[4e] Rogue Preview

[Morty]

Because you are hung up on a semantic issue. Mentally re-read what you wrote except substitute 'skilled attack' instead of 'power'.

Here, let me help:

[modified quote = M0rt]
Then again, if "Deft Strike" is something every scoundrel can pull off, why is it called "skilled attack"? It's by all means except the name and classification a normal attack, because a rogue will be probably using this all the time. Either something is a "skilled attack" or a normal attack, but in this case it's somehow both.
[/modified quote]

See how it no longer makes sense? That kind of substitution is an easy test for semantic issues.

Now, you might say:
"Well, why bother having a difference between a 'skilled attack' and a 'normal attack'?"
Which I think is what you were trying to get at in the first place.

Here's the difference: Deft Strike is an OPTION. Not ALL rogues will be able to do it*. Also, it requires a specific type of weapon, which the rogue may not have (if their gear was taken away from them, for instance).

*Rogue powers are like Wizard spells, right? One of the articles (a playtest report, maybe?) talked about the player choosing their 1st level wizard's spells. Considering that the "power" mechanic is universal across classes, this means rogues will choose as well.

You have a point, however while a rogue does choose his special attacks from a larger pool, he's using them all day long anyway, because they're At Will without Per Encounter add-on(as we've seen in Pit Fiend's stat block). So why not let Rogue just choose two types of normal attack instead of naming them "powers"?
Maybe I am taking this too seriously, but it's still strange to me. Not bad, just strange.

[Oslecamo]

Only if I play RAW. I don't play in games where death is something that can happen incidentally. And thanks; It's hard to find good images of Flonne that aren't Rule no. 34



Just out of curiosity, what rules do you change to avoid save or die effects then?

Well, in my humble opinion if you bother to walk aroud with death ward, freedom of movement, mind blanck and some other defensive stuff up all the time you can pretty much ignore save or dies, but still it takes a lot of work to achieve this.

One of the points the designers insist in 4e is that characters won't die anymore in a single turn from an unlucky roll in combat or a trap.

[Rutee]

Yeahno. I'll believe that claim when I see 4e in front of me, and Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck is genuinely gone.

Honestly? I don't use/allow Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck, or heavily modify them if a player really, REALLY likes the feel the ability is trying to get across, and I just can't stand such an absolute effect actually occurring mechanically. It's vastly suboptimal to a system that /doesn't/ have Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck, but it's about all I can do with DnD to do it.


You have a point, however while a rogue does choose his special attacks from a larger pool, he's using them all day long anyway, because they're At Will without Per Encounter add-on(as we've seen in Pit Fiend's stat block). So why not let Rogue just choose two types of normal attack instead of naming them "powers"?
Maybe I am taking this too seriously, but it's still strange to me. Not bad, just strange.
You are. But they're called "Powers" because "Powers" applies to /all/ special abilities mechanically; If it helps you to call all At-Will powers "Normal Attacks", have at it. It's seriously a purely semantic issue in this sense, so just call it whatever you please.

Just bear in mind there may be communication issues.

[ShadowSiege]

In 4e their philosphy is"NO MORE COMBOS MUAHAHA! ONE SNEACK ATTACK PER TURN YOU SONS OF A *****! NO WAY YOU CAN ABUSE IT NOW! YOU CAN'T EVEN OPTIMIZE IT! NO DUAL WIELDING NO GETING EXTRA ATTACKS YOU STILL GET ONLY A SINGLE SNEACK ATTACK! I WANNA SEE YOU BREACK THIS NOW! MUAHAHAHAHAHA"

Ok, maybe this is a little exaggerated, but you got the point. They're taking no risks in 4e, and this means a lot less space for creativity in character creation. I enjoyed searching for cool crazy combos in 3e, but I strongly believe, after seeing this rogue, that it won't be possible anymore in 4e.

