropped him beyond half . . .

Mentioned already.

Aside, I'm taking this as if... immediate actions wholely replace attack of opportunities. If so, glory!
I see the fighter charging and no dragon swinging in.

-- edit:
Also, notice the dragon moves - I'm reading 'flys' - to a better position. The fighter then charges in, and the cleric still hits. Hmmmmmm.

Swooper
2007-08-22, 04:13 AM
I'd like to point out that from what I've heard, SW Saga characters start with triple hit points at first level. I kinda like that, lessens the gap from 1st level to 2nd and 3rd and decreases the mortality rate of low level characters, hopefully. Of course, it's quite likely this applies to monsters as well, giving goblins and orcs triple hit points as well. I guess that's a good thing too, makes them still useable versus slightly higher level characters.

factotum
2007-08-22, 04:26 AM
I believe the consensus is that the snippet is from mid-battle and the dragon was already damaged. The problem Matthew is pointing out, however, is how rapidly Hit Points and Damage seem to scale, to the point where a mere ancient dragon has 1000 hit points.

A mere ancient dragon? For all we know, ancient might be as high as dragons go as far as age category in the new system--we don't know that Wyrm and Great Wyrm will still exist. We also know that the base rules carry characters to level 30, and characters that high a level are going to NEED some powerful opposition. And besides, considering an Ancient Red Dragon has 527 hit points under 3.5, I wouldn't call it that much of an inflation...

Matthew
2007-08-22, 04:38 AM
You wouldn't call 100% inflation much of an inflation? The point is, though, are Damage and Hit Points just scaling or is the Dragon actually tougher to beat relative to the Characters? If we're just doubling Hit Points and Damage scales, then we're not really addressing the starting problem with Hit Points.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 04:46 AM
You wouldn't call 100% inflation much of an inflation? The point is, though, are Damage and Hit Points just scaling or is the Dragon actually tougher to beat relative to the Characters? If we're just doubling Hit Points and Damage scales, then we're not really addressing the starting problem with Hit Points.

I apologize for misinterpreting your concerns. To clarify, is your point is that because hit points and damage scales like this, the difficulty to defeat a higher level encounter is the same as a low-level encounter or that the Hit Point system is inherently flawed or both?

Reinboom
2007-08-22, 04:51 AM
You wouldn't call 100% inflation much of an inflation? The point is, though, are Damage and Hit Points just scaling or is the Dragon actually tougher to beat relative to the Characters? If we're just doubling Hit Points and Damage scales, then we're not really addressing the starting problem with Hit Points.

I'm thinking it's more likely the dragon just scaling up - and the "CR" going up with it (in relative to 3.x). The reason why the heroes are more powerful, isn't because they are more powerful in comparison to their 3.x counterparts - it's just because they are a higher level overall.
This is my hope and my guess. And they probably wished to retain Great Wyrms as 'epic'.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 05:01 AM
I apologize for misinterpreting your concerns. To clarify, is your point is that because hit points and damage scales like this, the difficulty to defeat a higher level encounter is the same as a low-level encounter or that the Hit Point system is inherently flawed or both?

No, you got it right above, it's all part and parcel.

Let's see if I can clarify.

If the game works like this:

Damage = Level X(Y)
Hit Points = Level X(Z)

Then it doesn't really matter what the values of Y and Z are relative to encounters because they are scaled to match one another. However, relative to X they are fairly important, because the values of Z and Y determine how different values of X interact.

So, for example, let's take our Ancient Dragon with 1,000 HP (for the sake of argument we'll call it CR 20) and contrast him with an Orc with 10 Hit Points (who for the sake of argument we'll call CR 1).

Special defences and attacks notwithstanding (i.e. all being equal), the Fighter 20 needs to be doing 100 times the damage he was doing at Level 1 to make the same impact on an Ancient Dragon at Level 20 as he did on an Orc at Level 1. Extra Attacks go some way towards enabling this, but we're not clear how they work in 4e (and in 3e they work not very well).

So, what I am wondering, is what's the point in scaling things up like this? Is this evidence for a much higher Hit Point Base Line? Is that really the answer to the HP problem?

nagora
2007-08-22, 05:10 AM
Some more notes:
It seems to of had 1000hp, and 49 AC. It also seemingly could use a centered on self burst effect.

Also, I was just planning on posting this.

This must be what it was like for the people in the lifeboats watching the Titanic sink.

What a joke.:smallfrown:

nagora
2007-08-22, 05:13 AM
So, what I am wondering, is what's the point in scaling things up like this? Is this evidence for a much higher Hit Point Base Line? Is that really the answer to the HP problem?

You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 05:16 AM
Just by way of comparison:

A 2e AD&D 20 Hit Dice Dragon (an appropriate challenge for a Fighter 20 and party, I think) might have 100 Hit Points and a 1 Hit Die Orc (an appropriate challenge for a Fighter 1 and party) might have 5 Hit Points. A Fighter 20 needs to do 20 times the Damage to the Dragon than he does to the Orc to make the same impact, a much smaller increment.


You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.

Okay, that may or may not be true, but let's try and look at it from the 'design perspective' that Wizards tell us they have [i.e. making the game fairer and more fun].

Reinboom
2007-08-22, 05:22 AM
You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.

I really don't think this is it. First, we need a system - we need to know why. Is it just high HD? High con? What? Does the '10 level racial advancement' effect dragons as well? (of course)
Since there is a 30 level stretch, I'm guessing that at least 5 of it is HD.
Wizards did say that they tried to make two partys of equal numbers appear as an equal combat (I forget where I heard this). I can't see a full senseless addition since everything seams to just be stretch scaling, not just scaling.
I really think that Ancient are the new Great Wyrms and Great Wyrms are.. something much more epic now.

So, unless they just said... 'You get 2 HD each level!'... my trust is loosely into WotC. They've been decently good about keeping a lot of things to a systematic process, and I'm relying on this.

-Edit-
Also, to me, it doesn't matter too much if it does end up being a 'large numbers rulez!' issue; we still haven't really gotten down to: does it work and is it fun?

Zincorium
2007-08-22, 05:23 AM
You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.

I think the term 'vitriol' is appropriate here.

That, and you're taking for granted that your profoundly bitter and spiteful position is reflected by everybody. Which, if they don't say so themselves, is more than a little rude.


Why do I think it is? To make sure that the difference between that massive, battle-hungry dragon and a simple goblin is beyond real comparison.

Seriously, how is one even supposed to kill a dragon bigger than an elephant with a regular sword? No matter how sharp it is, or how hard you swing it, it's simply not big enough to do real damage without some magical energy or supernatural levels of skill to increase it's effect. The dragon being almost completely uninjured by the average sword is sensible. On the other hand, when your blade contains more raw magic than an entire city and freezes flesh solid with a touch, then maybe you can affect the critter.

nagora
2007-08-22, 05:37 AM
Seriously, how is one even supposed to kill a dragon bigger than an elephant with a regular sword?

Well, since we're talking about dragons here the traditional answer is that it's surprisingly easy if you can strike the correct point. This is better represented by a very high armour class rather than enough hit points to float the QE2.

Regardless, there is an obvious trend in D&D towards bigger and bigger numbers for levels, hit points, and damage. This is a futile inflation which strains disbelief more and more. It used to be regarded as a problem that a 10th level fighter had a chance of surviving a half mile drop; now the same fighter would be 25th+ level (assuming similar time of play) and practially land on his/her feet with little inconvenience. There are many other places where the inflation causes problems for suspention of disbelief and therefore for role-playing.

The whole system is drifting into being a superhero game. For sufficently large values of "drifting"!

Dausuul
2007-08-22, 05:38 AM
So, for example, let's take our Ancient Dragon with 1,000 HP (for the sake of argument we'll call it CR 20) and contrast him with an Orc with 10 Hit Points (who for the sake of argument we'll call CR 1).

Special defences and attacks notwithstanding (i.e. all being equal), the Fighter 20 needs to be doing 100 times the damage he was doing at Level 1 to make the same impact on an Ancient Dragon at Level 20 as he did on an Orc at Level 1. Extra Attacks go some way towards enabling this, but we're not clear how they work in 4e (and in 3e they work not very well).

In 3E, an ancient red dragon already has more than a hundred times the hit points of a standard orc warrior (527 versus 5).

Of course, the orc (CR 1/2) is meant to be cannon fodder at low levels, while the dragon (CR 23) is a high-level BBEG. And it's also fallacious to suppose that monster hit points scaling by a factor of 100 means damage output will scale by the same factor. A fight against a dragon should take longer than a fight against an orc.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 05:39 AM
Well, since we're talking about dragons here the traditional answer is that it's surprisingly easy if you can strike the correct point. This is better represented by a very high armour class rather than enough hit points to float the QE2.

Yeah, I have to agree with this and I was thinking more or less the same thing. It doesn't take an awful lot to kill a Dragon in fantasy if you can actually strike home. Traditionally, Dragons are speared to death.


In 3E, an ancient red dragon already has more than a hundred times the hit points of a standard orc warrior (527 versus 5).

Of course, the orc (CR 1/2) is meant to be cannon fodder at low levels, while the dragon (CR 23) is a high-level BBEG. And it's also fallacious to suppose that monster hit points scaling by a factor of 100 means damage output will scale by the same factor. A fight against a dragon should take longer than a fight against an orc.

Sure, and I'm not saying 3e is better or 4e is worse or anything, I'm just wondering about the scale. 500 to 5 is the same as 1,000 to 10 (which is why I chose those values) in terms of encounters matched to level (though the difference is significant when you stray out of that territory). It's not fallicious at all, as far as I can see, it's just an example to illustrate why I question the wisdom of increasing Hit Points and Damage relative to one another. If you're still doing the same proportional damage, why increase the incremental scale? I am especially interested because I heard the increments of power were going to be smaller and it looks like they aren't.

Ramos
2007-08-22, 05:48 AM
That applies to relatively small dragons. In movies/fantasy novels that dragons are speared to death we don't see really big dragons.

Besides, if a dragon were a normal reptile following normal physics, it would be practically impossible to kill it with spears-killing a crocodile or rhino with spears is already problematic. Imagine a creature 1000 times larger (10 times in each dimension).

Spearing a dragon is the equivalent of attempting to kill a human wearing leathers using a 1 inch pin wielded by a 1 inch creature that can neither fly nor climb. Barring immense strength for their size, poison or magic, the human will simply stomp the 1 inch creatures to death regardless of their numbers.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 05:49 AM
Um, Smaug was killed by Bard the Bowman with one Arrow. I'm guessing he was pretty big.

That said, it would be interesting to find some data on the size of fictional Dragons, but I suspect size wil be mutable in fiction. How about Dragonlance, that must present some significant data?

Starsinger
2007-08-22, 05:50 AM
You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.

It's probably not healthy to be carrying around that much negativity, you're liable to become undead...

Zincorium
2007-08-22, 05:57 AM
Well, since we're talking about dragons here the traditional answer is that it's surprisingly easy if you can strike the correct point. This is better represented by a very high armour class rather than enough hit points to float the QE2.