I've seen sneak attack house ruled to only be once per round anyway. And with the lack of iterative attacks, sneak attack being limited to once per round isn't that harsh of a restriction, whereas with 3.5 it was. And since we haven't actually seen a full character progression, it's too early to say that there aren't some combos that could be ruthlessly exploited.

Unless it specifically states otherwise in the books, Positioning Strike could be used to force someone over a cliff or past the fighter provoking a flurry of blows from her. We're still making assumptions regarding all of this due to very incomplete information.

[Morty]

Yeahno. I'll believe that claim when I see 4e in front of me, and Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck is genuinely gone.

Actually, they aren't. They just don't work instantly and are overall nerfed, but they're there. There's been information on this somewhere.



You are. But they're called "Powers" because "Powers" applies to /all/ special abilities mechanically; If it helps you to call all At-Will powers "Normal Attacks", have at it. It's seriously a purely semantic issue in this sense, so just call it whatever you please.

Sure, it just seems unnecesary for me to classify two abilties that are effectively normal attacks as special abilities. Maybe I just think differently than WoTC designers.

[fendrin]

You have a point, however while a rogue does choose his special attacks from a larger pool, he's using them all day long anyway, because they're At Will without Per Encounter add-on(as we've seen in Pit Fiend's stat block). So why not let Rogue just choose two types of normal attack instead of naming them "powers"?
Maybe I am taking this too seriously, but it's still strange to me. Not bad, just strange.

Again, it comes down to the interpretation of "powers" as "something that can be done outside the normal human capability". If you think of it as "something I've learned how to do that most other people can't", it fits a bit better.

Deft Strike is considered a "power" because it is part of the "power" mechanic. An at-will wizard "power" is still a spell. For instance, Magic Missile. You wouldn't expect Magic Missile to be a 'normal attack', so, to be consistent, neither is Deft Strike.

It may not be immediately intuitive to an experienced D&Der, but I think it makes sense, and quickens the learning curve for a new D&Der.

oh, and speaking of expectations... low level games should NEVER be bland! Almost every game I have run has been between lvls 1-6. I find them MORE interesting. :smallcool:

[Rutee]

A "Normal Attack", mechanically, is probably going to be defined as "Str. vs. AC, deals [W] + Str" for damage. Everything that is not that isn't a normal attack. Or something similar to that, anyway. It's pretty sensible to me, but I'm used to various systems that also work like this, so.

[Morty]

Again, it comes down to the interpretation of "powers" as "something that can be done outside the normal human capability". If you think of it as "something I've learned how to do that most other people can't", it fits a bit better.

Deft Strike is considered a "power" because it is part of the "power" mechanic. An at-will wizard "power" is still a spell. For instance, Magic Missile. You wouldn't expect Magic Missile to be a 'normal attack', so, to be consistent, neither is Deft Strike.

It may not be immediately intuitive to an experienced D&Der, but I think it makes sense, and quickens the learning curve for a new D&Der.

oh, and speaking of expectations... low level games should NEVER be bland! Almost every game I have run has been between lvls 1-6. I find them MORE interesting. :smallcool:

I'm generally against the whole power mechanics of 4ed, so I think that's about it.


A "Normal Attack", mechanically, is probably going to be defined as "Str. vs. AC, deals [W] + Str" for damage. Everything that is not that isn't a normal attack. Or something similar to that, anyway. It's pretty sensible to me, but I'm used to various systems that also work like this, so.

I wonder if there'd be any reason to use this "normal attack", then. I actually think it's quite possible there won't be anything like this, and if fighter or rogue wants to just smack/stab someone, he'll use one of his At Will powers. The rogue preview reinforces that prediction, I think. Unless WoTC confirmed otherwise and I'm not aware of it.

[Mr. Friendly]

I'm generally against the whole power mechanics of 4ed, so I think that's about it.



I wonder if there'll be any reason to use this "normal attack", then. I actually think it's quite possible there won't be anything like this, and if fighter or rogue wants to just smack/stab someone, he'll use one of his At Will powers. The rogue preview reifnorces that prediction, I think.