Striking it at the right point with something a bit more than a steel shank. Besides, you've just described a critical hit. Impaling any portion of the anatomy that will seriously inconvenience a dragon with kill a human, no matter how tough, outright, when done with a large piece of sharp metal. And I'd really rather AC get a bit back towards 'hard to actually hit' rather than simply hard to damage, there's way too much overlap right now with both hit points and DR.

I'm not aware of many medieval legends of dragons where they're described as much bigger than a horse. And even in those, and the vast majority of fantasy novels, the hero is not only the best warrior in the land, but usually armed with significant magical armament. You don't pick up a conscript's spear and kill the dragon, you use the spear of your forefathers that has the blessing of 12 gods and some crone on the hill.

And it takes more than a single try. Many 'worms' of legend had to be chopped to bits before they stopped being a deadly threat.

Seriously, if there are popular legends where a perfectly normal soldier kills the dragon with a normal weapon in a few hits, I haven't read them. Extremely high hit points keeps the truly legendary dragons, the ones you aren't supposed to mess with, from even being threatened by a few spears driven into it's hide.

Reinboom
2007-08-22, 06:00 AM
That applies to relatively small dragons. In movies/fantasy novels that dragons are speared to death we don't see really big dragons.

Besides, if a dragon were a normal reptile following normal physics, it would be practically impossible to kill it with spears-killing a crocodile or rhino with spears is already problematic. Imagine a creature 1000 times larger (10 times in each dimension).

Spearing a dragon is the equivalent of attempting to kill a human wearing leathers using a 1 inch pin wielded by a 1 inch creature that can neither fly nor climb. Barring immense strength for their size, poison or magic, the human will simply stomp the 1 inch creatures to death regardless of their numbers.

While the immense weight and internal pressure of the lizard pulls down upon itself, grounding it, and crushing down - making a rather large undexterous creature (read: dinosaur) - that would have MUCH less than 10 dex. Coupled on the fact that wings would be difficult to work, since the body mass just wouldn't hold, unless the bone structure was lighter (and probably to the point of easily crushable). The way fantasy depicts dragons, how they move, fly, sway, and all so... naturally just isn't that conceivable. I don't think stressing what things do to something that would be more likely to die from starvation from an unworkable body should be brought up. Their hides won't really be that much thicker than that of most other creatures (though obviously thicker to some extent.) Not everything scales with size, after all - some things are in amount alone.
I don't want to threaten my own life here with even trying to conceive this... :smalleek:

Also (for size), dragons are different par setting. FR's hell has been noted to contain dragons "10x larger than that of the oldest dragon in faerun".

Matthew
2007-08-22, 06:01 AM
I'm not aware of many medieval legends of dragons where they're described as much bigger than a horse. And even in those, and the vast majority of fantasy novels, the hero is not only the best warrior in the land, but usually armed with significant magical armament. You don't pick up a conscript's spear and kill the dragon, you use the spear of your forefathers that has the blessing of 12 gods and some crone on the hill.

Okay, well you may want to familiarise yourself with Beowulf, as the Dragon in that is 50' long (by way of comparison, an Adult Black Dragon in AD&D is 30' long) and Beowulf kills it with an unremarkable Dagger (and though Beowulf himself is remarkable, he's not Superman, I think I counted four blows between him and Wiglaf).

nagora
2007-08-22, 06:12 AM
It's probably not healthy to be carrying around that much negativity, you're liable to become undead...

I know. I just keep wanting the game to get better but it's been a steady downhill run from 1e's Unearthed Arcana. The truth is that D&D's target market is a much younger one that it was originally and it's too much to hope, while that is making money for someone, that interesting ideas and dramatic role-playing will feature in the design above "cool" new weapons and spells.

I think this thread has finally convinced me that D&D as a role-playing game is dead and gone, the trend towards a straight-down-the-line board game with selectable characters that I see in 3e is going to continue into 4e and beyond.

Alas, D&D, I loved you well, but now you love another, younger man. But I still have your picture from that first flush of passion in the summer of '78 when we met. :smallsigh:

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 06:13 AM
Matthew, you often say things that seem very insightful. It makes me wish I could tap into your brain, drain out all the D&D-related knowledge, and then convert it into a .pdf or hardcover book :smalltongue:



It's probably not healthy to be carrying around that much negativity, you're liable to become undead...


hehe



You know fine well that the point is to appeal to kids who want to compare damage and hit point figures in adolecent pissing contests. It's utterly pathetic.


I agree though I would have masked my hatred for such things with a thicker veil.

nagora
2007-08-22, 06:16 AM
I agree though I would have masked my hatred for such things with a thicker veil.

Honesty is the best policy, my ma always said.

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 06:19 AM
Okay, well you may want to familiarise yourself with Beowulf, as the Dragon in that is 50' long (by way of comparison, an Adult Black Dragon in AD&D is 30' long) and Beowulf kills it with an unremarkable Dagger (and though Beowulf himself is remarkable, he's not Superman, I think I counted four blows between him and Wiglaf).

Doesn't Beowulf die from that battle?

Alright, my question: Should a high challenge rating monster be a harder challenge to a proportionately high level party then a low challenge rating monster is to a proportionately low level party?

Zincorium
2007-08-22, 06:20 AM
Okay, well you may want to familiarise yourself with Beowulf, as the Dragon in that is 50' long (by way of comparison, an Adult Black Dragon in AD&D is 30' long) and Beowulf kills it with an unremarkable Dagger (and though Beowulf himself is remarkable, he's not Superman, I think I counted four blows between him and Wiglaf).

I'm more familiar with this translation:

here (http://www.lone-star.net/literature/beowulf/beowulf11.htm)

Where it is mentioned several times how Beowulf's really nice sword shattered and broke without harming the dragon.

Wiglaf's sword is 'made by giants' and 'an ancient heirloom' of notable power. It ain't ordinary.

And again, Beowulf and Wiglaf are the bravest and best warriors around. Despite this, it doesn't end well.


I'm not seeing any contradictions with what I said. Extraordinary people with extraordinary weapons still are more than challenged killing a dragon.


Edit: Also, can you give me any basis for the 50' measure? I'm not disagreeing that it's the case, I've simply never seen any distinct figures.

Dausuul
2007-08-22, 06:24 AM
Um, Smaug was killed by Bard the Bowman with one Arrow. I'm guessing he was pretty big.

That said, it would be interesting to find some data on the size of fictional Dragons, but I suspect size wil be mutable in fiction. How about Dragonlance, that must present some significant data?

I have the impression that Tolkien once described Smaug as being 60 feet long, tail included, but I don't remember where I got that number. I just made a very rough estimate on my Gargantuan Black Dragon figure which puts it at 80-90 feet--again, tail included. Assuming we're talking about a Gargantuan dragon and not a Colossal one, Smaug is a decent comparison.

(To back up the Gargantuan measurement, a purple worm is described as being 80 feet long (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/purpleWorm.htm).)

Matthew
2007-08-22, 06:42 AM
Matthew, you often say things that seem very insightful. It makes me wish I could tap into your brain, drain out all the D&D-related knowledge, and then convert it into a .pdf or hardcover book :smalltongue:
Glad to be of service, though I imagine any such book would be a garbled mess of 'options' :smallbiggrin:.


I'm more familiar with this translation:

here (http://www.lone-star.net/literature/beowulf/beowulf11.htm)

Where it is mentioned several times how Beowulf's really nice sword shattered and broke without harming the dragon.

Wiglaf's sword is 'made by giants' and 'an ancient heirloom' of notable power. It ain't ordinary.

Sure, I'm looking at Seamus Heaney's translation (not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm led to believe to be quite accurate). Beowulf's Sword (Naeglung) is a pretty great one, as well, I think, same as Wiglaf's. Exactly what properties the Sword has is impossible to determine in game terms, all we really know is that it would keep its edge against the Dragon.


And again, Beowulf and Wiglaf are the bravest and best warriors around. Despite this, it doesn't end well.

I'm not seeing any contradictions with what I said. Extraordinary people with extraordinary weapons still are more than challenged killing a dragon.

Sure, but it's the degree of extraordinary. Beowulf and Wiglaf have excellent swords, but they don't have overt magical abilities, they're just really good, and could be as much Masterwork as Magical. Certainly, Beowulf uses an unremarkable Knife to the same effect. Yeah, Beowulf and Wiglaf are mighty Warriors, but what level are they? What are their game statistics? We just don't know.
So, we're left in a circular bind. We say Beowulf and Wiglaf must be Level X and have magical weapons Y, because a 50' Dragon in 3e is CR Z. That, to me, sounds odd. It's fine in the isolated context of translating that particular conflict in Beowulf to 3e, but how does it impact the other elements of the game world and its consistant translation? As I said, I have no problem when Levels are scaled to encounters, that's not a problem, it's how Levels interact with one another that trouble me. The increments between levels appear to be getting greater.


Edit: Also, can you give me any basis for the 50' measure? I'm not disagreeing that it's the case, I've simply never seen any distinct figures.
Sure, p. 95 in Heaney, when the Geats find the bodies of Beowulf and the Dragon.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-22, 06:53 AM
Breath weapon as a free action? Hmm, I wonder if they will just remove spellcasting altogether then.

Zincorium
2007-08-22, 06:57 AM
My point is not that Beowulf and co were specifically high level, but that the dragon was simply out of reach of anyone else around at that time.

The conversion to D&D is less mechanical than thematic. Dragons shouldn't be defeated by anyone except the PCs, but of course there has to be a basis for that or it's just an idea.

If you create mechanics that make anyone except the experienced, battle hardened main characters capable of defeating the legendary, city demolishing dragon, then it becomes less of an accomplishment.

And in any case, Bard with the black arrow and Beowulf's saga (whichever translation is taken as the most pertinent) confirm that no one else could even touch the dragon. And that's the point.

If Bard can hit a single small point on a flying, fire breathing target obscured by smoke and massive flapping wings based on hearsay without the ability to visually confirm which spot, and furthermore hit it directly on with a single shot, it's fairly safe to say he's done something that's pretty darn incredible. And 'the Black Arrow' does not seem ordinary to me, it seems like a fairly unique bit of equipment.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-22, 07:08 AM
Aside, I'm taking this as if... immediate actions wholely replace attack of opportunities. If so, glory!
I see the fighter charging and no dragon swinging in.
I'm assuming a charge simply doesn't provoke from your target anymore, the rogues movement still seems to provoke. AoOs simply seem to have been made immediate actions, reducing them to one a round and making the cost of taking them much higher (if there are as many swift action options as in the present game probably too high 99% of the time, for instance if that dragon had been able to take an AoO earlier in the round he wouldn't have been able to make the half hp area breath attack ... very poor trade).

Matthew
2007-08-22, 07:17 AM
My point is not that Beowulf and co were specifically high level, but that the dragon was simply out of reach of anyone else around at that time.

I don't think that's true. Surely, the significance of that final battle is the failure of his other eleven companions to help face the Dragon. Indeed, the whole theme of that piece, to my mind, is that the failure of the Geats to stand together (and reliance on the individual to defend the community) leads to their eventual destruction.


The conversion to D&D is less mechanical than thematic. Dragons shouldn't be defeated by anyone except the PCs, but of course there has to be a basis for that or it's just an idea.