I think you are right. No one will ever use a normal attack again. I mean, they can just use their per-encounter ability... one... and their per day ability .... once... so I guess they will just give everyone awesome at-will powers to use all the time...

4th edition actually recommends that you start at 30th level and your game session is just the PCs killing monsters while the DM cries and whimpers in the corner.

[Kioran]

Regardless, I just don't see alterring the standard of the fighter from "Utterly mechanically bland attack" to "Attack that has some level of flair and different-ness" as a negative, and I genuinely do not see how such a conclusion could be arrived at.

It essentially means that every character now chooses his "own" style of attack - there is no such thing as a standard attack anymore. Aside from possibly making the extraordinary less exciting by offering little contrast(your mileage may vary on this), the main issue is that it will increase bookkeeping on all characters. Sure, it won´t slow down combat much once the players have it down pat (not worse than, say, iterative attacks, and a lot less than AoO-Tripmachines), since the attack has a static effect that may only change significantly with additional equipment or level, but it increases the amount of stuff you need to keep track of and have to hand in combat.
A more generic method of attack, like in 3rd, has the advantage that one can memorize it, whereas it is, after this article, a fair assumption that most classes will attack with their at-will powers most of the time, which all differ on some part of their effect. Much more to memorize.


So opening a door is outside the core mechanic. Alright, with this definition of core mechanic (Since you know, I didn't spend 35 dollars on "Roll a d20, add some numbers, compare to target, resolve effects," but for the /rest/ of it..) sure, spells are outside the core mechanic by definition since you don't generally roll dice to cast at all.

Some actions (like walking down the street) have their own mechanics (land speed and movement), but generally, most things not cover by one roll of the D20 are either trivial and don´t require a roll (opening an unlocked door which is in perfect working order), or rate their own rules for frequent situations not covered by roles and skills (movement for example).

Most spells still have someone roling a d20 before resolution (generally a save). However, some spells follow their own rules which are only found in the spell description and describe effects outside of the first 180 pages of the PHB. These spells introduce their own mechanics, specific to that spell alone. They work outside the normal rules.

[Starbuck_II]

This is almost insulting and infuriating, but.......I will keep calm. The 3.5 casting system is one of the few really and truly broken things(mainly some spells, but I digress), and having it fixed by anything but player restraint is certainly good, very good indeed.

What I firmly dislike about 4th Edition and never want in my games are at-will abilities (like piercing and deft strike, see spoilered WotC preview) all but totally replacing normal attacks, quite possibly making the Powers the core aspect of all classes and making combat even more like a combo-based TBS.


However, one would never infer those statements from these:


Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. Some of the supplemental Material was a lot better than some Core material(the Shugenja, for example, is a better caster who doesn´t mercilessly mash toes like CoDzilla, the PHB 2 makes using a shield viable etc.), but Core is the basis, and, as far as most people I know are concerned, the one basis for any game of D&d in that Edition.
Not everyone uses Completes 1.0, fewer use Psionics, other use ToB, but everyone uses core. Status quo does, for all parties, involve Core, but not necessarily some splatbook. If 4th Ed makes sucky things core, it changes my Status quo for the worse.


I mean, you never mentioned anything about at will abilities being the issue. You instead commented that, "If 4th Ed makes sucky things core, it changes my Status quo for the worse."
Now since you implied Splatbooks and casting, you leave others with beliefs that you problem is casters non-core are weaker than Core ones.

Thus my statement: "I'm reading his statement as broken casters= non-sucky, thus balanced caster=sucky things in Core (since 4E says the casters will be better balanced)."

You need to better say what you mean and stop beating around the bush (just some advice).

[Morty]

I think you are right. No one will ever use a normal attack again. I mean, they can just use their per-encounter ability... one... and their per day ability .... once... so I guess they will just give everyone awesome at-will powers to use all the time...