Why not, though? Why should only the Player Characters be capable of destroying a Dragon? Surely, one of the key problems with D&D is that so many of the Monsters are so far above Mortal Man that it becomes difficult to explain why they aren't over running Mortal Kingdoms? I think we may have different expectations here. I want ordinary NPCs to be capable of defending themselves in an organised manner.


If you create mechanics that make anyone except the experienced, battle hardened main characters capable of defeating the legendary, city demolishing dragon, then it becomes less of an accomplishment.

How so? If you are powered up to defeat the Dragon, how is it an accomplishment at all?


And in any case, Bard with the black arrow and Beowulf's saga (whichever translation is taken as the most pertinent) confirm that no one else could even touch the dragon. And that's the point.

I wouldn't agree. Bard doesn't have to have been equal to the CR of Smaug to defeat him.


If Bard can hit a single small point on a flying, fire breathing target obscured by smoke and massive flapping wings based on hearsay without the ability to visually confirm which spot, and furthermore hit it directly on with a single shot, it's fairly safe to say he's done something that's pretty darn incredible. And 'the Black Arrow' does not seem ordinary to me, it seems like a fairly unique bit of equipment.

Now you're exaggerating. Bard and his company of Bowmen stand against Smaug together and unleash many Arrows against the Dragon. At the last, when almost all Arrows are spent and his Men are abandoning him, the Old Thrush gives Bard some advice and he shoots his best Arrow (Magical perhaps) and slays old Smaug. That sounds a lot to me, in D&D terms, like a gradual eroding of Hit Points, followed by an enhanced final shot [i.e. not that Bard did 1,000 Hit Point Damage in the last Round].

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 07:21 AM
Honesty is the best policy, my ma always said.

Yeah, but calling a fat kid fat to his face is just mean.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 07:47 AM
From ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3719956&postcount=45)


Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.

(The example combat cannot possibly start on round 1. It's more likely round 4 or 5. Dragons take a LOT more than 2 hits to go down, and no PC will come close to doing 500 hit points of damage to a single target with one attack.)

Dizlag
2007-08-22, 07:58 AM
First off, I didn't get the impression that the fighter did 500+ points of damage in one swing either, just did enough to reduce the dragon below 50% of his HPs. Question(s) is(are), did the fighter draw an AOO for the immediate action or will everyone get an immediate action if they're reduced below 50% of their HPs or is this just a special ability for dragons?

A comment on the cleric healing the wizard after she critically hits the dragon. There is a feat in the Dragonmarked sourcebook for Eberron that is called "Healing Strike". If you have this feat (the prerequisite is a dragonmark of Healing) and hit a foe with a melee attack, then by spenting an action point you can heal yourself or an adjacent ally. It would seem they are tooling around with this concept for 4th Edition as a special ability for clerics. I'm not sure how I like this though. It's not one of your old school cleric abilities, that's for sure. And I always thought the cleric is either healing or attacking in one round ... not both.

Hmmm, like I said ... not sure how I feel. It's a little over the top, but lately I've been playing pulp action roleplaying in Eberron and Savage Worlds.

Dizlag

EDIT: Thank you mudbunny for posting that! whew!!

nagora
2007-08-22, 08:00 AM
I don't think that's true. Surely, the significance of that final battle is the failure of his other eleven companions to help face the Dragon. Indeed, the whole theme of that piece, to my mind, is that the failure of the Geats to stand together (and reliance on the individual to defend the community) leads to their eventual destruction.

That's a good point; in fact I can see an argument that a dragon's real defense is fear. Fear and a ruthless dedication to the pope...I'll come in again.

If you can't get near the beast without running away (save Vs fear) you ain't going to kill it with any damn sword!

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 08:09 AM
<snip>

EDIT: Thank you mudbunny for posting that! whew!!

No problem. I just find it really funny how the community has been mostly polarized on 4th edition, without there being any substantial information available upon which to base the opinions.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 08:13 AM
No problem. I just find it really funny how the community has been mostly polarized on 4th edition, without there being any substantial information available upon which to base the opinions.

Do note that none of us actually expected the Fighter to have really done 500+ Damage in that Round, as was noted on page 1 of this Thread. The polarisation is really over the increments of power and whether they really will be smaller over the course of thirty levels. I'm hearing a lot about how Level X Characters will find Level X Challenges the same fairness as Level X-10 Characters facing Level X-10 Challenges, but that doesn't speak to incremental power levels, which a Dragon with 1,000 Hit Points gives some hint of. Besides which, this is all speculation on our part and specualtion that Wizards wants to encourage (indeed, I would say that was the whole point of releasing an article of that type).

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-22, 08:43 AM
(and though Beowulf himself is remarkable, he's not Superman...Shenanigans.

Beowulf swims across oceans and kills monsters by tearing off their arms and beating them to death with them. He's the prototypical Superman, if a more brutal one.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 08:45 AM
At level 15 in 3.5e a fighter* can easily do around 200 damage on a charge without too much trouble (probably more since newer splat-books are out). If it is expected to be around the 4th or 5th round of combat against the dragon, 500 damage does not seem to be a large increase in damage. If the HP is increasing that is a flat increase in personal defenses. I am a fan of more cinematic and deadlier combat (with actual penalties as you get weakened), but this is a boon for high fantasy.



*By fighter I mean I am including multiclassing with barbarian and taking a decent PRC.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 08:56 AM
Shenanigans.

Beowulf swims across oceans and kills monsters by tearing off their arms and beating them to death with them. He's the prototypical Superman.
Back at you. Superman shoots laser beams out of his eyes and flys around the place (depending on which version you choose). He can also, apparently, freeze stuff with his breathe.

Beowulf doesn't beat anybody to death with their own arm. Grendel loses his arm struggling to escape Beowulf's hold and goes off to die. Beowulf, possesses superhuman Strength for sure. As for his swimming across Oceans, well, people do swim across the channel, I don't recall Beowulf's course (I think he ends up at Finland). Certainly, Beowulf possesses amazing strength to swim fully armed for so long and fight the Monsters of the deep, but if he was superman, he'd just fly over the water.

iop
2007-08-22, 09:03 AM
The rogue that was tail slapped was trying to sneak up from behind. Facing rules are core?
That would encourage playing with minis, which would help selling stuff for WoTC. Thus, I consider it likely.

Person_Man
2007-08-22, 09:05 AM
The article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Action Advantage: It's clear from the article that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, Quickened spells, and Swift/Immediate Actions still exist. Considering that most combats are only 1-6 rounds long, this is one of the easiest ways to slow down combat and break game balance.
I wish they had removed them.

Facing: Adding facing while keeping AoO is going to be a huge annoyance.

AC: I was hoping they would replace Armor Class with the Star Wars Saga combined AC/Saves: Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, and Will Defense. It saves a ton of time when making area of effect attacks.

Fireballs make you catch on Fire: Keeping track of minute details like this isn't fun, its just more bookkeeping. It's just one more rule everyone has to memorize, and one more token to keep track of on the battle map.

Tyger
2007-08-22, 09:10 AM
The article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Scope man, Listerine, something... quick!


Facing: Adding facing while keeping AoO is going to be a huge annoyance.

Not necessarily. The rogue may well ahve just been trying to flank the dragon, from behind. Could be pure fluff. I know my parties rogue still calls it "backstab" when he sneak attacks. As for actually having facing rules, I can't decide whether that would be a good thing or not. Hard to say really.


Fireballs make you catch on Fire: Keeping track of minute details like this isn't fun, its just more bookkeeping. It's just one more rule everyone has to memorize, and one more token to keep track of on the battle map.

There are already a tonne of spells/effects which do this, and many of them are even core, so that's not really a big change.

All in all, I like what I am seeing so far. It looks like yes, it may be a bit of power creep, but at the same time, maybe, just maybe, they've streamlined some of the problem areas, while still keeping the heroes in the game.

Personally, I'm going to wait to see. I'll pick up the books when they hit the shelves, and then make up my mind.

Thinker
2007-08-22, 09:11 AM
The article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Action Advantage: It's clear from the article that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, Quickened spells, and Swift/Immediate Actions still exist. Considering that most combats are only 1-6 rounds long, this is one of the easiest ways to slow down combat and break game balance.
I wish they had removed them.

Facing: Adding facing while keeping AoO is going to be a huge annoyance.

AC: I was hoping they would replace Armor Class with the Star Wars Saga combined AC/Saves: Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, and Will Defense. It saves a ton of time when making area of effect attacks.

Fireballs make you catch on Fire: Keeping track of minute details like this isn't fun, its just more bookkeeping. It's just one more rule everyone has to memorize, and one more token to keep track of on the battle map.

In some countries all they eat is vomit. I read about it...in a book!

I agree that facing + AOO would be annoying. Also facing without hexes would get more cumbersome. I haven't read through the Saga edition. How are their defenses different from other d20 saves?

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 09:15 AM
The article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Action Advantage: It's clear from the article that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, Quickened spells, and Swift/Immediate Actions still exist. Considering that most combats are only 1-6 rounds long, this is one of the easiest ways to slow down combat and break game balance.
I wish they had removed them.

Where do you get from the article the info that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, and Quickened spells still exist? All we got was a fluff description of what happened. No details on the mechanics at all.


Facing: Adding facing while keeping AoO is going to be a huge annoyance.

Again, where??


Fireballs make you catch on Fire: Keeping track of minute details like this isn't fun, its just more bookkeeping. It's just one more rule everyone has to memorize, and one more token to keep track of on the battle map.

As opposed to the numerous other spells that have effects that last a number of rounds??

iop
2007-08-22, 09:19 AM
Where do you get from the article the info that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, and Quickened spells still exist? All we got was a fluff description of what happened. No details on the mechanics at all.
All the article said was that the dragon uses a special ability which gives it an additional standard action. Thus, it is at least possible that there will be something that grants the same to players.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 09:28 AM
All the article said was that the dragon uses a special ability which gives it an additional standard action. Thus, it is at least possible that there will be something that grants the same to players.

The article also said that the dragon, because it was dropped below 1/2 hitpoints, was able to use it's breath weapon as an immediate action.

I am fairly surprised that people aren't complaining about power creep in giving PCs the ability to do the same thing. After all,


...it is at least possible that there will be something that grants the same to players.

We have no mechanics on how it did that. To take fluff words in an article, and then apply that to specific 3.5 splatbook feats and complain that those feats are obviously still going to be in 4th Edition, thus 4th edition is broken is, well, kindof absurd and jumping the gun.

Sebastian
2007-08-22, 09:34 AM
In 3E, an ancient red dragon already has more than a hundred times the hit points of a standard orc warrior (527 versus 5).

Of course, the orc (CR 1/2) is meant to be cannon fodder at low levels, while the dragon (CR 23) is a high-level BBEG. And it's also fallacious to suppose that monster hit points scaling by a factor of 100 means damage output will scale by the same factor. A fight against a dragon should take longer than a fight against an orc.

For a complete analisys you should see how damage scale with level, too IIRC in 2nd a 20 level fighter did around 4 times the damage of a 1 st level fighter, including magic bonuses, weapon specializzation, extra attacks and what else, I'm not sure but I think this number is much higher for 3.xrd fighters, (to not mention casters.)

Sebastian
2007-08-22, 09:36 AM
The article also said that the dragon, because it was dropped below 1/2 hitpoints, was able to use it's breath weapon as an immediate action.


I think it means that it can do it because the fighter charged. (i.e. immediate action replace attack of opportuny.)

Matthew
2007-08-22, 09:39 AM
Doesn't Beowulf die from that battle?

Yes


Alright, my question: Should a high challenge rating monster be a harder challenge to a proportionately high level party then a low challenge rating monster is to a proportionately low level party?

Good question this and I think it is an important one. The old 1e PHB and DMG talk a lot about 'skilled play' and 'experienced players', but I am never quite sure what they mean. Are we talking Tactics or Strategy? Are we talking about Rules familiarity? It's hard to say in a game as mutable as 1e, because experience under one DM might not lend itself to being helpful under another. On the other hand, the mortality rate was arguably higher in 1e and that does suggest that there was more skill involved (though that could just be dumb luck as anything else).

I think Level to CR is a kind of smokescreen. It is only really a precise guide when a number of other assumptions are also in play. Whilst I know it was not everybody's experience of AD&D, I have to say I never had a problem scaling encounters or a fear of putting difficult/virtually unbeatable enemies into an Adventure, mainly because Players were very picky about when and how they fought monsters. So, I wonder if it's not the case that an Adventure should be more difficult for new players than veterans and whether that should be taken into account? I think a lot of the higher level challenges in D&D need to be radically different from just more HP and treasure.


For a complete analisys you should see how damage scale with level, too IIRC in 2nd a 20 level fighter did around 4 times the damage of a 1 st level fighter, including magic bonuses, weapon specializzation, extra attacks and what else, I'm not sure but I think this number is much higher for 3.xrd fighters, (to not mention casters.)

Assuming access to some fairly potent Magic, an AD&D Level 20 Fighter probably looked something like:

Gauntlets of Ogre Power (+6 Damage)
Double Weapon Specialistaion (+3 Damage)
Magical Weapon +5 (1D8+5 Damage)
2.5 Attacks per Round

whilst a Level 1 Fighter was probably
Strength 16 (+1 Damage)
Weapon Specialisation (+2 Damage)
Mundane Weapon (1D8 Damage)
1.5 Attacks per Round

Without Specialisation, it's easier to measure, as it would be:

Fighter 1: 1 Attack for 2-9 Points of Damage
Fighter 20: 2 Attacks for 12-19 Points of Damage

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-22, 09:42 AM
I'm suspecting the Fighter took some mad Feat Tree(whatever it gets renamed to in 4.x) that grants him the power to hit his enemies down to half their health. Maybe some kind of "Telling Blow"(Yes, I realise PHB2 has a Feat by that name), which requires Power Attack, Improved Critical, maybe even Overwhelming Critical(Underwhelming at Epic). Or 4.x has a system where you trade in attacks for damage. *shrugs*

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 09:44 AM
The article also said that the dragon, because it was dropped below 1/2 hitpoints, was able to use it's breath weapon as an immediate action.I think it means that it can do it because the fighter charged. (i.e. immediate action replace attack of opportuny.)

See, even before we get to the point of talking about what abilities we are attributing to the actions of the dragons/PCs, there are disagreements about the interpretation of the phrasing of the article.

How can you realistically have mechanics discussions without *any* details of the mechanics??

Brings this (http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Saxe.html) old poem to mind.

Tyger
2007-08-22, 09:46 AM
I'm suspecting the Fighter took some mad Feat Tree(whatever it gets renamed to in 4.x) that grants him the power to hit his enemies down to half their health. Maybe some kind of "Telling Blow"(Yes, I realise PHB2 has a Feat by that name), which requires Power Attack, Improved Critical, maybe even Overwhelming Critical(Underwhelming at Epic). Or 4.x has a system where you trade in attacks for damage. *shrugs*


Kit, its been noted, and explained by the developers, that the fighter did not take the dragon to half hit points with one hit. See the above posts.

Telonius
2007-08-22, 09:53 AM
It seems pretty clear to me from the article that Attacks of Opportunity have gone the way of the Flumph. (Though who knows if those will make it back to the 4.0 MM...)

It's unclear if facing will be there.

What I *am* happy about is (apparently) a power boost to dragons. When the monster is in the name of the game, it should be the scariest thing around.

Person_Man
2007-08-22, 09:55 AM
Where do you get from the article the info that things like Time Stop, White Raven Tactics, Hustle, Cunning Surge, and Quickened spells still exist? All we got was a fluff description of what happened. No details on the mechanics at all.

The dragon uses a Free Action to attack somehow. Then makes a Standard Action attack with 2 claws (most likely 2 attack rolls with one standard action). Then it uses another Free Action to attack. Then it uses a special ability to gain another Standard Action to cast a spell. Then it uses its Move Action. Then during the Fighter's turn, it uses an Immediate Action to attack again. Therefore its reasonable to assume from the evidence that a round is not limited to one Move and one Standard Action per PC/monster (or one Full Round Action per PC/monster, if they keep Full Round Actions).

Given the right special abilities, it is possible to gain tons of extra actions, massively slowing down combat and possibly breaking the game. In 3.5, examples of these action advantage abilities were the ones I listed. Given the fact that a dragon can use these abilities in 4.0, they'll have to write rules in the core rule book explaining how extra actions work. So I think its reasonable to assume that similar abilities will be available to PCs in 4.0 as well. For example, Immediate Actions are clearly being kept. Thus its reasonable to assume that PCs can take Immediate Actions of some sorts, interrupting the normal flow of combat, gaining an action advantage, and slowing down the game.



Again, where??

Facing is implied: "Now the rogue moves around to flank with the fighter. Ordinarily, that would let the dragon use its tail slap again as an immediate action, but the dragon has used its immediate action already." Something had to trigger the potential Immediate Action. Either it was the Rogue attacking the dragon's rear (which means facing exists) or it was the Rogue attacking the dragon while it was flanked. The second is more likely, but the fact that they didn't make it clear bugged me. I play a lot of miniature games. Facing is an issue in many of them. And its clear that 4.0 is going to be more like a computer/miniature game, and less like a pure roleplaying game (in which facing is rarely used, because its impossible to keep track of without miniatures).



As opposed to the numerous other spells that have effects that last a number of rounds??

Clearly, having magical fire effects make you catch on fire is not opposed the fact that numerous other spells have effects that last a number of rounds. It's in addition to it. My point is that there are a ton of magical fire effects, and that making them last multiple rounds makes combat that much more complex, adds another layer of counters on the battle map, and adds another layer of bookkeeping to combat. This slows down combat and makes it more complex for no particular reason (except perhaps to save the lives of some Catgirls).

For years people have been complaining that 3.5 is too complex, and that combat has too many rules to remember. This makes it much more difficult for new players to start playing, and it requires DMs to be living encyclopedias of D&D rules in order to keep the game flowing. The game designers have specifically said that streamlining combat is one of the main goals of 4.0. I agree with that goal. But this article gives plenty of evidence that the exact opposite is occurring.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 10:06 AM
For years people have been complaining that 3.5 is too complex, and that combat has too many rules to remember. This makes it much more difficult for new players to start playing, and it requires DMs to be living encyclopedias of D&D rules in order to keep the game flowing. The game designers have specifically said that streamlining combat is one of the main goals of 4.0. I agree with that goal. But this article gives plenty of evidence that the exact opposite is occurring.

No. Your interpretation of the fluff and applying mechanics from one version which may or may not exist in the version being talked about means that you really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the article.

All we have is conjecture and guesses. Anything else is just unbridled optimism or FUD.

Fhaolan
2007-08-22, 10:10 AM
:smallbiggrin: Yeah, my first reading of that quote had me believing the Fighter was doing 500 hp of damage per round too. Which made me think that WotC had hired Raven McCracken for game design, because that fight sounded a *lot* like one out of Sinnabar. 'Let's take D&D and add lots of zeros at the end of every number, because doing 10,000 damage is just *cooler* than doing 10 damage.'

*shudder*

The bit that worries me is that I haven't heard anything from Raven for a few years, but I know he's still in town and I wouldn't put WotC past hiring him because he's a real-life Ninja and so he knows exactly how to make games realistic... or so he said to a group of us being forced to play Sinnabar at a con several years back. [Note: If you live in the Seattle area, it is apparantly a requirement to go to a con and have the Sinnabar experience. It will alter your view on game design forever.]

Matthew
2007-08-22, 10:16 AM
Heh, I had forgotten about your Sinnabar story, Fhaolan. I think it was obscured by FATAL.

nagora
2007-08-22, 10:24 AM
Fighter 1: 1 Attack for 2-9 Points of Damage
Fighter 20: 2 Attacks for 12-19 Points of Damage

I would generally concur (assuming level 20 was something one saw in 1e), but there's also a multiplication through by hit chance. Assuming AC0 (equals platemail and shield with a total of +2 bonues - not rare by any means), the totals are:

Fighter1: 1 attack@ 2-9 x .05 = average of .275 damage
Fighter20 2 attacks @ 12-19 x .85 = average of 26.35

For a ratio of 96:1 (!)

Interestingly, a fighter 13 (ie, my character) would be back at 18.6 with your equipment list, which is surprisingly close to what I actually had, although slightly better.

But, assuming +3 Con bonus and average rolling:

Fighter1: 8.5 hp
Fighter20@: 109.5hp

Ratio of only 13:1.

Hmmm.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-22, 10:33 AM
Back at you. Superman shoots laser beams out of his eyes and flys around the place (depending on which version you choose). He can also, apparently, freeze stuff with his breathe.Neither does The Flash, but that doesn't mean he isn't ridiculously powerful.

No, he doesn't literally have the exact same powers as Superman, but that's not exactly the point. Beowulf is madly, wildly above the realm of a normal man. Passing it off as "remarkable" sounds like a deliberate attempt to play him off as a mildly-over-the-top action hero. He quite clearly is not.

Grendel is a menace to the Danish countryside for 12 years, and remains unchallenged. Beowulf gets hammered on mead, removes his armor and weapons, and sacks in for the night in preparation. He proceeds to wake up just in time to throw down, making a veritable laughingstock of Grendel, who is left screaming like a pansy for much of the encounter. While their leader is manhandling the creature, Beowulf's men begin stabbing it, but their swords have no effect. Luckily, Beowulf is man enough to rip the arm clear off and send Grendel home dying, with his tail between his legs.

And as for that swimming match with Breca... The first unassisted swim across the English Channel was in 1875, and took nearly 22 hours. Beowulf, on the other hand, brought a sword with him, swam for 5 days -- 120 hours, for the record -- proceeded to kill 9 sea monsters, then finished his swim. And I also remind you that the current record for swimming the Channel is just over 7 hours, which goes to show the difference in fitness and health even between a hundred years ago and today. Beowulf as a written tale is 1300 years old, making the standard of a man that much lower.