What's with the sarcasm? Yes, I actually think there won't be a "normal attack" anymore, as there are At Will powers that work essentially as a normal, if a bit more skilled strike. Look at Deft Strike and Piercing Strike.
Seriously, you should try to read people's posts carefully before snarking and patronizing everyone.

[Kioran]

I think you are right. No one will ever use a normal attack again. I mean, they can just use their per-encounter ability... one... and their per day ability .... once... so I guess they will just give everyone awesome at-will powers to use all the time...

4th edition actually recommends that you start at 30th level and your game session is just the PCs killing monsters while the DM cries and whimpers in the corner.

You are not helping, patronizing and insulting. You also haven´t read the spoilered preview. These at will powers are so broad in their scope that they are, in general, more useful than "roll vs. AC, deal [W]+Str mod damage", sicne they do the same + some little extra.
There may be situations in which they´re not practical, but even with the two powers introduced, these situations will be rather rare, and I don´t think these are all the available powers.

[Artanis]

Unless it specifically states otherwise in the books, Positioning Strike could be used to force someone over a cliff or past the fighter provoking a flurry of blows from her.
I think they actually mentioned something like this in a playtest report. The party Rogue got separated from the group and found itself alone with a monster, so it shoved the monster under a falling block trap, squishing it. I'll see if I can dig up a link to it and edit it in if I do.

[Mr. Friendly]

What's with the sarcasm? Yes, I actually think there won't be a "normal attack" anymore, as there are At Will powers that work essentially as a normal, if a bit more skilled strike.
Seriously, you should try to read people's posts carefully before snarking and patronizing everyone.

Who's being sarcastic?

And I'm not being patronizing; Artanis says so himself:


You are not helping, patronizing and insulting. You also haven´t read the spoilered preview. These at will powers are so broad in their scope that they are, in general, more useful than "roll vs. AC, deal [W]+Str mod damage", sicne they do the same + some little extra.
There may be situations in which they´re not practical, but even with the two powers introduced, these situations will be rather rare, and I don´t think these are all the available powers.

As you can see, I may not be helping, but I am not being patronizing or insulting.

[Morty]

Who's being sarcastic?

Unless there's been a massive misunderstanding, you are.

[SmartAlec]

What's with the sarcasm? Yes, I actually think there won't be a "normal attack" anymore, as there are At Will powers that work essentially as a normal, if a bit more skilled strike. Look at Deft Strike and Piercing Strike.

The feeling I got was that some of the 'at-will' powers are, essentially, normal attacks for that class - the idea being that every class does things differently, even down to their default style of combat.

I like that. It essentially means that a Wizard or a Rogue or a Ranger or whoever don't end up having to fight like a sub-par Fighter but do, in fact, fight like a Wizard or a Rogue or a Ranger to the end.

[Rutee]

I wonder if there'd be any reason to use this "normal attack", then. I actually think it's quite possible there won't be anything like this, and if fighter or rogue wants to just smack/stab someone, he'll use one of his At Will powers. The rogue preview reinforces that prediction, I think. Unless WoTC confirmed otherwise and I'm not aware of it.

I don't see how there would be a reason to use one, if indeed it exists. Which suits me just fine. It's not like you Brawl in CoH.


It essentially means that every character now chooses his "own" style of attack - there is no such thing as a standard attack anymore. Aside from possibly making the extraordinary less exciting by offering little contrast(your mileage may vary on this), the main issue is that it will increase bookkeeping on all characters. Sure, it won´t slow down combat much once the players have it down pat (not worse than, say, iterative attacks, and a lot less than AoO-Tripmachines), since the attack has a static effect that may only change significantly with additional equipment or level, but it increases the amount of stuff you need to keep track of and have to hand in combat.
...Compared to /3e/ it'll be harder to track? I suppose once we have 10 or so of them, but likely not initially. It doesn't seem to be any more difficult then magi have now, for how much has to be tracked.


Some actions (like walking down the street) have their own mechanics (land speed and movement), but generally, most things not cover by one roll of the D20 are either trivial and don´t require a roll (opening an unlocked door which is in perfect working order), or rate their own rules for frequent situations not covered by roles and skills (movement for example).