Perhaps a comparison to The Hulk would be more apt for Beowulf, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty miserable example to use for a regular -- if "remarkable" -- guy killing a D&D sized dragon without much help. To illustrate this further, here's an excerpt from SparkNotes, with some emphasis added.
In Beowulf’s bloody battle against Grendel, the first part of the story reaches its climax. The poet chooses to relate much of this struggle from Grendel’s perspective rather than from Beowulf’s, emphasizing the fear and pain that Beowulf inflicts upon the demon. This narrative technique makes Beowulf seem even more godlike; he seems to be an unstoppable heroic force. Throughout the fight, Beowulf is treated as more than human. He shows himself stronger and more powerful than even the monstrous Grendel, and he seems completely invulnerable.Despite the difference of their methods, those sound quite a bit like words I'd use to describe Superman.

Oh, and mudbunny, thanks for the link to that poem. It's both clever and fitting here, in terms of all the angles 4e is getting attacked from. I think I've got a new favorite poem.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 10:49 AM
Oh, and mudbunny, thanks for the link to that poem. It's both clever and fitting here, in terms of all the angles 4e is getting attacked from. I think I've got a new favorite poem.

4e could rock. 4e could suck. Having opinions on that isn't the problem. It is basing the opinions on mechanics that haven't been shown, on features that we don't know exist in 4e that is the problem.

Cybren
2007-08-22, 11:11 AM
One must wonder, if the dragon unleashed that much carnage in a single round, how could the characters have lasted long enough to deal 500 points of damage?

Matthew
2007-08-22, 11:23 AM
Neither does The Flash, but that doesn't mean he isn't ridiculously powerful.

No, he doesn't literally have the exact same powers as Superman, but that's not exactly the point. Beowulf is madly, wildly above the realm of a normal man. Passing it off as "remarkable" sounds like a deliberate attempt to play him off as a mildly-over-the-top action hero. He quite clearly is not.

Sure, but I'm not saying Beowulf is an example of a normal Man beating a Dragon. The question is always going to be one of scale. Beowulf has one Attribute that is over the top and that is his Strength. It's also a Strength that is God given, and a trait that you will encounter again and again in Medieval Epic and Romance. What does it equate to in D&D terms? How much is the Damage Bonus? Who knows? Point is he isn't Superman, he has one of Superman's traits


Grendel is a menace to the Danish countryside for 12 years, and remains unchallenged. Beowulf gets hammered on mead, removes his armor and weapons, and sacks in for the night in preparation. He proceeds to wake up just in time to throw down, making a veritable laughingstock of Grendel, who is left screaming like a pansy for much of the encounter. While their leader is manhandling the creature, Beowulf's men begin stabbing it, but their swords have no effect. Luckily, Beowulf is man enough to rip the arm clear off and send Grendel home dying, with his tail between his legs.

Yeah, but it's not on account of feebleness that others fail to defeat Grendel, it's because he's immune to weapons, which nobody including Beowulf knows prior to Beowulf's victory. That's why his retainers fail to harm Grendel and why Beowulf's fortunate boast and decision turns out to bring him a God given victory.


And as for that swimming match with Breca... The first unassisted swim across the English Channel was in 1875, and took nearly 22 hours. Beowulf, on the other hand, brought a sword with him, swam for 5 days -- 120 hours, for the record -- proceeded to kill 9 sea monsters, then finished his swim. And I also remind you that the current record for swimming the Channel is just over 7 hours, which goes to show the difference in fitness and health even between a hundred years ago and today. Beowulf as a written tale is 1300 years old, making the standard of a man that much lower.

That is a false assumption. Health and fitness is not a linear timeline. The fitness of people one hundred years ago is not a reflection of the fitness of people 1,000 years ago.
Once again, though, I am not saying Beowulf is a normal man or even that he lives within the bounds of human capabilities, I am saying that he isn't Superman.
As far as it goes, Beowulf did not swim ashore, he was washed up, worn out (nor, as far as I can see, did he actually cross an Ocean). It is stated that he and Breca struggle for five nights against one another, but the character of that struggle is not related beyond the fact that Breca cannot outdistance Beowulf.
All of his real struggles take place during the sixth night, having been seperated from Breca and before being washed up.


Perhaps a comparison to The Hulk would be more apt for Beowulf, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty miserable example to use for a regular -- if "remarkable" -- guy killing a D&D sized dragon without much help. To illustrate this further, here's an excerpt from SparkNotes, with some emphasis added.Despite the difference of their methods, those sound quite a bit like words I'd use to describe Superman.

I was not suggesting that Beowulf was a normal man beating a Dragon. I was opposing the idea that to beat a Dragon you need a ton of magical equipment on top of being a Hero in medieval myth. I said Beowulf was remarkable but not Superman specifically to recognise that he was beyond Human, but also to suggest a limit on how far. The text condemns his ten remaining retainers for not lending him aid, presumably on the premise that they could have together beaten the Dragon (though Beowulf's intent was to fight it himself).



Honestly, I'm not clear on what the big deal is and what the hell something as unrelated to D&D mechanics as Beowulf has got to do with the power increments of 4e Level structure, which was the subject under discussion. I said Beowulf isn't Superman, you say he is the prototypical Superman. I don't even see how those two statements are contradictory. He's super strong, like Hercules and bjillions of other mythic Heroes.

Oughtn't we to be looking at D&D fictional combats with Dragons if we are searching for literary comparisons?

None of this changes the basic question, which is what is the power level disparity between a Level 1 Character and a Dragon with 1,000 Hit Points going to be in 4e?

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-22, 11:28 AM
4e could rock. 4e could suck. Having opinions on that isn't the problem. It is basing the opinions on mechanics that haven't been shown, on features that we don't know exist in 4e that is the problem.I'm afraid I may have chosen my words terribly there; when I referred to attacking 4e from all angles, I meant in the sense of "4e will rock!" as much as "4e will suck!" "I'm interested but need convincing!" "I'm turned off but want to see it before I condemn it for good!" and so on and so forth. I didn't mean it strictly as a "I'm buying 4e and people who aren't are dumb" sense. I know that personally, I like a lot of what I'm hearing about the design process, but I still want to see a finished product before I start giving it my seal of approval.

mudbunny
2007-08-22, 11:29 AM
I'm afraid I may have chosen my words terribly there; when I referred to attacking 4e from all angles, I meant in the sense of "4e will rock!" as much as "4e will suck!" "I'm interested but need convincing!" "I'm turned off but want to see it before I condemn it for good!" and so on and so forth. I didn't mean it strictly as a "I'm buying 4e and people who aren't are dumb" sense. I know that personally, I like a lot of what I'm hearing about the design process, but I still want to see a finished product before I start giving it my seal of approval.

No, I understood what you meant. My apologies for not framing what I wrote in light of that.

UserClone
2007-08-22, 11:40 AM
I don't understand the confusion of why the rogue MOVING to flank the dragon would normally provoke an attack of opportunity immediate action. In 3.5, movement out of a threatened square provokes AOO. Logically, the same would apply in 4E to the immediate action. Have a little faith in the goofy French guy from the presentation video "The game will remain zee same!"

Kurald Galain
2007-08-22, 11:50 AM
The whole system is drifting into being a superhero game. For sufficently large values of "drifting"!

QFT.

It is definitely true that the power level rises with each successive edition. That's hardly surprising either. Of course, people who don't want that can and will play at lower levels than epic, so it shouldn't be a problem except psychologically.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 12:00 PM
I would generally concur (assuming level 20 was something one saw in 1e), but there's also a multiplication through by hit chance. Assuming AC0 (equals platemail and shield with a total of +2 bonues - not rare by any means), the totals are:

Fighter1: 1 attack@ 2-9 x .05 = average of .275 damage
Fighter20 2 attacks @ 12-19 x .85 = average of 26.35

For a ratio of 96:1 (!)

Heh, yeah, I was assuming that the 'to hit chance' would be relatively constant over levels. Let's see if I can give that any proof.

Fighter 1 (THAC0 20) versus an Orc (AC 7) = 40% Hit Ratio
Fighter 20 (THAC0 1) [+8 to Hit Adjustment] vs. Bad Ass Dragon (AC -12) [this AC is from the 2e MM and perhaps not technically legal] = 80% Hit Ratio

Nope, but it is interesting that without the 'To Hit' adjustment it would still be 40%.


Interestingly, a fighter 13 (ie, my character) would be back at 18.6 with your equipment list, which is surprisingly close to what I actually had, although slightly better.

But, assuming +3 Con bonus and average rolling:

Fighter1: 8.5 hp
Fighter20@: 109.5hp

Ratio of only 13:1.

Hmmm.

Yeah, around 100 Hit Points is what I would expect of an AD&D Fighter 20. I would almost certainly grant a full Hit Die at Level 1 for 2e and use the Average suggested in Unearthed Arcana for 1e.

Result: (assuming 16 Constitution and rounding up averages)
Level | 1e | 2e
1 | 8 | 12
2 | 16 | 20
3 | 24 | 28
4 | 32 | 36
5 | 40 | 44
6 | 48 | 52
7 | 56 | 60
8 | 64 | 68
9 | 72 | 76
10 | 75 | 79
11 | 78 | 82
12 | 81 | 85
13 | 84 | 88
14 | 87 | 91
15 | 90 | 94
16 | 93 | 97
17 | 96 | 100
18 | 99 | 103
19 | 102 | 106
20 | 105 | 109

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 12:13 PM
I'm actually rather hopeful about the action sequence paradigm in 4e.

Simultaneity has always been something of a problem in turn-based games. Action-interruption is a way to get around it. In the sense that taking actions is essentially what a "turn" is, redefining how and when one takes particular action is, in a sense, redefining what that "turn" means. This means that taking multiple standard actions in a round doesn't slow combat because those actions would have been taken anyway.

What slows combat is slow resolution times and lengthy end-point goals.

Everyone in 3e is familiar with what I mean by "slow resolution time." If it takes you 30 minutes to manage each round, it doesn't matter that the combat only takes 5 rounds. It'll still take you two and a half hours to finish it.

The other determinant is "end-point goals." 1000 hp is not a good sign for me. It means that taking down the monster is going to take a LONG time, in real time. It doesn't matter how many actions it takes to make an attack, or how many actions are in a round. If it takes 1000 actions to reach your end-point, it's going to take forever to resolve it.


What I'm hoping for is a better turn simulator, faster resolution mechanics, and faster to reach end-points.

nagora
2007-08-22, 12:33 PM
Doh! I forgot the to-hit bonues. Well, anyway I think the damage ratio is still higher than I had realised, although again it's worth remembering that a 20th level Fighter simply isn't something that ever happens in 1e.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-22, 12:36 PM
Basically because this is symptomatic of the way the game is heading. 1,000 HP for a Dragon and a Fighter who can reduce it to below 500 with one blow? What's the point? Why massively increase Dragon Hit Points along with Fighter Damage? Sounds like Final Fantasy to me. Add in the Cleric who heals as a result of hitting his opponents and I am pretty much out of interest points.

That's not to say this article by itself is what is turning me off, this is just one part of the larger whole. I think I'm just going to go and languish amongst my 2e Books, bemoaning the fate of its descendents.

This is not necessarily true: we do not know at what point in the combat this short display is. Perhaps they've been whittling at the dragon for eight, ten, fifteen rounds and the Fighter's latest attack dropped it to below half HP.

Person_Man
2007-08-22, 12:38 PM
What I'm hoping for is a better turn simulator, faster resolution mechanics, and faster to reach end-points.

I agree.

There's a pretty simple way to do this. Each player gets 1 Move and 1 Standard Action. A Move can only be used for a Move. A Standard Action can be used for any 1 action. 1 attack or spell or maneuver or whatever. Each 1 whatever has 1 effect, resolved by no more than 1 die roll and 1 damage roll (if successful). Incidental actions, such as drawing a weapon or talking, are Free actions. Free Actions should never cause damage, have a direct effect on others, or replace something that would normally be a Standard Action (i.e., no Quickened spells/Immediate Actions).

Once you accept this basic premise, combat will move MUCH faster and will be much easier to understand. As players or monsters gain levels, you can simply add more options for their Standard Action, and make the 1 whatever more powerful and/or varied and/or cooler and/or able to bypass defenses. But you should never increase the amount of time it takes to resolve, because doing so slows down the game, makes the mechanics much more difficult to understand, puts off new players, and allows veteran players to exploit their greater understanding of the rules to gain a huge action/power advantage.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 12:39 PM
This is not necessarily true: we do not know at what point in the combat this short display is. Perhaps they've been whittling at the dragon for eight, ten, fifteen rounds and the Fighter's latest attack dropped it to below half HP.

Yeah, it wasn't meant to be literally true, I was (inadvisedly)* employing hyperbole, read a bit further down and you'll see my post explaining what I wanted to get at.

* I was pissed off at the time, having trawled through a crap load of posts on the Wizards Forums and EnWorld that I strongly disagreed with; encountering the 'D&D should be more like WoW' Thread for the third time particularly annoyed me. After reading the Dragon Article and the 1,000 Hit Point Dragon, I had just basically had enough.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-22, 12:40 PM
Yeah, it wasn't meant to be literally true, I was (inadvisedly) employing hyperbole, read a bit further down and you'll see my post explaining what I wanted to get at.

This is what I get for quoting before reading the whole thread. Oh well.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 12:43 PM
This is what I get for quoting before reading the whole thread. Oh well.
We've all done it and we'll all do it again, no doubt.

Elderac
2007-08-22, 12:45 PM
I have been paying closer attention to the Saga Edition of the Star Wars RPG now that 4th Edition has been announced. I feel that some of the systems that we see there (hopefully not whole cloth) will make it into 4th Edition. One thing I noticed in particular is that first level characters get quite a few hit points, not 50 like has been suggested here, but what appears to be about 3 levels of full Hit Dice. (This is based on a quick review.) After that the hit points progress like we are used to seeing.

This may have been done to make 1st level characters less fragile. It also may have been done because there is no Raise Dead in Star Wars.

I wouldn't mind seeing a compromise - say 2 full Hit Dice for first level characters and will probably implement this in my own games now.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 12:48 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing a compromise - say 2 full Hit Dice for first level characters and will probably implement this in my own games now.

I dunno, what's the point? I suspect that if they do this, they'll just make it easier to score more damage. Might as well just start off at level 2 and save us all some hassel.

Elderac
2007-08-22, 01:13 PM
After reading through the whole thread, I see there is some speculation that AOO's are gone. While I can't say one way or the other, I can say that they do remain in the Saga Edition, but seem to be simplified.

Matthew, I know people start their games at various levels. This is a completely viable option. I have ran and played in games that start at level 1and games that have started at a higher level.

Starting new characters at 1st level is more of a personal preference.

I feel that a character that has been played from first level on up to level 5 (for example) will be much, much different than one that was created at level 5, simply because the course of the game and the encounters the character goes through will shape and color the player's decisions.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:18 PM
Sure, and I agree, but giving a Player Character more Hit Points at Level 1 isn't likely going to make them much more survivable to my mind, especially if Encounters are scaled to level, if you see what I mean.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-22, 01:50 PM
The Cleric seems to have killed the Crusader and looted his stuff. (he stole his abilities)
He hit and healed someone within 10 or 20 feet I think. That is a Crusader ability.

Elderac
2007-08-22, 01:52 PM
Yes, I agree. If first level encounters are similarly scaled, then it is not an improvment.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-22, 01:55 PM
The Cleric seems to have killed the Crusader and looted his stuff. (he stole his abilities)
He hit and healed someone within 10 or 20 feet I think. That is a Crusader ability.

They did say that "material presented in ToB and in SW-Saga will appear in 4e".

Green Bean
2007-08-22, 01:57 PM
The Cleric seems to have killed the Crusader and looted his stuff. (he stole his abilities)
He hit and healed someone within 10 or 20 feet I think. That is a Crusader ability.

It seems like an ability that could be flavoured up pretty easily.

"Ares, god of war, honours skilled warriors above all. When one of his clerics performs a particularly outstanding martial feat (i.e. scoring a critical), he will bless him or one of his companions with renewed strength."

Jothki
2007-08-22, 02:12 PM
It seems like an ability that could be flavoured up pretty easily.

"Ares, god of war, honours skilled warriors above all. When one of his clerics performs a particularly outstanding martial feat (i.e. scoring a critical), he will bless him or one of his companions with renewed strength."

It also seems like a good way to make a cleric useful in close combat without needing to buff it up to the level of a Fighter.

Erloas
2007-08-22, 02:38 PM
In terms of number scaling to bigger numbers, it is a good thing. The bigger the number you have the more it can be broken down and balanced.

Just like with dice, if you are using a D6 the best you can do is break things down into 16.7% chunks, but if you are using a D20 you can break things down into 5% chunks. So if you change a number by 1, the smallest possible change, in a small number system that is a big impact but in a large number system it can be a very minor impact. The smaller of an impact a change makes the more it can be fine tuned and adjusted. Its obvious with dice because it is seen all the time but it is true in other situations as well.

If you have an enemy with 10 hits and one with 100 and you do 10% that is 1 pt and 10 pts respectively. Now lets say there is a crit or special ability that increases that damage. In the first instance you can either do the base 1 dmg (10%) or the next increment is 2 (20%) so if you increase damage at all it ends up doubling the damage. In the second system however that same crit or special ability can be between 10 (base) and 20, so it could be 11, it could be 14, there is a lot more options there.

Lets put this in terms of abilities/bonus too. Lets say you want to double the power of a character. In the first situation you can increase the damage from a weapon, ability, or item bonus by 1 and do it, meaning you have at most 1 ability/bonus. In the second situation though you can have a combination of 10 different abilities/bonuses to get the same effect. It could come from 10 different things, or it could come from one that gave 5, 2 that gave 2 and one more that gave 1. This allows people to have more abilities and bonuses while keeping things balanced. It also makes it harder for people to break the system because they need a bigger varity of tweaked and unbalanced things to do it. It doesn't make it impossible but it makes it harder.

It works in terms of resistances too, you have have a noticable but not overpowering resistance when you have a larger range to work with. It opens up more of a possiblity of reducing everyones damage some but not making it so anyone is completely useless.

Then you take into account averages, the more numbers you work with the closer you end up to average. The closer to average you are the easier it is to control the system and balance it. It doesn't take 1-2 lucky rolls to kill off something, it instead take 10-20 lucky rolls which is much less likely to happen.


I believe the increase in number sizes has a lot to do with the ability to design and balance abilities and not just because people like big numbers.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:40 PM
I'm not really following you. What has a Dragon with 1,000 Hit Points got to do with a more granular system? 4e is still going to be run on the D20 engine.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-22, 02:42 PM
Yes, I agree. If first level encounters are similarly scaled, then it is not an improvment.

Given that the whole point of the article is that Dragon's specifically have been made more powerful, I'm guessing not a problem.

There is nothing here at all that relates to level 1 encounters, except in the case of encountering Ancient Dragons at level 1. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:44 PM
Given that the whole point of the article is that Dragon's specifically have been made more powerful, I'm guessing not a problem.

There is nothing here at all that relates to level 1 encounters, except in the case of encountering Ancient Dragons at level 1. :smallbiggrin:
I think you are reading that post way out of context.

Dausuul
2007-08-22, 03:24 PM
It's also worth noting that WotC may simply have decided dragons weren't tough enough at the top levels. I recently played a super-high-level adventure where two 20th-level characters (a warblade and a sorceror) took down a half-fiend great red wyrm in about three rounds. By reducing its hit points to zero, I might add.

That should not ever happen.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-22, 03:32 PM
I think you are reading that post way out of context.

Possible. the problem with posting cheifly out of boredom, really.
What I meant is, that as he seemed to be drawing inferences from the dragon article and relating them to any other encounter than the one featured, then, you know. Conjecture?

As I said, though, I'm quite familiar with both ends of the stick, as I spend good amounts of time grasping both the Right and Wrong. ^_^


Edit;

re-Dausuul.
That's largely what I understood this to have been.
Dragons have been made more varied, and more dangerous, to better represent a Titular foe.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-22, 03:33 PM
At level 16, a Barbarian or someone with pounce:

Now: is he just a melee dude?
Power attack + leap attk + other PA stuff can give 8 to 1 damage (Might need to be a Frenzy Berserker for Supreme Power Attack).
Assuming 4 attacks: 80 PA each, 7 average weapon damage + 7 average from 2 elemental damages + 5 greater magic weapon=Easily 99 each.
I just dealt 396 damage.

Oh I forgot Str bonuses. Probably 24 Str so 7 x 1.5=10.5 x4=42 damage.

So final tally: 438 damage. This is a low estimate.

Granted, I only PA for 10 so I wouldn't miss. If I PA for full at level 20: I would have dealt 758 damage and did more the sample dragon dude in the article.

Oh, and I would just meditate my Frenzy's out in the woods so I don't kill my friends.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 03:40 PM
Possible. the problem with posting cheifly out of boredom, really.
What I meant is, that as he seemed to be drawing inferences from the dragon article and relating them to any other encounter than the one featured, then, you know. Conjecture?

He and I were discussing the benefits and drawbacks of giving Level 1 Characters more Hit Points, with reference to Hit Point progression over thirty levels.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-22, 03:47 PM
He and I were discussing the benefits and drawbacks of giving Level 1 Characters more Hit Points, with reference to Hit Point progression over thirty levels.

Ah, my bad. I mistook him for one of the Others.
Probably a good sign I should toddle off, get some sleep. 3:30 several days in a row, getting up at 8, hasn't been kind.

Draz74
2007-08-22, 03:50 PM
Thoughts:
- Adventurers apparently shrugging off attacks from an ancient red dragon like this must be pretty high-level. So anything they (e.g. the Cleric) can do might be a pretty high-level ability.

- Breath Weapon as a Free Action seems weird to me, but I guess it could be implemented well. Breath Weapon as burst, centered on an (already big) dragon and extending out 25 feet, seems very wrong to me compared to the old cone-shaped way. Even if it's not overpowered, I just can't picture a dragon breathing so as to affect an area like that. :smallmad:

- The fact that the "tail slap" specifically is used vs. the rogue, rather than the other natural attacks, does make it seem like Facing rules are back in. Ick. Well, at least the online gameboard will make it a little easier to keep track of Facing.

- freezing ray does "not enough damage to slow it down" -- pun intended? Do normal arcane cold-damage spells have a slowing effect, but only if they do more than a certain threshold of damage?