Except the core book is more then d20 rolling. You even explain this with the "Rules for landspeed". The spells are part of the rules, even if they don't involve d20 rolling.

[Kioran]

However, one would never infer those statements from these:


I mean, you never mentioned anything about at will abilities being the issue. You instead commented that, "If 4th Ed makes sucky things core, it changes my Status quo for the worse."
Now since you implied Splatbooks and casting, you leave others with beliefs that you problem is casters non-core are weaker than Core ones.

Thus my statement: "I'm reading his statement as broken casters= non-sucky, thus balanced caster=sucky things in Core (since 4E says the casters will be better balanced)."

You need to better say what you mean and stop beating around the bush (just some advice).

My comments mainly based on stuff I wrote pages ago. Shall I link them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3987551&postcount=153)? They were mainly intended as replies to Rutee´s style of arguing against my post (mainly by nitpicking minor points or plain misunderstanding me). It derailed my original train of thought somewhat, but it´s all in here.

[Morty]

The feeling I got was that some of the 'at-will' powers are, essentially, normal attacks for that class - the idea being that every class does things differently, even down to their default style of combat.


It's the impression I'm getting as well.


I don't see how there would be a reason to use one, if indeed it exists. Which suits me just fine. It's not like you Brawl in CoH.

Actually, there might be a reason for rogue to use Str. vs. AC attack -assuming there's no rogue power that works this way- but it'd be a rare occurence at best. Although in Pit Fiend's stat block we do see a "power" which name is just "Mace of Something".

[Rachel Lorelei]

Sometimes, small amount of blandness is expectable. Low-level game is one of those cases.
Then again, if "Deft Strike" is something every scoundrel can pull off, why is it called "power"? It's by all means except the name and classification a normal attack, because a rogue will be probably using this all the time. Either something is a "power" or a normal attack, but in this case it's somehow both.

Because "power" is the generic term for PC class ability, whether at-will or . We don't even know that each class' abilities will actually be called powers; for example, I'd bet a lot that the wizard's powers will be called "spells". The Warlock may have "Invocations", or it could also have "spells" (since if I were them, I'd name them by power source, so as to not have to come up with a new word for each class--i.e. all Arcane-sourced powers will be Spells). The Rogue preview says "Your powers are daring exploits...", so maybe Rogue powers will be called Exploits. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, though.

At-will "powers" are different from basic attacks. I don't imagine basic attacks will see a lot of use, but IIRC, for example, the Warlord "feather me yon oaf!" (not the final name... sadly) power allowed everyone to make an immediate basic attack.

[Mewtarthio]

That being said, I do think that Str vs AC, [W] + Str damage will exist as an option somewhere. It's conceivable that somebody could end up wanting to do that rather than use a power. For instance, if a Rogue has been Dex-drained to the point where Str is higher, he may want to use a "normal attack" instead of a Deft Strike if there's nothing better available. Alternatively, if a first-level Rogue has Piercing Strike, but not Deft Strike, and runs into a creature with a higher Reflex defense than AC, he might resort to normal attacks. Oh, and any Rogue without a weapon (and probably most other characters with a Martial Power Source, though Fighters might have some unarmed options) will have to fall back on normal attacks.

[Indon]

It's not negative, just strange. They're presenting as special ability something a character is going to be using all day long and is in fact a normal attack. And again, it's not a complaint, just a note on something I find a bit odd.

It's a power in the way Eldritch Blast is a power.

Basically, every class in 4'th edition is getting a few Warlock-style pseudo-abilities (only as far as can be told, less diverse than actual Warlock abilities are), a few ToB-style pseudo-maneuvers, and a couple Vancian-style pseudo-spells.