- The 1000 HP thing: I wonder if this is an unusually high number of hit points, even for high-level 4E play. I wonder if they got rid of dragon DR (take some math to implement, and is useless anyway as long as it is /magic), and instead just gave all dragons ridiculous amounts of HP compared to other monsters of their CR. Since someone was complaining that 1000-HP monsters, even if they're killable, would take way too long in real-life time to get through (if 1000 HP still means what it meant in 3E), I just have to say: Shouldn't an epic boss battle against a legendary dragon take a long time, even if you're powerful enough to handle the beast? It's a frickin' dragon.

- Anyone else think they made the Wizard seem like the least effective of these 4 adventurers in their description on purpose?

- I don't have any problem with the bookkeeping of the wizard having to take continual fire damage if it was caused by a special ability, not by the default effect of the dragon's breath. Likewise, I hope the dragon's ability to "scour the wizard's energy resistance" is a special feat or something the dragon has, not a default ability of fire damage.

- Energy types are still in the game, clearly (ray of cold). But the wizard has "energy resistance," not "fire resistance." Same thing? Perhaps. But maybe all energy resistance (at least from humanoid spells) works against all energy types, now. In return for that, energy resistance might be weaker due to monsters having more abilities that get rid of it.

- Looks like they're doing a good job getting rid of actions that are boring and use up your turn. The wizard obviously didn't have to use his standard action to attempt to put out the fire on him.

- Overall it seems like they're trying to make it so dragons can do what dragons should be doing. No spellcasting, lots of breathing and melee might. Don't go down without a fight. Good!

- Most interesting of all to me: more differences (compared to 3E) between metallics and chromatics. Hmmm ...

maybe metallics will be the (only) ones with inborn spellcasting?

maybe (some) metallics won't even have an energy breath weapon, and will concentrate only on their sleep/slow/paralysis/repulsion breath weapons?

maybe some colors of dragons (both metallic and chromatic) won't be able to fly? (that would be cool, but they should make sure an include some kind of winged template so you can still make (e.g.) a White Dragon fly if you want to.)

Morty
2007-08-22, 04:00 PM
Concerning dragons, I just hope they get rid of this dumb "always X alignment". Why can't an intelligent creature choose its own life philosophy?

puppyavenger
2007-08-22, 05:08 PM
Concerning dragons, I just hope they get rid of this dumb "always X alignment". Why can't an intelligent creature choose its own life philosophy?

So the PC's never acidentily(sp) kill one of the worlds greatest forces of good?

kpenguin
2007-08-22, 05:09 PM
Concerning dragons, I just hope they get rid of this dumb "always X alignment". Why can't an intelligent creature choose its own life philosophy?

Angels and demons are intelligent creatures and they don't seem to have any choice. I do agree however. I, personally, prefer the looser alignment rules of Eberron.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-23, 04:08 AM
Back at you. Superman shoots laser beams out of his eyes and flys around the place (depending on which version you choose). He can also, apparently, freeze stuff with his breathe.

Well, he did say "prototypical", as in prototype, which is generally inferior to what follows after it. Besides, when you look back at the first Superman powers, all he really had was a lot of Strength. Hell, most of his abilities were tied to Str/Dex/Con. He had quick reflexes(Dex) and was speedy(Dex+Str), he was insanely strong(Strength), he had great breath(Str+Con. Check out the Blowhard feat from Savage Species). When he "leapt tall buildings in a single bound", it was literally a "bound". He wasn't flying, he was kicking himself off the ground at high speeds.

Edit: Looking at the fight again, it would seem that your "lesser weapons"(Secondary Natural Attacks) would be treated as "Free Actions" on your turn(ie, no additional effort to use, and the -5 to AB reflects the lack of focus), but are "Immediate Actions" if you try to use them outside of combat. Which suggests that if say, someone else had tried to leap at the front of the dragon, it could have chosen to swat them down(chomp?) as its AoO, without Immediate Action limitations. Whereas if they'd gone for the side, it might have buffeted them with the wings.

Matthew
2007-08-23, 04:17 AM
Well, he did say "prototypical", as in prototype, which is generally inferior to what follows after it. Besides, when you look back at the first Superman powers, all he really had was a lot of Strength. Hell, most of his abilities were tied to Str/Dex/Con. He had quick reflexes(Dex) and was speedy(Dex+Str), he was insanely strong(Strength), he had great breath(Str+Con. Check out the Blowhard feat from Savage Species). When he "leapt tall buildings in a single bound", it was literally a "bound". He wasn't flying, he was kicking himself off the ground at high speeds.
Sure, but I didn't say 'Beowulf is not the prototypical Superman' (though I don't think he is either), I said Beowulf is not Superman. Beowulf, like Hercules, is vulnerable to conventional harm, unlike Superman who is virtually indestructable (as far as I am aware) and 'faster than a speeding bullet'.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-23, 04:58 AM
Sure, and I agree, but giving a Player Character more Hit Points at Level 1 isn't likely going to make them much more survivable to my mind, especially if Encounters are scaled to level, if you see what I mean.

Actually it is, because he's less likely to die as a result of a single bad roll.

I must say, however, that I find the "heal an ally by hitting a monster" ability rather silly. It reminds me of MtG, which also explores every single permutation of effects.

I hope they get rid of the too-many different kinds of action.

Morty
2007-08-23, 06:12 AM
Angels and demons are intelligent creatures and they don't seem to have any choice. I do agree however. I, personally, prefer the looser alignment rules of Eberron.

Angels and demons are personified forces of god or evil. Dragons, normally, are not.


So the PC's never acidentily(sp) kill one of the worlds greatest forces of good?

Great forces of good won't attack the PCs, and if PCs attack without provocation, it means they're evil anyway.

Green Bean
2007-08-23, 06:22 AM
Actually it is, because he's less likely to die as a result of a single bad roll.

I must say, however, that I find the "heal an ally by hitting a monster" ability rather silly. It reminds me of MtG, which also explores every single permutation of effects.

I hope they get rid of the too-many different kinds of action.

Seeing as it's the cleric doing it, healing on a critical actually makes a great deal of sense depending on your deity. ((Your martial prowess impresses your god, so he blesses you or your companions))

Matthew
2007-08-23, 06:46 AM
Actually it is, because he's less likely to die as a result of a single bad roll.

Not really. If the encounters are scaled to level, your Character will still die from one unlucky roll. Multiple enemies of lower CR, however, are less likely to do that, but that's the case if you're Level 1 fighting Kobolds as well. Whether it's a critical from a Kobold (3-15) or an Orc (12-24), if it's scaled to level (the new one or the old) your Character is equally likely to get killed from a lucky blow.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-23, 06:53 AM
your Character is equally likely to get killed from a lucky blow.

Criticals still matter (and a good crit or sneak attack can drop a higher-level character as well), but my point is that the first-level character won't drop dead from a regular attack by some reasonable weapon. A character with 6 or 8 hit points (quite common at level 1) can be dropped with a single arrow or sword strike from any level-0 n00b.

nagora
2007-08-23, 06:56 AM
Not really. If the encounters are scaled to level, your Character will still die from one unlucky roll. Multiple enemies of lower CR, however, are less likely to do that, but that's the case if you're Level 1 fighting Kobolds as well. Whether it's a critical from a Kobold (3-15) or an Orc (12-24), if it's scaled to level (the new one or the old) your Character is equally likely to get killed from a lucky blow.

We had a house rule for criticals (I normally despise critical hit rules but we've played this rule for so long I can't be bothered to drop it) but it only kicked in once the PCs were 3rd lv or above. The rule was that a natural 20 did maximum damage (unless you needed a 20 to hit).

I'm damn well sure I wouldn't allow any rule to meet out 15 damage from a kobold unless he had a gun. How the hell are you supposed to balance a low-level encounter with that sort of damage flying about?!

Matthew
2007-08-23, 07:06 AM
Criticals still matter (and a good crit or sneak attack can drop a higher-level character as well), but my point is that the first-level character won't drop dead from a regular attack by some reasonable weapon. A character with 6 or 8 hit points (quite common at level 1) can be dropped with a single arrow or sword strike from any level-0 n00b.
Sure, and what I am saying is that if the Encounter is scaled to level you will still suffer the same fate regardless of Hit Points, because the encounter will be scaled with that in mind. A normal hit from a Kobold Warrior does 1-5 Damage, a normal hit from an Orc Warrior does 6-12 Damage, if I choose to pit a Level 1 Party against two Orcs over four Kobolds, I know the potential consequences of my decision.


We had a house rule for criticals (I normally despise critical hit rules but we've played this rule for so long I can't be bothered to drop it) but it only kicked in once the PCs were 3rd lv or above. The rule was that a natural 20 did maximum damage (unless you needed a 20 to hit).

I'm damn well sure I wouldn't allow any rule to meet out 15 damage from a kobold unless he had a gun. How the hell are you supposed to balance a low-level encounter with that sort of damage flying about?!

I also hate critical hits. Dumped them from my House Ruled AD&D Game for exactly that reason, too random. I have tried a few different variants on the theme and use them from time to time (Such as Natural 20 = Extra Attack or Natural 20 = Full Damage).

nagora
2007-08-23, 07:14 AM
I also hate critical hits. Dumped them from my House Ruled AD&D Game for exactly that reason, too random. I have tried a few different variants on the theme and use them from time to time (Such as Natural 20 = Extra Attack or Natural 20 = Full Damage).

I originally brought the Nat20=full damage rule in because newbies would roll 20 and yell "Oh, yeah! Take that you sucka" or some other Mr 'T' related statement and then girn wildly about rolling 1 damage afterwards. But even then it was really too much to inflict on 1st level characters.

Skyserpent
2007-08-23, 07:18 AM
Good lord, there's a whole mess o' discussin' an' whatnot goin' down here!

och... I think I hurt myself trying to type an accent...

anyhoo- I myself think this looks pretty neat, though it does seem to take a note from our modern day MMORPG style of combat, what with "Below half-hit points! Use crazy special move now!" stuff. which may not necessarily be a bad thing I mean, first off, you've got an indicator that the damn thing is wounded, I mean, before we had the "Hit points: Anything more than none means I'm ready for action!" Type of monsters, and that didn't quite have the same feeling to them... I mean, nowadays I often have no idea how close I am to killing something until it's on the ground and not trying to kill me anymore.

Though the whole: "Thusly by smashing in this large animal's skull, doth I grant thee vigor and mend thine battle-wounds!" bit kinda confused me...

Indon
2007-08-23, 07:22 AM
Concerning dragons, I just hope they get rid of this dumb "always X alignment". Why can't an intelligent creature choose its own life philosophy?

Short answer: They're color-coded for your convenience!

Long answer: Dragons, while intelligent, have generally been depicted with a nature more draconic than intelligent. I mean, an immortal Dragon could accumulate ridiculous wealth for their hoard by masquerading as a human and running a trade guild. But they generally won't, except for certain types.

Person_Man
2007-08-23, 09:13 AM
I must say, however, that I find the "heal an ally by hitting a monster" ability rather silly. It reminds me of MtG, which also explores every single permutation of effects.

I hope they get rid of the too-many different kinds of action.

Yeah, I think its pretty retarded as well. First, I just don't like out of sequence effects. It's your effect, it should take place on your turn, and then during someone else's turn I shouldn't have to worry about anything else except AoO.