It's not a bad system per se. Looking from a 3'rd edition perspective (the perspective of having experienced multiple varying class mechanics) everyone's the same - everyone is a Warblockeror with slightly different stat options, slight save bonuses, and hopefully decently different Style/Schools to pick their Power(Actually, Warlocks get incantations, don't they?)maneuverspells from.

And if you want a rogue that you can't actually make with the class, say who uses a quarterstaff and intricate combat abilities, there'll no doubt be a class made (maybe swashbuckler, I dunno - some Martial Striker) that you can just reflavor into being a rogue.

So there's at least one real benefit to the classes potentially being so similar.

[Rutee]

My comments mainly based on stuff I wrote pages ago. Shall I link them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3987551&postcount=153)? They were mainly intended as replies to Rutee´s style of arguing against my post (mainly by nitpicking minor points or plain misunderstanding me). It derailed my original train of thought somewhat, but it´s all in here.

Don't argue via shotgun offenses and I won't ignore most of your posts. Wise guy.

[Morty]

Because "power" is the generic term for PC class ability, whether at-will or . We don't even know that each class' abilities will actually be called powers; for example, I'd bet a lot that the wizard's powers will be called "spells". The Warlock may have "Invocations", or it could also have "spells" (since if I were them, I'd name them by power source, so as to not have to come up with a new word for each class--i.e. all Arcane-sourced powers will be Spells). The Rogue preview says "Your powers are daring exploits...", so maybe Rogue powers will be called Exploits. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, though.

From what I know, the catch-all term for class usable abilities is "power", and it applies to spells, smites, special ways of stabbing, etc. I don't like this, personally, but it's only semantics.


At-will "powers" are different from basic attacks. I don't imagine basic attacks will see a lot of use, but IIRC, for example, the Warlord "feather me yon oaf!" (not the final name... sadly) power allowed everyone to make an immediate basic attack.

Huh. I didn't hear about it. So there might be "normal attack" option after all.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Huh. I didn't hear about it. So there might be "normal attack" option after all.

D&D minis are in a few ways a preview of 4E; AoOs are basic attacks there, as I suspect they will be in 4E.

[Morty]

D&D minis are in a few ways a preview of 4E; AoOs are basic attacks there, as I suspect they will be in 4E.

I see. It seems that I most likely jumped to conclusions by predicting that there won't be any "normal attack" and everyone will use At Will powers instead. Yet another proof I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

[Rutee]

I see. It seems that I most likely jumped to conclusions by predicting that there won't be any "normal attack" and everyone will use At Will powers instead. Yet another proof I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

Nah, it's a logical thing to guess.

[Indon]

I see. It seems that I most likely jumped to conclusions by predicting that there won't be any "normal attack" and everyone will use At Will powers instead. Yet another proof I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

I'm sure that some classes will have no at-will powers which deal [W] damage.

Those classes would have a use to attack. Also, there may be times that you can't use any of your at-will weapon damage powers:

Rogue: I have no weapon!
Barbarian: Here, take my extra Greatsword.
Rogue: What the _heckamI_ gonna do with this?

[fendrin]

I see. It seems that I most likely jumped to conclusions by predicting that there won't be any "normal attack" and everyone will use At Will powers instead. Yet another proof I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

Thank you for being honest, rational, and willing to think about what is being said. If everyone on these boards were like you, they would be much more enjoyable.

And I mean that too, I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously, the biggest problem I have with 4e threads is that most people who post are so utterly convinced that they are right that they refuse to see reason, and in some cases, refuse to give reasons for their beliefs. And that goes as much for Pro-4e as Con-4e.

(You people know who you are...)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Thank you for being honest, rational, and willing to think about what is being said. If everyone on these boards were like you, they would be much more enjoyable.

And I mean that too, I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously, the biggest problem I have with 4e threads is that most people who post are so utterly convinced that they are right that they refuse to see reason, and in some cases, refuse to give reasons for their beliefs. And that goes as much for Pro-4e as Con-4e.

(You people know who you are...)

It's not just 4e threads... it's all the threads!

Also: Welcome to the Internets. I can see it's your first time here :smallbiggrin:

[Number 6]

D&D is, at its basic level, about a group of adventurers who kill things. Characters are expected to have combat just about every session.

If you need build advice, your group is focusing on combat as much as it's expected to. If you want a combat-light RPG, D&D is not your best choice.

Try not to tell people who play differently from you that they're doing it wrong, especially when you're the one not following the game's expectations.

A bit sensitive are we? "Methinks she doth protest too much."

D&D is just "about a group of adventurers who kill things"? No role playing?

[JBento]

That's... not what she said. She said that's what D&D is at its basic level, which is true, but I don't think you could expect anything else from a gmae that was originally a spin-off from a wargame. Role-playing is something that was added later. Ever strike you as odd that the XP table is only meant to be used for combat encounters? If you try to tack it onto a roleplaying encounter, the CR system falls apart much faster than it already does.

I do believe we'll be getting more focus in on role-playing with 4E, as they've said that they're designing a non-combat rule system for it...

[AKA_Bait]

I do believe we'll be getting more focus in on role-playing with 4E, as they've said that they're designing a non-combat rule system for it...

What does that mean exactly? I think of their last attempt for a non-combat rule system for RP (Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy) and shudder.

[Rutee]

What does that mean exactly? I think of their last attempt for a non-combat rule system for RP (Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy) and shudder.

It means they know how screwed up that system is, and are genuinely trying to add something for Social Encounters. Whether they succeed will be a different matter entirely.. I'm genuinely unclear if you can pull that off in a system where levelling up primarily just boosts your combat power, but we'll see.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

AAAAAAH! FR Invasion! Not that I dislike incorporating some gods form FR, but c'mon, someone as minor as Sehanine Moonbow, for example?
Sehanine is not FR-specific. She's part of the generic elven pantheon. That's why she's right there in Living Greyhawk Gazeteer.

Really, I can't think of any non-human race-specific deities that aren't shared between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.

[fendrin]

Ever strike you as odd that the XP table is only meant to be used for combat encounters? If you try to tack it onto a roleplaying encounter, the CR system falls apart much faster than it already does.

No, it never seemed odd to me... because it's not like that. Any encounter with an element of danger gets experience. So if you are bluffing your way past the guards of a castle instead of fighting them, you still get the same XP.

Now, if you get XP for shootin' the breeze at a tavern, the system does fall apart... because it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Winehouses & Wenches.

Now, if you are talking to a crowd that are violently hostile to the cause you are advocating... you should get XP.

[JBento]

It means they know how screwed up that system is, and are genuinely trying to add something for Social Encounters. Whether they succeed will be a different matter entirely.. I'm genuinely unclear if you can pull that off in a system where levelling up primarily just boosts your combat power, but we'll see.


Hopefully, designing 3.X gave the WotC staff enough XP to get another level in RPG R&D so we'll have good stuff now :smallsmile:

[JBento]

No, it never seemed odd to me... because it's not like that. Any encounter with an element of danger gets experience. So if you are bluffing your way past the guards of a castle instead of fighting them, you still get the same XP.

Now, if you get XP for shootin' the breeze at a tavern, the system does fall apart... because it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Winehouses & Wenches.

Now, if you are talking to a crowd that are violently hostile to the cause you are advocating... you should get XP.

Indeed you should. But how much? I don't think you should get the same XP if you defeat the corrupt noble (who only has level on the Aristocrat class) by sneaking into his house and bashing the guy's skull in and by convincing the King (or ruler of your choice) that the all the problems the region is having are the noble's and his underlings' fault, thus not only removing said noble but also bettering the living conditions of the populace (assuming the characters are good-aligned).

[Human Paragon 3]

Re: ddxp.tumblr.com
Healing surge is a per day ability that let’s characters heal themselves as a standard action. Action points. Characters start with one and gain one every two battles. They are used to add a standard action to a turn. There are no full round actions. 32 minutes ago

Aha! I knew that healing surge couldn't be 6+con times/day.