Second, it can easily lead to all sorts of cheesy combos. Two Crusader/Clerics working together with the Hit=Heal ability are essentially unstoppable unless you can kill one in a single action.

Stephen_E
2007-08-23, 09:23 AM
Great forces of good won't attack the PCs, and if PCs attack without provocation, it means they're evil anyway.

Well people been people, the 1st time at least, it could just mean they're stupid. - Never assume malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

"But we thought all dragons were evil so we attacked by surprise".

Stephen

Morty
2007-08-23, 09:30 AM
Well people been people, the 1st time at least, it could just mean they're stupid. - Never assume malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

"But we thought all dragons were evil so we attacked by surprise".

Stephen

Well, if dragons' alignment restrictions were removed, players would be even more stupid to attack a dragon just because it's a dragon. Stupid to the point of not knowing the world they live in.

Green Bean
2007-08-23, 10:16 AM
Second, it can easily lead to all sorts of cheesy combos. Two Crusader/Clerics working together with the Hit=Heal ability are essentially unstoppable unless you can kill one in a single action.

You mean Crit=Heal ability. That would seem to nerf any combos, unless you can find a way to reliably critical.

brian c
2007-08-23, 10:26 AM
Matthew, noone said that was the first round of combat. That could be in media res, not saying he did 500 damage in one shot.

Exactly. This was discussed elsewhere also I think. 500 damage in one hit is ridiculous, especially for the D&D design team who are obviously not powergamers (as evidenced by 3rd edition)

Amphimir Míriel
2007-08-23, 10:57 AM
Fire ball spitting? Oh, now that's just annoying. That was the signature thing for one of the really nasty dragons in my campaign. Having it be a standard feature for all red dragons takes a bit of the uniqueness out of it.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll figure a way around it.

Well, I did read somewhere (was it on the same link? dunno) that Dragons will get more unique abilities (talent trees for high CR monsters? maybe) as they age, so two Red Very Old Dragons might be very different from each other.

Matthew
2007-08-23, 11:52 AM
Exactly. This was discussed elsewhere also I think. 500 damage in one hit is ridiculous, especially for the D&D design team who are obviously not powergamers (as evidenced by 3rd edition)

Yeah, except the design team for 3e isn't the design team for 4e. Anyway, as was discussed on the first page of this Thread, nobody really expected it to be 500 Points of Damage a hit (when will I learn to disown hyperbole on the Internet...?)

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-23, 02:30 PM
Sure, and what I am saying is that if the Encounter is scaled to level you will still suffer the same fate regardless of Hit Points, because the encounter will be scaled with that in mind.I disagree. You seem to be approaching this as if both HP and damage are scaled the same amount, which would indeed be a masturbatory exercise in multiplication. The encounter is still scaled to level if both PCs and enemies get HP pumps but damage stays the same, but it's significantly less lethal, and units are less likely to crumple because of a single solid (but not necessarily critical) shot. Whether this is what happens or not depends on whether the designers lean towards quick, brutal combat or multi-round chipping when designing encounters. But just increasing HP is not inherently pointless.

Matthew
2007-08-23, 02:36 PM
I disagree. You seem to be approaching this as if both HP and damage are scaled the same amount, which would indeed be a masturbatory exercise in multiplication. The encounter is still scaled to level if both PCs and enemies get HP pumps but damage stays the same, but it's significantly less lethal, and units are less likely to crumple because of a single solid (but not necessarily critical) shot. Whether this is what happens or not depends on whether the designers lean towards quick, brutal combat or multi-round chipping when designing encounters. But just increasing HP is not inherently pointless.

That's the question, though. 3e seems to rapidly increase Damage as well as Hit Points. Every time you go up a level, Power Attack steps up with you. The question is indeed what does a 1,000 HP Dragon tell us about how the game is going to be played? How many 'hits' did it take to knock it down to 'less than 500'.

We know that Wizards want to make combat at level 30 the same experience as combat at level 1. It's fair to assume, then, that they want it to take the same number of rounds. If that is the case, then a 1,000 HP Dragon tells us quite a lot about how damage will scale, even if we assume that Characters begin the game with 50 HP.

Draz74
2007-08-23, 05:16 PM
... unless Dragons are simply atypical encounters (no matter what level you're at), and have atypically high amounts of HP, like I mentioned earlier.

Matthew
2007-08-23, 05:27 PM
Absolutely, as I said, it's all speculative and based on assumptions, which is part of the fun. What we are being presented with in that Article could even be quite different from the final form of the game. I'm willing to bet if the perceived response to the Article was "Pah, 1,000 Hit Points? Dragons suck." It would be taken into account. In many ways, Wizards are still testing the water. What they have probably discovered (if they didn't already know) is that the gamer community has diverse expectations and preferences (some radically different from others).

Jack Mann
2007-08-23, 06:32 PM
I was not suggesting that Beowulf was a normal man beating a Dragon. I was opposing the idea that to beat a Dragon you need a ton of magical equipment on top of being a Hero in medieval myth.

You might like one aspect of 4th edition: They've said that they're going to cut characters' reliance on magic gewgaws to power them up. So, your mythic fighter won't need more than a good sword at this side, even if it isn't magical.

I don't think they're using facing rules. They might, but I don't see the article as saying that. I think the rogue was just moving into a flanking position, and they worded it in a more cinematic tone. It's possible they meant it literally, but I don't think anyone wants to see a return to facing rules.

I don't necessarily want to see damage and HP scale in parallel, but I would like to see rounds of combat stay roughly the same from level to level. Like, a regular, somewhat challenging fight lasts three to five rounds, say, whether you're level one or level thirty. A "boss" fight, like against a dragon or what have you, takes about ten rounds*, no matter what level you are. It's just what you do in those rounds that changes. While at level one, the wizard may obscure the orc chieftain's eyes while the fighter desperately tried to find an opening, the cleric holds off the guards, and the chieftain swings around trying to kill them all, at level thirty, the wizard is warping reality around the dragon, as the fighter breaks its wings with one blow of his powerful mace, the cleric is summoning archons to hold it down, and the dragon is screaming its anger in the form of elemental energies summoned from deep within its being to lay waste to them and all the world. That's what I'd like to see scale. Both the abilities and the stakes. At level one, you're protecting small villages. At level thirty, you're saving the world (and possibly more than one).

*I'm assuming that reports that combat flows more quickly are accurate, so that ten rounds doesn't take that long in gameplay time.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-23, 06:46 PM
Exactly. This was discussed elsewhere also I think. 500 damage in one hit is ridiculous, especially for the D&D design team who are obviously not powergamers (as evidenced by 3rd edition)

Dude by level 20. you can deal 726 damage if every hit (4 attacks) hits. I did in my post. I could up it with Haste.

By level 20, it is relatively easy if you use the right feats(power attack, two handed, Leap attack, etc). Need pounce though.

Starsinger
2007-08-23, 07:47 PM
The dragon uses a Free Action to attack somehow. Then makes a Standard Action attack with 2 claws (most likely 2 attack rolls with one standard action). Then it uses another Free Action to attack. Then it uses a special ability to gain another Standard Action to cast a spell. Then it uses its Move Action. Then during the Fighter's turn, it uses an Immediate Action to attack again. Therefore its reasonable to assume from the evidence that a round is not limited to one Move and one Standard Action per PC/monster (or one Full Round Action per PC/monster, if they keep Full Round Actions).

Dragons now get like what? 2 wing buffets, 2 claw attacks, 1 tail swipe, and a bite attack? Maybe dragons get extra actions, and abilities that grant extra actions, because they're dragons, and are supposed to be dangerous. But how dangerous is a 4 on 1 fight vs. a dragon when you're getting 4 actions (not counting free actions, which I will in a moment) vs. its 1? But if it gets 4-6 actions a turn, then it's more dangerous for your party. Nowhere in there does it state that players get to add actions.

I believe free actions replace attacks of opportunity, and have mostly the same triggers. Except unlike AoOs which have to be attacks, anyone can benefit from a free action. The Wizard can blast off a Reserve Feat during a free action, or a person can ready his spear against a charging opponent.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-08-24, 10:41 AM
Dragons now get like what? 2 wing buffets, 2 claw attacks, 1 tail swipe, and a bite attack? Maybe dragons get extra actions, and abilities that grant extra actions, because they're dragons, and are supposed to be dangerous. But how dangerous is a 4 on 1 fight vs. a dragon when you're getting 4 actions (not counting free actions, which I will in a moment) vs. its 1? But if it gets 4-6 actions a turn, then it's more dangerous for your party. Nowhere in there does it state that players get to add actions.

I believe free actions replace attacks of opportunity, and have mostly the same triggers. Except unlike AoOs which have to be attacks, anyone can benefit from a free action. The Wizard can blast off a Reserve Feat during a free action, or a person can ready his spear against a charging opponent.

Thank you Starsinger, that makes a lot of sense and eases my mind...

Now, if they make good on their promise to make magic items less of a "requirement" for mid-high level, I will be really happy.

Nota Biene
2007-08-24, 11:04 AM
The problem I see with making magic items less of a "requirement" is that people will still want magic items because they are cool. How will the designers be able to make items that balance well and are still interesting while keeping challenges possible to complete without them? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it will be a challenge.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-24, 11:33 AM
The problem I see with making magic items less of a "requirement" is that people will still want magic items because they are cool. How will the designers be able to make items that balance well and are still interesting while keeping challenges possible to complete without them? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it will be a challenge.I think the idea is to do a lot of what happened with MIC -- make items that actually grant new abilities instead of making ubiquitous "Hey, it's a cloak of resistance" type items that are pretty much completely boring. The latest article also implies this, as it mentions that the monsters they beat aren't carrying a bunch of low-level magic items that the party will have to sell back in town anyway.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 12:22 PM
If you haven't already seen it, Part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070824a) of the Castle Smoulderthorn Playtest Report is up. Draw your own conclusions.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-24, 04:29 PM
Bit of confirmation of hoohah from one of the blogs. Link. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910861)
Of course, some monsters are more complex and have a number of cool abilities, but even these monsters are dramatically easier to run than the complex monsters of 3rd edition. (When you check out James Wyatt's Design and Development Column about monsters, keep in mind that the dragon represents the top of the scale for dynamism and complexity.)So that's good to hear, since there was a fair amount of "Wait a minute, this is streamlined?" coming off of it for some people. Looking back on the article, it brings to mind Dave Noonan's Designing the Delve (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061013a) article from last year; even with a bunch of rider effects on the breath weapon, it's still simpler than having a suite of spells to flip through. Here's to hoping this bit gets followed up on.
R&D Confession: To be blunt, I think dragons are overdesigned. They’re eighty gallons of fun in a forty-gallon barrel. And the most troublesome aspect of dragons is their potent spellcasting. Those big sorcerer (and sorcerer/cleric) lists certainly make dragons more effective, but they also add about 20,000 moles of complexity... And worse, spellcasting makes dragons less archetypically draconic. Rather than rampaging through the PCs and breathing fire on them, the dragon is waving his claws around and chanting. So dragon spellcasting has a big ole’ bullseye on it—for the Delve, anyway.