[tresson]

Aha! I knew that healing surge couldn't be 6+con times/day.

Actually it's the second wind use of the healing surge that is 1/day. The sheet the handed out and have now posted on their site says....




5. Healing gets an overhaul.
Hit points still measure your ability to stay in the fight, but
healing’s no longer just the burden of one character
anymore. Each character has a certain number of healing
surges. Once during each encounter, you can take a
standard action called a second wind; this gives you a certain
amount of hit points back equal to your healing surge value
and gives you a +2 bonus to all your defenses until the start
of your next turn. You then tick off one of your healing
surges for the day. Some powers (like some cleric prayers)
will also heal you your healing surge value, and you’ll tick off
your healing surges for them as well. When you run out of
healing surges, you’ll want to take an extended rest.
If you’re outside of combat, you can take a short rest and
tick off the healing surges you need to heal up damage.

TIP: If you’ve been knocked down a few hit points and
can’t decide what to do when it’s your turn, taking a second
wind action is a good idea.

[AKA_Bait]

Actually it's the second wind use of the healing surge that is 1/day. The sheet the handed out and have now posted on their site says....

Link please please please?

Edit: Nevermind found it on my own. It's downloadable here. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/news_20080228.zip)

[Rutee]

No, it never seemed odd to me... because it's not like that. Any encounter with an element of danger gets experience. So if you are bluffing your way past the guards of a castle instead of fighting them, you still get the same XP.

Now, if you get XP for shootin' the breeze at a tavern, the system does fall apart... because it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Winehouses & Wenches.

Now, if you are talking to a crowd that are violently hostile to the cause you are advocating... you should get XP.

What about talking the King into invading a neighboring country (Pretend you have a reason). Or impressing the local populace with tales of your bravery so much, that they choose to join your cause (Assuming you have one)?

[Zincorium]

What about talking the King into invading a neighboring country (Pretend you have a reason). Or impressing the local populace with tales of your bravery so much, that they choose to join your cause (Assuming you have one)?

Either carries some risk of bodily (or other types of) harm for failure, so as DM I'd award xp based on how difficult it was and what the consequences would be. Kind of like the CR system.

Really, there's nothing wrong with doing so, ad-hoc xp is often more effective in getting a good game going than regular xp. If the players realize that they're rewarded mechanically for doing cool things, then it seems pretty reasonable that they'll do cool things. Which makes the game fun.

[Rutee]

That's the thought process behind the bonuses of Stunts and Deeds in Exalted and Weapons of the Gods, respectively, yeah. I'm just hoping DnD picks up on it.

[fendrin]

Indeed you should. But how much? I don't think you should get the same XP if you defeat the corrupt noble (who only has level on the Aristocrat class) by sneaking into his house and bashing the guy's skull in and by convincing the King (or ruler of your choice) that the all the problems the region is having are the noble's and his underlings' fault, thus not only removing said noble but also bettering the living conditions of the populace (assuming the characters are good-aligned).

1) a noble in charge of a region should probably be higher level then 1st... how high would depend on the campaign. A first level Aristocrat would more likely be the noble's heir who has barely come of age... as the heir gains experience (in diplomacy/politicking/backstabbing), they would level up.

2) If convincing the king is more dangerous than assassinating the noble, it should be more XP. If the only risk of failure is that the you lose a little credibility with the king, it should not be as much.

Bsically, just like if you are creating a monster encounter, you have to assign the ECL based on the risk factor of the challenge. The CR ratings are just guidelines for how to establish a baseline. Also, if fighting monsters were the only way to get XP, there would be no need for NPC classes, as all NPCs would be adventurers.

"I want to be a blacksmith when I grow up!"
"Well then, we'll send you out into the woods with a pointy stick so that you can learn to be a blacksmith."
"What if I want to be a basket weaver?"
"Well then, we'll send you out into the woods with a pointy stick so that you can learn to be a basket weaver."
"WTF?"